Only idiots think fighters 60 years on back would be competitive today

[Levcon8686]

Name 3 fighters today that are better than SRR. Has that been improved upon?

You're just picking one great fighter.

My belief is that if you pick the 20 best fighters in each of the original weightclasses today and were to pit them against the top 20 of each divison from 1950/60, the modern fighters would win approximately 80% of the match-ups.

By the way, a 140 and below Floyd Mayweather arguably has a comparable skillset to SRR.

[talip bin osman]

Everything we do gets better with technology, we just remanence about times past.

i somehow agree with the first post & all as long as u pertain to any physical parameter... MAYBE...

but better overall as in technique or competence?

man, boxers of today are actually lesser eqipped in terms of skills!

can u see any present era boxer doing inside fighting? not many... any of them doing slipping or feinting? not many... old boxers have more tricks in the bag compared to the ones we have now...

u are correct in a way... most rely on their athleticism now to tide them through...

[ßringer]

Yeah, how dare all you ******s think guys from the 1940's could actually compete with the modern athlete.

Everybody knows modern athletes aren't even born - they're bred in cryogenic labratories.

If guys like Ray Robinson and Joe Louis were around today, they wouldn't even reach tomato can status.

[Levcon8686]

Improved track surfaces, batter equipment, and steroids. Try running the 100 on an old cinder track and see what your time is.

Poet

Right. So for example, sprinters from 1900-1920 run the 100 metres the exact same speed as sprinters today, and it's the factors listed above that account for the improvement in times? I disagree. I agree they contribute to a degree, but not so much that the 100 metres is run a full second quicker than 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

[ßringer]

Right. So for example, sprinters from 1900-1920 run the 100 metres the exact same speed as sprinters today, and it's the factors listed above that account for the improvement in times? I disagree. I agree they contribute to a degree, but not so much that the 100 metres is run a full second quicker than 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s...rd_progression

Sprinters in the 1920's didn't even have legs.

Human's didn't acquire legs until the 1980's.

[DannYankee]

Totally disagree with this thread dont matter how many ped's they use nothing beats being agressive coupled with good boxing and good natural GOD given strenght idc how much crap you inject yourself with.

[talip bin osman]

and add the fact that fighters from 60 years ago, most of them specially the great ones face other greats more frequently!

they are better conditioned... they train much more frequently and most of them face each other more than once...

imagine ray robinson facing a prime lamotta 5 times! damn... thats something like PBF facing williams 5 times... or beau jack facing bob montgomery & ike williams 4 times... somehow equivalent to gamboa facing caballero and juan manuel lopez 4 times! EACH!

its hard to imagine right? and fighters from the 40s did it quite regularly...

you got to take into consideration these things man...

[TheGreatA]

You're just picking one great fighter.

My belief is that if you pick the 20 best fighters in each of the original weightclasses today and were to pit them against the top 20 of each divison from 1950/60, the modern fighters would win approximately 80% of the match-ups.

By the way, a 140 and below Floyd Mayweather arguably has a comparable skillset to SRR.

Match up the 1960's middleweights with today's middleweights and see what you get. Of course fantasy fights are a very unreliable way of choosing which one is better.

This is Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter:



A KO artist knocking out another KO artist in this fashion would be considered sensational today. However in Carter's own time, he never made it to the top of the division. In my opinion the depth of contenders, in general, was actually better.

I'm his countryman, but something is seriously wrong when Amin Asikainen could make top 5 at middle. Sebastian Sylvester too, and Matthew Macklin.

Personally I believe that the numerous weight classes are a part of why divisions tend to lack depth these days. Imagine the junior middles, middleweight and super middleweights all fighting in the same division. That's how it used to be.

[pasawayako]

Resume: Yesterdays fighter >>>> Today's fighter.
Skills, Conditioning, Preparation, Etc.... : Today's fighter >>>> Yesterdays fighter.

[Poet682006]

Right. So for example, sprinters from 1900-1920 run the 100 metres the exact same speed as sprinters today, and it's the factors listed above that account for the improvement in times? I disagree. I agree they contribute to a degree, but not so much that the 100 metres is run a full second quicker than 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s...rd_progression

Run the 100 on a modern track then run it on an old cinder track and see how much longer it takes you. I've run on both btw.....and I was noticably slower on the cinder track.

Poet