Roy Jones didn't make history! Bob Fitsimmonz record remains unbroken!

[Dirt E Gomez]

I don't recall Joe Louis ever partaking in anything past 15 rounds, so now you're going even further back into the past to pick out the iron men. A good example of what I'm talking about is the Olympics. Virtually ever record which had been around in the 50's has been broken by now, if not all of them. Running... everybody can run. Yet our modern atheletes find a way to run faster and for longer than past athletes. It's common sense dude.

Also, discussing fights which happened in 1909 is hard to prove/disprove. Granted the fact that it went 40 rounds is no doubt.... but discussing the way it happened is pretty much hearsay.

[Tha Greatest]

You cant take credit away from Jones who dominated a legit top 5 heavyweight for 12 rounds.
Fitzsimmons was losing the fight until he landed his blow to the solar plexus of Corbett

What I am trying to say is....


If it were like this in the 30's, Billy Conn would have broke Fitsimmonz record AGES ago!

[Yogi]

I don't recall Joe Louis ever partaking in anything past 15 rounds, so now you're going even further back into the past to pick out the iron men. A good example of what I'm talking about is the Olympics. Virtually ever record which had been around in the 50's has been broken by now, if not all of them. Running... everybody can run. Yet our modern atheletes find a way to run faster and for longer than past athletes. It's common sense dude.

Also, discussing fights which happened in 1909 is hard to prove/disprove. Granted the fact that it went 40 rounds is no doubt.... but discussing the way it happened is pretty much hearsay.

It's common sense not to compare a sport that's been around for thousands of years to organized sports that have only been around for a small fraction of that and are still in there "infant" (to use Dino's wording) stages when compared to boxing. It's also common sense not to compare a sport that has had a major and drastic decrease in it's number of participants in the last fifty or so years (like boxing has...for example, New York State in itself used to have well over a dozen boxing shows a week during the first half of the last century, and nowadays they're lucky if they get that many in a half a year) to other sports that have been around for a mere fraction of what boxing has been, and have had a major and drastic increase in it's number of participants over the last fifty years. There's simply many more athletes involving themselves in other sports nowadays when compared to the distant past (when the two most popular sports in North America for both viewing and participation, were baseball and boxing). Therefore, when considering the greater talent pool and young age of those other sports, of course you're very likely to see better performances nowadays than you have in the past.

Didn't you say earlier that you thought an older fighter by the name of Joe Louis was "much more talented" than the modern fighter by the name Lennox Lewis?

There's also plenty of fight footage from back in the early 20th cenury, including the Nelson/Wolgast fight, and even though it's tough to accurately judge the overall talents of those old-timers, you can most often see (and therefore count) when they are throwing punches at each other.

[Easy-E]

That's a load of crap!

Boxing has been around as an organized sport since about 650-700 B.C. when it was first introduced as an Olympic sport in Greece. There's also some evidence pertaining to some drawings that were found in Ethiopia that depict the sport, and those drawings were judged to be from around 4000 B.C

You do the math!

In yours words and being consistent with the ratio, that's like saying that a 60 year-old man was still an "infant" in his 59th year of existence.

that is a terrible example.
anyways, perhaps boxing has been along for a very long time, but it was never an organized sport. there were not sanctioned rules or official champions or anything of that nature.
just because people fought with cloth on their gloves in 4000 B.C. doesnt mean its boxing

[Dirt E Gomez]

Much more relatively speaking. Joe Louis's skills in his era were dominating. By today's standards he wouldn't be anything obscene who would conquer the heavyweight division with a blink of an eye. I think he had a different set of skills than Lewis, but When you're 6 feet 5 inches (or something like that), 250 lbs, with a huge reach you can compensate with different skills.

And no, my comparing running to boxing is merely on a training level. Everybody can run, everybody tried to run the fastest. Running has been around since the birth of man. However, using modern training techniques and having a better knowledge of the human body in general has advanced our ability. Also, while the participants in boxing hasn't decreased a large amount.

Your logic escapes me though. By your logic the fact that at the turn of the century there was more interest in boxing then we would have better boxers in the past simply because there were more to choose from.

[kmac]

As much as boxing has changed, it is still very similar.
I do think the majority of fighters today are better than they were, but I wouldnt doubt that Louis could KO any top heavy today

[Tha Greatest]

Much more relatively speaking. Joe Louis's skills in his era were dominating. By today's standards he wouldn't be anything obscene who would conquer the heavyweight division with a blink of an eye. I think he had a different set of skills than Lewis, but When you're 6 feet 5 inches (or something like that), 250 lbs, with a huge reach you can compensate with different skills.

And no, my comparing running to boxing is merely on a training level. Everybody can run, everybody tried to run the fastest. Running has been around since the birth of man. However, using modern training techniques and having a better knowledge of the human body in general has advanced our ability. Also, while the participants in boxing hasn't decreased a large amount.

Your logic escapes me though. By your logic the fact that at the turn of the century there was more interest in boxing then we would have better boxers in the past simply because there were more to choose from.

I think Lewis is overrated...

people talk about him like he KOs everyone because of his size..but he looked like crap against so many crap fighters..

got outboxed by frank bruno...

Joe Louis would make easy work out of him.

btw nice sig LOL!

I have a big with some of his quotes, I'll go find some other funny ones..

[Dirt E Gomez]

Hah, funny choice of words. You discuss Lewis being overrated because he got outboxed by Bruno, while Louis got outboxed by a light heavyweight in Billy Conn. Lewis isn't a KO machine, that's just it. That's why I feel he could win a UD over many of the greats of the past.

[Yogi]

that is a terrible example.
anyways, perhaps boxing has been along for a very long time, but it was never an organized sport. there were not sanctioned rules or official champions or anything of that nature.
just because people fought with cloth on their gloves in 4000 B.C. doesnt mean its boxing

The info on what was painted on the walls in Ethiopia in 4000 B.C. or what was found in Egypt in 3000 B.C. are all subject to guesswork.

But because of the numerous written words on the subject, what we don't have to guess on is the organized sport of boxing which was a part of the ancient Greek Olympics in and around 700 B.C. Yes, at that time it was an organized and official sport, and yes it did have it's rules (it was officiated by a referee and like today the fighters weren't allowed to hold, punch below the belt, and their respective straps were closely checked the referee before the match...they had other rules, as well, but they were more primitive like the "klimax", which involved settling a long fight by having each boxer take free shots at their wide open opponent until a winner was decided. The defeated fighters also were given a way out by holding their fingers up to the sky, which was the only way they could concede victory) and boxing champions (Apollo was pretty famous as a boxing champion from them days, as was Polydukes). And by that time it was practiced and trained for by it's participants, as Plato had writings stating a form of shadowboxing was practiced by the boxers of the day. There's also documents claiming that the fighters of them days also used punching bags to train with, as well.

[Yogi]

Also, while the participants in boxing hasn't decreased a large amount.

Your logic escapes me though. By your logic the fact that at the turn of the century there was more interest in boxing then we would have better boxers in the past simply because there were more to choose from.

Yes, boxing partcicipation has decreased in large amounts and the number of participants has gradually gone downhill since about the 1940's or so. Just look at the numbers, man. In the 20's, 30's and 40's, the vast majority of the most famous/better fighters had well over 100 hundred fights and many of them had over 200+ fights (compare that to today's fighters). Also, look at the amount of shows that were put on during those days...According to the studies of Steve Reiss, who was a professor at Illinois University; "By the start of 1913 there were 89 boxing clubs in the state of New York, including 49 in New York City. There were over 20 shows a week in New York City during this period. In 1994 there were only 19 during the whole year."

What does your math tell you, my friend?