Atg of old and new!!!

[THe TRiNiTY]

It's simple. Old time fighters fought more so they redeemed themselves on a more regular basis when they lost. Now, fights are so hyped up that losing the fight is a far bigger deal. If you lose twice in one year, you lost 100% of your fights that year.

Whereas, an active fighter in the 60's could lose twice in one year and still win 70-80% of his fights that year.

Just the way it goes. The longer the history to a sport, the more the old timers get praised and the more the young guns get judged.

[edgarg]

It's simple. Old time fighters fought more so they redeemed themselves on a more regular basis when they lost. Now, fights are so hyped up that losing the fight is a far bigger deal. If you lose twice in one year, you lost 100% of your fights that year.

Whereas, an active fighter in the 60's could lose twice in one year and still win 70-80% of his fights that year.

Just the way it goes. The longer the history to a sport, the more the old timers get praised and the more the young guns get judged.

You are perfectly correct in what you say, but none of the fighters he mentioned come into that category.

The fact that he puts Paul Williams in their company shows his superficial info about boxing history. Paul illiams, good as he is/was, is nobody compared to the guys he mentions. Not his fault, he'll learn. I suppose his question is because of his just not understanding.