to me, it's a trick question. how can someone come up with "the best boxer ever". things change, different variables, different comp, rules etc. i mean, think about kostya tszyu, lacey, klitschko, lewis, tyson, and some of these newer boxers fighting with thinner mit-like gloves. sure makes things different in my opinion.
take dempsey for an example. back in his "prime" fighting days there wasn't even a neutral corner rule. cuts were overlooked more easily. there were more rounds available that would cause fight strategy to change. heavyweights were not as big in the 1930's or '40's as they are now. light heavies and cruisers had commonly fought heavies back then. would that happen today if the gloves were as thin as they used to be? the game is completely different.
to me, it's a trick question. how can someone come up with "the best boxer ever". things change, different variables, different comp, rules etc. i mean, think about kostya tszyu, lacey, klitschko, lewis, tyson, and some of these newer boxers fighting with thinner mit-like gloves. sure makes things different in my opinion.
take dempsey for an example. back in his "prime" fighting days there wasn't even a neutral corner rule. cuts were overlooked more easily. there were more rounds available that would cause fight strategy to change. heavyweights were not as big in the 1930's or '40's as they are now. light heavies and cruisers had commonly fought heavies back then. would that happen today if the gloves were as thin as they used to be? the game is completely different.
good point, but you should also try to think of oldtimers with modern training and nutrition
wmute, you bring up an interesting point. i, for one, don't feel old school boxing are inferior to newer methods. conversely, many old school training methods are still being trained by some fighters.
the point of nutrition and supplements, however, has probably changed a bit though.
a good thing to point out, though, is that all boxers have different training methods(this is more diverse for martial artists). each boxing gym has a different general flavor for that matter. not all of the "old timers" would've adopted much of the general ne training methods in my opinion. it differs from case to case so to speak.
wmute, you bring up an interesting point. i, for one, don't feel old school boxing are inferior to newer methods. conversely, many old school training methods are still being trained by some fighters.
the point of nutrition and supplements, however, has probably changed a bit though.
a good thing to point out, though, is that all boxers have different training methods(this is more diverse for martial artists). each boxing gym has a different general flavor for that matter. not all of the "old timers" would've adopted much of the general ne training methods in my opinion. it differs from case to case so to speak.
I hope that training methods got better in general, but the best training technique from the past is not replicated today, and that's fighting once a month (at least!!!) until you are the champ, and since there was no alphabet bs, only few fighter were champs. And champs fought 15 rounders
not sure about being better in general. i know that in martial arts, training has actually gotten worse in many areas. martial artists, back in the early 1900's or before, were trained as a matter of life and death. if you couldn't fight well, you were at a much greater risk of being robbed and killed. so training was dead serious.
back to boxing, there were certainly fare less different titles in specidic boxing weights than today, but early on they did have two specific divisions per class - white and black. even after jack johnson this remained for quite a while.
the one thing i dislike about having only one champ per weight class is having lesser title fights. i like the build-up between current two champs. but then again, i suppose you don't need 4 divisions to build up a major fight between two top class fighters.
Comment