Old Fighters vs Modern Fighters

[aznhybrid]

Jack Dempsey was a VERY good fighter, but i shudder to think what would have happened to him if Vitali fought him.

[Suckmedry]

You've unwittingly demonstrated my point. You've only named a handful of fighters there, but going back each decade the number of quality fighters increases greatly.

When I mentioned "older fighters" I wasn't just thinking of those from the 1920s, but also those from the 1970s.

Yes, I'm not dis*****g that, there were far more fighters even 30 years ago, what I am dis*****g is boxing haven taken a backward step skillwise, it certainly hasn't.

[SplitSecond]

Why not?

Mosley has struggled with boxers with a great jab, which Tommy certainly had. Also, Forrest dropped Mosley and Hearns punched far harder.

Hearns was a magnificent boxer and could punch like a cruiserweight. He had all of the tools! As long as he'd use his physical advantages to stay away from Mosley's straight right, he'd be the favourite.

yea yea, and barkley dropped hearns, leonard dropped hearns, aload of people dropped hearns, actually alot of people straight knocked out hearns
also barkley and leonard do not punch as hard as sugar shane
shane in his prime had the feet, he lost to opponents bigger, and i mean actually bigger not just taller

[Andrew Cuff V2]

yea yea, and barkley dropped hearns, leonard dropped hearns, aload of people dropped hearns, actually alot of people straight knocked out hearns
also barkley and leonard do not punch as hard as sugar shane
shane in his prime had the feet, he lost to opponents bigger, and i mean actually bigger not just taller

If Cotto could outbox Mosley, Hearns certainly could.

He had too many advantages. Go and watch some of his fights before making such comments!

[BritishBoxing92]

I know this topic has been covered before, but it'll be nice to talk about something other than the Pac/May affair....

Disregarding modern training methods and nutrition, how do you compare old fighters to more modern fighters (not sure where the line is drawn - draw your own conclusion!).

I personally feel fighters these days are far more one dimensional and lack many of the talents of older guys. E.g. JCC was, primarily, an offensive fighter, yet the guy was old-skool with regard to his defensive abilities, which were very good. They're very underrated and people who've only seen the Taylor I / Whitaker fights would not have witnessed them. "Come forward" fighters these days lack the defence he had.

Older fighters had more "tricks" in their arsenal, IMO. I'm sure the greater ring experience had a huge effect though!

Hopkins Vs Hagler
Lamotta Vs Joe Calzaghe....those would be fights and halfs

[Andrew Cuff V2]

Yes, I'm not dis*****g that, there were far more fighters even 30 years ago, what I am dis*****g is boxing haven taken a backward step skillwise, it certainly hasn't.

You're missing the point though. Irrespective of how many fighters there were 30 years ago, the average boxer was better. E.g. Is Pavlik the same level as Hagler or Monzon? No! Are the current crop of WWs (arguably the most talent rich division) as good as they were in the 1970s/1980s? No.

Are any of the lightweights as good as Duran, Whitaker, Chavez etc etc. No!

[Andrew Cuff V2]

Jack Dempsey was a VERY good fighter, but i shudder to think what would have happened to him if Vitali fought him.

True, but Dempsey was a small HW!

Anyway, this thread is about skill not Head-to-Head matchups with much bigger fighters!!

[Suckmedry]

You're missing the point though. Irrespective of how many fighters there were 30 years ago, the average boxer was better. E.g. Is Pavlik the same level as Hagler or Monzon? No! Are the current crop of WWs (arguably the most talent rich division) as good as they were in the 1970s/1980s? No.

Are any of the lightweights as good as Duran, Whitaker, Chavez etc etc. No!

But you just picked a complete **** fighter compared to those two!!! Middleweight is trash now.

I would argue they could be. I don't see any great divide in terms of skill and abilities between Hearns, Leonard, Duran, Curry etc and Mosley, Clottey, Pacquiao, Floyd, Margarito, Williams etc etc Sure the former are for the most part better fighters in regards to achievments but head to head the guys of today would compete.

[Suckmedry]

It goes both ways. 122 was a red hot division until Izzy-Rafa declined and Juanma moved up etc and it was great before that with Morales and Barrera. Was it that good ever before that? nope.

[Andrew Cuff V2]

But you just picked a complete **** fighter compared to those two!!! Middleweight is trash now.

I would argue they could be. I don't see any great divide in terms of skill and abilities between Hearns, Leonard, Duran, Curry etc and Mosley, Clottey, Pacquiao, Floyd, Margarito, Williams etc etc Sure the former are for the most part better fighters in regards to achievments but head to head the guys of today would compete.

1. Yes I did pick Pavlik as an example of how **** MW is. It certainly wasn't before! Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Nunn, Toney, McCallum, Hopkins, Jones etc etc.

2. There is a big divide between those fighters and todays. Pacquaio and Mayweather are the obvious standouts, but these aren't career WWs are they? Floyd is yet to face an elite fighter at the weight and one fight for Pacquiao against top competition does not make him the new SRL! Leonard, Hearns, Duran > Cotto, Margarito , Williams in terms of resume and skill.