Do You Think Old School Fighters Get Overrated?

[DR.ORGYY]

Hell yea they do...........

[check hook]

Boxing has not evolved that much, but past fighter do sometime get overrated just as todays fighters do. You made a baseball analogy....Why was Mickey Mantle able to have home run stats like todays players while their were no steroids, the balls weren't juiced to go further and fields were bigger and bats not as advanced? I can show a dozen reasons why athletes are not athletically better today, but just have better conditions and equipment.

I think boxing is one of the few sports that hasn't evolved alot over time through better understanding of human movement and the human body, nutrition, coaching, supplements and training method.

Basketball is prob the other. What alot of modern athletes gain in size, strength, agility etc i think they sometimes lose fundamentals.

[check hook]

examining old fight film isn't useful either.......way too misleading given the technology of the day.........

[The Hate Giver]

I often hear this said. I don't personally, do you?

yes. grossly overrated. Especially the fighters considered hall of famers.


Since they have 150-200 fights, nobody can pass them up in the all time rankings which i highly disagree. This modern era has to be analyzed differently in terms of their number of fights. No fighter of this day & age will be fighting 100 plus fights.

We should not hold them back because a old great fighter has 100 more fights than him.

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

Absolutely. Boxing, like baseball, is a very nostalgic sport. People like to claim that Babe Ruth would still destroy if he were to play today. Bull****. He was 5'10, 220 lbs, but if you look at the footage, he was a mountain compared to the players around him. Same thing with boxers. Nutrition is superior today, making for stronger, quicker fighters. Boxing has also evolved quite a bit as a sport, meaning there is a lot more technical skill. They definitely used to be tougher, but the average fighter today is better in every other area than an average fighter of 50 years ago. Now, obviously, there are greats from that era that could measure up in any era, but claiming that Jack Dempsey would destroy a prime Mike Tyson or Lennox Lewis is poppy****.

You just Implied that Babe Ruth is overrated? Red K Given, thats a no no.

[check hook]

yes. grossly overrated. Especially the fighters considered hall of famers.


Since they have 150-200 fights, nobody can pass them up in the all time rankings which i highly disagree. This modern era has to be analyzed differently in terms of their number of fights. No fighter of this day & age will be fighting 100 plus fights.
We should not hold them back because a old great fighter has 100 more fights than him.

That's true....it just doesn't work that way anymore........

the only guy around who can think of off top of my head with close to 100 is Lights out.

[jrosales13]

You just Implied that Babe Ruth is overrated? Red K Given, thats a no no.

I am sorry but Babe Ruth is overrated.

[JAB5239]

yes..and NO.....people in boxing often wax lyrical too much about "the good old days" when there is plenty of talent in the modern era.....


From the 90's (at 60 and 68 mostly):

- Gerald McLellan
- RJJ
- James Toney
- Hopkins
- Julian Jackson
- Mike McCallum
- Terrbile terry Norris
- Michael Nunn
- Eubank
- Benn


^^

All these guys above could hang with any fighters at 160 and 68 past and present....in fact more than hang....alot of the guys on the list would ***** slap some of the fighters from the past........


Tyson in the 80's would do better than fine against most HW's throughout history.....same for Lennox in the 90's.

FMJ can compete with any fighter from 130-147 because of his skill set. SSM would be a handful for all the old skool fighters who came to fight and liked to brawl. Winky Wright at 154 in prime is a handful for any fighter around that weight.....


and there are plenty more......

You're looking at things from a one fight perspective and not an entire career. We don't know how todays fighters would hold up in era's where they had to fight much more often and their wasn't the same medical technology. We know fighters back then could hold up today because they actually fought under tougher circumstances. Take Floyd for instance. Im not knocking him here, but how would his hands hold up with smaller gloves having to fight more often and with less medical improvements compared to today? We have no idea, but I would venture a guess that he wouldn't be holding up like today and those injuries could be the reasons for losses.

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

I am sorry but Babe Ruth is overrated.

Red K given too. Thats a big no no.

Babe Ruth, would make Roy Halladay and Johan Santana **** on their pants!!!!!!

[JAB5239]

I think boxing is one of the few sports that hasn't evolved alot over time through better understanding of human movement and the human body, nutrition, coaching, supplements and training method.

Basketball is prob the other. What alot of modern athletes gain in size, strength, agility etc i think they sometimes lose fundamentals.

Im of the opposite opinion on basketball in this regard....There are bigger people today because the worldwide population has boomed. Basketball has gained so much popularity that more and more people are playing it and becoming better like the era's when boxings popularity was booming. Maybe not fundamentally, but more people doing it means more comp. More comp means people are forced to become better at it.