Do You Think Old School Fighters Get Overrated?

[JAB5239]

Well, I respect your opinion. Guess I'll just have to disagree. Just think that we can let guys be great in their time, without extending that dominance until the end of time. Because I don't have a time machine, I guess I can’t prove the whole Johnson, Dempsey, Langford theory. But there is logic there. I'm not saying that athletes are twice as good as they were in the 20's or something similarly dramatic to that effect. But I think that it’s self evident that athletes are physically superior to a small extent. And in the world of elite athletics, that fractional difference makes all the difference from last to first. Do I think that someone like SRR could win welter and middleweight titles today? Absolutely. But if you think that Johnson, Dempsey, and Langford could be transported into the future and beat guys like Tyson, Holyfield, Lennox, and the Klits., no amount of anything could convince you otherwise. Such statements can really only be made in boxing. If I said that a 1925 Notre Dame team could beat the 2006 Texans or USC, I'd be a fool. I’m not saying past fighters weren’t great. Just saying we should let them be great in their time.

Im not saying that fighters of the past just dominate fighters of today. It doesn't work like that. But I am sure they would be as competitive as they were in their own time and some would be champion. Same thing goes if todays fighters fought back then. I do appreciate you clarifying you position and I respect your opinion as well even if I can't agree with all of it. So fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. Peace.

[JAB5239]

Quite frankly, that's the truth. But no one wants to hear it. Langford vs Tyson? Really?

Langford ain't beating Tyson, he started as a welterweight. But he would be a top middleweight and lightheavy, no doubt.

[Jim Jeffries]

You put me in a hard spot Jab. Because I honestly believe the film is horrible on those guys but not him man. Look at the technique man, even if the film is horrible you can see that the stances of back then will not work against anyone of this era.



I don't even like Haye but the technique is just less than desireable. His hands are so far down, how could he possibly protect himself? Haye would hayemaker his way to a win against him.

Pretty sure he is sparring, working on his reflexes, slipping and pulling back from punches, at times, when he's in range, his hands come up. Keep in mind if you want him to fight today, you have to let him be trained by today's trainers, and be subject to today's diet.

[JAB5239]

You put me in a hard spot Jab. Because I honestly believe the film is horrible on those guys but not him man. Look at the technique man, even if the film is horrible you can see that the stances of back then will not work against anyone of this era.

If you haven't seen it before you wouldn't believe that a fighter of today could look like that while the speed and frames are altered to be like that of the past. Add in the black and white, and the one camera angle at a bit of a distance and it is very difficult to pick up the finer points. Nothing I can say will change your mind. Im just trying to make you aware of other factors. As I said, it took me a long time to take all these things in myself so I know where you're coming from.

[Shadows]

Maybe this isn't necessarily on topic, but I like this video.

https://<object width="640" height="...mbed></object>

[F l i c k e r]

Pretty sure he is sparring, working on his reflexes, slipping and pulling back from punches, at times, when he's in range, his hands come up. Keep in mind if you want him to fight today, you have to let him be trained by today's trainers, and be subject to today's diet.

Alright, alright. I see what your getting at.

I was going based on his skill, his health, his ability of then compared to a fighter of the new era. Thats what I thought your supposed to do when comparing the eras?


Example:

Jaguar XK150 vs Ferrari F430

[JAB5239]

Maybe this isn't necessarily on topic, but I like this video.

https://<object width="640" height="...mbed></object>

I always like that video.

[F l i c k e r]

If you haven't seen it before you wouldn't believe that a fighter of today could look like that while the speed and frames are altered to be like that of the past. Add in the black and white, and the one camera angle at a bit of a distance and it is very difficult to pick up the finer points. Nothing I can say will change your mind. Im just trying to make you aware of other factors. As I said, it took me a long time to take all these things in myself so I know where you're coming from.

Nah, I realize the factors of video technology. Those cameras really couldn't keep up with speed. I took film classes in high school, learned all kinds of things Charlie Chaplain's era all the way to Quentin Tarantino's.

Thats why I said it was in the back of my mind but with Jim, I don't know. I havent really watched him but that video made me say no.

[RockyB]

Yes I do.
it seems as if guys who watched them fight, think they are unbeatable!
and they dont even give people a chance to beat them..

I do agree the likes of Leonard, Hearns, Ali, Foreman, Louis, Robinson, Dempsey, they are all incredible BUT modern fighters DO have a chance, you can never rule out the likes of Mosley, Mayweather and the Klitschkos..

[The Hate Giver]

Alright, alright. I see what your getting at.

I was going based on his skill, his health, his ability of then compared to a fighter of the new era. Thats what I thought your supposed to do when comparing the eras?


Example:

Jaguar XK150 vs Ferrari F430

those are cars. not humans.

You dont have to go that extreme with the examples. Go with the natural progression of greatness in all sports.

All of the top players in almost all sports have come in recent time. Go with that.

Bobby jones to sam snead to arnold palmer to jack nicklaus to nick faldo to vijah singh to tiger woods....

bill & wilt to jerry west to pistol pete to dr. j & the iceman to magic & bird to mj & hakeem to kobe & lebron...

rod laver to bjorn borg to jimmy connors to johnny mac to pete & andre to federer....

jesse owens to carl lewis to micahel johnson to maurice green to usain bolt....

otto graham to bart starr to johnny unitas to joe montana to john elway to payton manning...


The list goes on. Every sport athletic evolution along with its greatness rankings evolve. It seems as though boxing is the only sport immune to this.

I disagree.

Why? & what is the main reason?


To preserve History.


Why cant an artist be as great or greater than da vinci? You could find 10 artist in new york who could recreate the mona lisa, but they will never rank higher than da vinci in artists p4p list.

Why?


TO PRESERVE HISTORY.



(jab,lmfao, i know we have had this argument before.)