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

[TheGreatA]

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

Agreed, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles had nowhere near the skills of Chris Arreola or Tomasz Adamek. Glad to see you know what you're talking about.

[Dynamite Kid]

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

Yet you give a 40+ year old fighter who cant box to save his life, a crash course in improving his defense/technique, and despite being slow as a snail, he could knock out the HW champ( Moorer)? a guy who had beaten Evander Holyfield?

[Run]

What I've come to learn is that old school fighters were just uglier in the trenches, they had so much higher of a pain threshold on average, and the refereeing systems weren't set up to look out for the fighter's safety like they are now. Essentially you had closer to real street fights that were lasting 15 rounds and everyone knows when you get tired you start to get hit more. Of course modern day nutrition and sports science has made significant advance towards enhancing the athletic side of boxing..........but that's simply athletics. For one you're either a fighter or you aren't, so there's really no point in discussing nutrition beyond that point. Claiming that guys like Graziano, Armstrong, Lamotta etc would be stopped in 1 round is ******ed.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Medved]

Agreed, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles had nowhere near the skills of Chris Arreola or Tomasz Adamek. Glad to see you know what you're talking about.

Where did I say those names? look at the fighters Marciano fight, MOST not ALL were just regular JOES.

I was just asking in the first post what makes these old guys considired ATG and someone replied that they were dominant in their ERA, and thanks for that answer.

If you put those guys in with the current champs with their technique/dieting/training the old guys have no chance thats a given.

Thats like a 1940 Ferrari beating a 2007 one in a quarter mile.

You guys acting like a bunch of pansies, jeez.

[NChristo]

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

Great you picked Rocky who had an unorthodox stance even in them days and there wasn't hardly anyone that fought like him at all, of course though Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore were just out of shape wild swinging drunks which is why he succeeded.

For sake of argument, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore walk through today's Light Heavies like they are nothing, Jersey Joe walks through today's Cruisers (Which would most probably be his weight), if you want we can compare skill levels of these 3 to todays.

Picking out one of the most popular Heavyweight champions doesn't prove you know your history by the way.

[Medved]

What I've come to learn is that old school fighters were just uglier in the trenches, they had so much higher of a pain threshold on average, and the refereeing systems weren't set up to look out for the fighter's safety like they are now. Essentially you had closer to real street fights that were lasting 15 rounds and everyone knows when you get tired you start to get hit more. Of course modern day nutrition and sports science has made significant advance towards enhancing the athletic side of boxing..........but that's simply athletics. For one you're either a fighter or you aren't, so there's really no point in discussing nutrition beyond that point. Claiming that guys like Graziano, Armstrong, Lamotta etc would be stopped in 1 round is ******ed.

Yes maybe that was too far but 90% of their fights werent against top fighters, alot of the older guys were farmers/iron workers/manual labourers who just did it for some booze money.

Altho Ismael Laguna is my ATG in my mind. I do like old fighters but I think most of their competition was sub-par and they were often chosen to make the fighters look good.

Plus all the racism/bribery/dirty stuff going on back then.

[Dynamite Kid]

Where did I say those names? look at the fighters Marciano fight, MOST not ALL were just regular JOES.

I was just asking in the first post what makes these old guys considired ATG and someone replied that they were dominant in their ERA, and thanks for that answer.

If you put those guys in with the current champs with their technique/dieting/training the old guys have no chance thats a given.

Thats like a 1940 Ferrari beating a 2007 one in a quarter mile.

You guys acting like a bunch of pansies, jeez.

Who cares, he was the best of his time, during his time, he beat what was point infront him.

If Marciano grew up in this era, he would most probably be bigger, he would also get the nutrition and schooling some of today's fighters get, so do honestly think he would not be able to make a splash, at the very least win a world title?

[Run]

If you put those guys in with the current champs with their technique/dieting/training the old guys have no chance thats a given.

Be more specific, in describing which current champs you think would easily defeat which old time fighters. That's what I'd like to read.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Medved]

Great you picked Rocky who had an unorthodox stance even in them days and there wasn't hardly anyone that fought like him at all, of course though Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore were just out of shape wild swinging drunks which is why he succeeded.

For sake of argument, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore walk through today's Light Heavies like they are nothing, Jersey Joe walks through today's Cruisers (Which would most probably be his weight), if you want we can compare skill levels of these 3 to todays.

Picking out one of the most popular Heavyweight champions doesn't prove you know your history by the way.

Your telling me if you take Archie Moore and put him in with a 2010 alphabet belt holder he will win?

Or are you telling me that if Archie was fighting and training in this era he would win?

Because I think that the diffirence in todays dieting/science of fighting and technique and hell even judging is so far diffirent today there those old guys would need to adapt before they got a chance to do anything.

You got to remember the sport is evolving every single year, they take the good and the bad and improve the Good and get rid of the bad.

If the technique and style of 70 years ago was that good people would still be using it today. But they arent. You know why? Because it was SLOPPY.

[ronniejunior]

Where did I say those names? look at the fighters Marciano fight, MOST not ALL were just regular JOES.

I was just asking in the first post what makes these old guys considired ATG and someone replied that they were dominant in their ERA, and thanks for that answer.

If you put those guys in with the current champs with their technique/dieting/training the old guys have no chance thats a given.

Thats like a 1940 Ferrari beating a 2007 one in a quarter mile.

You guys acting like a bunch of pansies, jeez.

agreed!!!...