Were the past greats really that great!?

[edgarg]

You ever watched it?

Honestly, Sr. got his ass kicked. It wasn't really all that competitive.

Here's something relating to your topic. There used to be a boxing talk show fearuring Sugar Ray Robinson, Rocky Graziano, Jake La Motta and Gene Fullmer. They just talked boxing. Fascinating. To me anyway. One time Robinson said "I often used to have to box 20 rounds, 10 for my opponent and 10 for me, you know what I mean"...and they all agreed, saying that they often had to do the same, carry their opponent to make a show of it.

As I've written elsewhere, Jack Johnson was well known for dropping opponents, but grabbing them before they could fall, and hold them up until they'd recovered enough to continue fighting, just to make a longer fight for the cash customers.

[-Kev-]

ive had several discussions about this in the history section. The reason why past greats in all sports are somewhat looked at as THE GREATEST and are GROSSLY overrated is to PRESERVE HISTORY. PRESERVE CULTURE.

If you look at all the sports across the board, the greatest in their respective sport have always come in recent/modern times (modern athletes roughly 1970s and after).

Somebody better always comes along...

Just look at all the sports who are the greatest in their profession everybody thought rod laver was the best tennis player of all time then along came Bjorn Bjorg then along came connors/johnny mac then along came Agassi/Sampras then along came Federer/Nadal. Basketball everybody thought Mikan/Cousy/Wilt/Russell were the greatest then along came Dr. J/Kareem everybody thought they were the greatest then along came Bird/Magic then along came Jordan. Track & field everybody thought wow jesse owens the greatest then along came carl lewis then along came Usain Bolt....

You can do this in every sport the greatest always have come in recent times.

You CANNOT IGNORE ATHLETIC EVOLUTION.

Athletes today are BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER & more importantly BETTER.

The only reason why athletes of yesteryear are held in such high regard and their greatness NEVER BEING CHALLENGED is that they want to PRESERVE HISTORY AND CULTURE.

Boxing is no different. The biggest crock of **** perpetrated is the so called "Golden Age" of boxing. They say this era had the greatest fighters ever and it was boxing at its finest....

GTFO YOU OLD FART C*CKSUCKERS.

Golden Age of Boxing = Crooked ass fixed fights controlled by the mafia, Black fighters not given opportunities, Referees refereeing & JUDGING THE OUTCOME OF THE WINNER(wtf???), news paper decisions, Great fighters fighting opponents with 20-30 losses(can you imagine if pac & floyd did that?), rampant racism, no globalization...

From football,basketball,baseball,tennis, track & field,soccer,golf etc.. the greatest of all times/athletes have always come during modern times, during the much evolved state of its sport, Not during its infancy.

No baseball player, even with all their PED's, will break Ty Cobb's hit record, not anytime soon.

Hell, Barry Bonds needed steroids to break Babe Ruth's homerun record, and Hank Aaron's record. Ruth was playing in huge parks back then.

Numbers don't lie, and that's why I love baseball, all the proof is there, that the baseball players of the golden era were much better than the one's from now.


Yeah, the science[PED's] of now makes them come a bit close to the golden era players.

[cupocity303]

exactly.

they fought the pace of their fights strategically to go 15 rounds.

There is no denying it, modern athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, and better.

Track & field is a good barometer. Just look at how fast the athletes are getting clocked at now. Usain Bolt's times were humanly impossible during jesse owens days.

There is no denying Athletic Evolution.

It's just nostalgia talking. They automatically assume that those guys are better because the conditions/environment in those times was tougher, therefore bred better fighters than today's pampered athletes with the better nutrition, less fights per year, less rounds etc,.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

No baseball player, even with all their PED's, will break Ty Cobb's hit record, not anytime soon.

Hell, Barry Bonds needed steroids to break Babe Ruth's homerun record, and Hank Aaron's record. Ruth was playing in huge parks back then.

Numbers don't lie, and that's why I love baseball, all the proof is there, that the baseball players of the golden era were much better than the one's from now.


Yeah, the science[PED's] of now makes them come a bit close to the golden era players.

ESPECIALLY BASEBALL. Everybody thought ty cobb was the greatest then along came babe ruth, then everybody thought he was the greatest, then along came willie mays/micky mantle, then along came arod bbonds.

I mean even before bonds got busted he was already considered one of the greatest ever. Take the PEDS issue for example, who decides what are legal & what is legal? Just think about that.

You cannot deny athletes of today have evolved along with their sport. Oldschool fogey athletes would find it extremely difficult to compete with todays athletes.

[edgarg]

Thats part of the debate aswell though. The technique of boxing has changed so that an entire fight isnt spent on the inside. Boxing is alot more about contolling distance and boxing on the outside, being clever and picking off your opponent, which was practically unheard of until willie pep showed how boxing wasnt all about toughness and brute strength

Yes olden boxers would have an advantage on the inside game, but what would they do if they couldnt get to the other man like a mayweather jr!?

You're wrong. A couple of examples are Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, all defensive wizards, Johnson in particular who preferred to stand off and pick at his opponent until he felt like finishing him off, depending on his mood. He was noted for carrying on conversations with ringsiders whilst fighting. He is still regarded as the best defensive boxer ever (for sure in Heavyweight) actually able to pick off punches in mid air. Joe Gans was a close second, and as fast as anyone today.

And I'm sure I can think of many more. Mike and Tommy Gibbons for two. Yet Dempsey won all 15 rds against Tommy. Gene Tunney for another, when he wanted to. These guys could do everything, depending on how they felt and who they were fighting.More were benny Leonard, Freddiw Welsh and Holman Williams,all defensive experts who could do it all.

[edgarg]

That wasn't a "gaping hole" in his defense. He was defensively almost perfect. That was an occasional bringing back his left hand a bit lower than he should have, and Schmeling saw it and capitalised, shooting over an immediate straight right hand as his left was going back. He never recovered from it as it was completely unseen. Also he'd been fighting only for less than 2 years, and had had about 12 fights in the previous year. He was still learning and Schmeling was a

[BigStereotype]

ive had several discussions about this in the history section. The reason why past greats in all sports are somewhat looked at as THE GREATEST and are GROSSLY overrated is to PRESERVE HISTORY. PRESERVE CULTURE.

If you look at all the sports across the board, the greatest in their respective sport have always come in recent/modern times (modern athletes roughly 1970s and after).

Somebody better always comes along...

Just look at all the sports who are the greatest in their profession everybody thought rod laver was the best tennis player of all time then along came Bjorn Bjorg then along came connors/johnny mac then along came Agassi/Sampras then along came Federer/Nadal. Basketball everybody thought Mikan/Cousy/Wilt/Russell were the greatest then along came Dr. J/Kareem everybody thought they were the greatest then along came Bird/Magic then along came Jordan. Track & field everybody thought wow jesse owens the greatest then along came carl lewis then along came Usain Bolt....

You can do this in every sport the greatest always have come in recent times.

You CANNOT IGNORE ATHLETIC EVOLUTION.

Athletes today are BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER & more importantly BETTER.

The only reason why athletes of yesteryear are held in such high regard and their greatness NEVER BEING CHALLENGED is that they want to PRESERVE HISTORY AND CULTURE.

Boxing is no different. The biggest crock of **** perpetrated is the so called "Golden Age" of boxing. They say this era had the greatest fighters ever and it was boxing at its finest....

GTFO YOU OLD FART C*CKSUCKERS.

Golden Age of Boxing = Crooked ass fixed fights controlled by the mafia, Black fighters not given opportunities, Referees refereeing & JUDGING THE OUTCOME OF THE WINNER(wtf???), news paper decisions, Great fighters fighting opponents with 20-30 losses(can you imagine if pac & floyd did that?), rampant racism, no globalization...

From football,basketball,baseball,tennis, track & field,soccer,golf etc.. the greatest of all times/athletes have always come during modern times, during the much evolved state of its sport, Not during its infancy.

So Zab Judah would beat Antonio Margarito, right? Because Zab Judah is a freakish athlete with unbelievable natural speed, balance, coordination and explosiveness. Margarito is a simple East LA brawler who couldn't outmaneuver a dump truck. But I think everyone agrees that a prime Margarito would tear Zab limb from limb. Why?? Because a boxer isn't all about athleticism. This isn't basketball or football where a guy like Vince Carter or Calvin Johnson can dominate based on pure athletic gifts alone. A lot of it - most of it -is grit, will and determination.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

a boxer with no fight footage cannot compete with a boxer who has fight footage in terms of greatness and ranking.

If you are compiling/analyzing greatness and ranking etc. and both fighters are great; you cannot put above a great boxer with no fight footage higher than a fighter with fight footage.

News paper decision be damned.

[BigStereotype]

It's just nostalgia talking. They automatically assume that those guys are better because the conditions/environment in those times was tougher, therefore bred better fighters than today's pampered athletes with the better nutrition, less fights per year, less rounds etc,.

Less experience makes you a better technician?

[BigStereotype]

a boxer with no fight footage cannot compete with a boxer who has fight footage in terms of greatness and ranking.

If you are compiling/analyzing greatness and ranking etc. and both fighters are great; you cannot put above a great boxer with no fight footage higher than a fighter with fight footage.

News paper decision be damned.

I try to avoid ranking fighters I've never seen. We can discern a lot about their "greatness," but it's hard to say how good they were. That's why you'll never see Greb on one of my lists - not until that footage that I know is hiding out there somewhere comes out.