Why are old school fighters from 1900-1960 rated ATG?

[DET. IRONSIDE]

Two words

Paper belts

[CUNTLEE]

out of shape drunks??fighting 15 or more rounds????thread starter is an uneducated clown

[TheGreatA]

In the year 1961, the boxers suddenly evolved from wild-swinging out of shape drunks into well-conditioned masters of the sweet science.

[NChristo]

Lol at the whole post, what I don't understand is why people like you who have no knowledge of the history of the sport think that today's boxers are 10x better then yesterdays and it also makes me cringe when people say that yesterdays boxers were out of shape compared to today's, oh and my favorite line that people seem to come up with when comparing todays to yesterdays boxers
"Well people have evolved"
, yes because genetic evolution occurs over 40 or so years like some of the people on here actually believe.

Thanks for the laugh.

Put the eras best fighters against top 10 fighters of today and they would get KO 1 rd.

[CUNTLEE]

there was 1 title per division,less divisions...now you can walk into any gym and say whats up champ..and everyone answers

[Dynamite Kid]

Those guys also fought fighters, who in today's circumstances, would be capable of picking up an ABC title, guys who would most probably be reluctant to establish who is the best by unifying.

[TOBYLEE1]

Thanks exactly what I was looking for.

So they are ranked ATG solely on their dominance in their era and nothing else?

So you are just going to take the answer that fits your agenda?

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

I dont get this, if you compare the dieting,exercise and technique and general knowledge that fighters do these days compared to that era its like a day and night difference. I dont know why everyone is on these old dudes balls. For the most part they were all out of shape drunks looking for a free meal ticket.

There was no level of competition back then as there is now where everything from diet to training and technique and gloves is scientifically calculated.

Can someone explain why these guys are considered ATG? Older doesn't mean better. I know boxing is an old mans sport and they think that old boys are better but i dont think so. Put the eras best fighters against top 10 fighters of today and they would get KO 1 rd.

Because boxing didnt start in 1961. Dont disrespect fighters just because you have no knowledge of them.

/thread

[Medved]

Lol at the whole post, what I don't understand is why people like you who have no knowledge of the history of the sport think that today's boxers are 10x better then yesterdays and it also makes me cringe when people say that yesterdays boxers were out of shape compared to today's, oh and my favorite line that people seem to come up with when comparing todays to yesterdays boxers
"Well people have evolved"
, yes because genetic evolution occurs over 40 or so years like some of the people on here actually believe.

Thanks for the laugh.

No I do know my history. Take Rocky Marciano for instance. Dude had horrible technique always keeping his hands down and was always looking for the KO punch.

The only reason he was dominant was because he was fighting a bunch of drunks. Put him in today against hell even Chris Arreola or a CW like Adamek and he would absolutely get demolished and picked off.

I understand back then there wasnt the same level of skill and training/technique as there was 70 years ago and there wasnt that many fighters as there is today. But I feel people are hanging on to the past thinking these fighters were ATG when Its just silly to put them as the greatest compared to people like Ali/Tyson/Sugar

[Medved]

Geez you guys are acting like a those religious fundementalist who are going to blow up my house for asking a question or having a diffirent opinion. Biased much?