Who determined that 20th Century Boxers fought better competition than today's boxers

[Killa Killa]

Hear me out, b...



None of us were born way back in the early 20th century, so all we have to go by is word of mouth, or the semi-decent videos of that time...

Anyway...


I'm not speaking regarding all earlier fighters, because there were some who were studs...but how do we know that a lot of the competition was better than today's...??

As many of you state, we can't just go by record alone, because many of the guys that some of these older guys fought were just regular un-skilled fighters...not all, but many...

Take for instance Jack Dempsey...

A lot of the guys that he fought were people no one heard of or ever will hear of...I know I can't really speak on it, because I wasn't close to being born during those times....I've seen a few videos on Dempsey and he looked OK, not very skilled in my opinion, but he always gets ranked in the Top 10 Heavyweights....

What are they basing that off of? His skills, record, resume?

(I don't know enough about Jack Dempsey to argue, so just let me know if i'm wrong...)

Today's generation has some good boxers, but when you mention them with the likes of individuals from the past, they never stand a chance...

I'm not just talking HW either...

Why is it that when you match a top welter from today with a top welter from the 60', 70', or 80's ......today's Welter never wins??

I know boxers fought more often back then and more rounds...but....


I'm no expert, only a fan continually learning, so could someone give me their opinion on why all older fighters are continually ranked above the figters of our generation?

[Killa Killa]

**early and mid 20th century...

[mushahadeen]

Who determined that 20th Century Boxers fought better competition than today's boxers

Not all boxers, just Heavyweights.

Because in the 21st Century, if you're 6'5 and a superior athlete you're getting paid millions of dollars to sit on the bench in the NFL and NBA with guaranteed contracts, signing bonuses, and powerful players unions.

You're not getting up at 5AM to do roadwork just so you can get good at getting punched in the face for a living and get ripped off by your promoter.

Duh.

[Rockin']

I think that part of it may be that in the earlier times fighters were hard core, even the mediocre guys. A guy would fight 2-3 times a month. Aswell, the fights were allowed to continue even when one guy was really just getting the **** kicked out of him. Today they stop fights alot earlier, and rightfully so. But it does not create a legacy of hardcore fighters.

I was spending alot of time with Bill Miller, the trainer of James Toney/Lindell Holmes, and he was not too sold on the fighters of today. Man did that guy have some great stories of the figters from the past, first hand knowledge.

I think that part of it may be that these guys in the past would have 100+ amatuer bouts and then 100+ professional bouts. It does seem logical that a fighter would gain alot more ring experience when fighting all kinds of styles while compiling 100+ professional bouts, regardless of having maybe 7 losses on his resume.

Aswell, back in the day fighters were not so protected and would fight whoever they had available at the time. But ofcourse 1 or 2 losses on a record would not set a fighter on the back shelf back then. Loses can be great learning experiences. Unfortunately today a fighter with loses is hard to market when you have all of these fighters being matched so carefully and groomed against inferior competition. The public believes that an undefeated record is the mark of a true champion when in fact it is the mark of a scared and extremely carefull promoter and match maker.

Back then there were 5 or more worthy fighters that a champion could fight. Today guys have to move up in weight after quickly cleaning out a division to find a worth while opponent. Our pool of fighters today is shallow compared to back in the day. While I have been amazed at some of the skills that todays fighters posses I am more amazed at how carefully and methodicaly these fighers are groomed in their 20 or so fights before getting a title shot. Ray Robinson didnt get a title shot until hehad almost 100 bouts under his belt.

Who would learn more, a fighter fighting anybody with over 100 fights or a guy that has been manuevered so carefully in his 20 fights.

You be the judge..................Rockin'

[Walterson]

Could it be the fact that there were fewer belts...

[Killa Killa]

I think that part of it may be that in the earlier times fighters were hard core, even the mediocre guys. A guy would fight 2-3 times a month. Aswell, the fights were allowed to continue even when one guy was really just getting the **** kicked out of him. Today they stop fights alot earlier, and rightfully so. But it does not create a legacy of hardcore fighters.

I was spending alot of time with Bill Miller, the trainer of James Toney/Lindell Holmes, and he was not too sold on the fighters of today. Man did that guy have some great stories of the figters from the past, first hand knowledge.

I think that part of it may be that these guys in the past would have 100+ amatuer bouts and then 100+ professional bouts. It does seem logical that a fighter would gain alot more ring experience when fighting all kinds of styles while compiling 100+ professional bouts, regardless of having maybe 7 losses on his resume.

Aswell, back in the day fighters were not so protected and would fight whoever they had available at the time. But ofcourse 1 or 2 losses on a record would not set a fighter on the back shelf back then. Loses can be great learning experiences. Unfortunately today a fighter with loses is hard to market when you have all of these fighters being matched so carefully and groomed against inferior competition. The public believes that an undefeated record is the mark of a true champion when in fact it is the mark of a scared and extremely carefull promoter and match maker.

Back then there were 5 or more worthy fighters that a champion could fight. Today guys have to move up in weight after quickly cleaning out a division to find a worth while opponent. Our pool of fighters today is shallow compared to back in the day. While I have been amazed at some of the skills that todays fighters posses I am more amazed at how carefully and methodicaly these fighers are groomed in their 20 or so fights before getting a title shot. Ray Robinson didnt get a title shot until hehad almost 100 bouts under his belt.

Who would learn more, a fighter fighting anybody with over 100 fights or a guy that has been manuevered so carefully in his 20 fights.

You be the judge..................Rockin'

Ok, I respect that....

Good logic....

[Killa Killa]

Could it be the fact that there were fewer belts...

Yea, I see what you are saying...not all these different weight classes....

[Rockin']

Could it be the fact that there were fewer belts...

Great point there. With fewer belts you HAD to fight through the toughest guys to eventually get that title shot.

Someone also mentioned fewer divisions, another good point..............Rockin'

[ИATAS]

There was also a bigger pool of fighters than there is today.

Take for example in New York city back in the day at any given time there were 25-50 boxing gyms. Now there are like 4.

In other words, there were more boxers back then and thus it was harder to rise to the top and become one of the greats.

[Killa Killa]

There was also a bigger pool of fighters than there is today.

Take for example in New York city back in the day at any given time there were 25-50 boxing gyms. Now there are like 4.

In other words, there were more boxers back then and thus it was harder to rise to the top and become one of the greats.

Yea, that is true...

We definitely don't see many boxing gyms now days...