Were the past greats really that great!?

[JAB5239]

I agree with this post. When guys simply base their argument because someone is from the 1930's, 40's, or 50's and therefore it automatically has to assumed that those guys have something that today's fighters don't,you know it's nothing but pure wishful nostalgia.

There are certainly fighters today who would be great in any era and who's skills are throwback. As a whole though boxing has declined. Guys don't fight as often or against as consistently tough comp as era's past. Plus the fact that less fighters and more divisions has watered down the sport making it in fact easier to get to the top. Don't get me wrong, Im not saying they couldn't do these things, Im saying they don't because of the circumstances today.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

exactly.

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

I can post literally dozens and dozens of fights from the past with fighter going at a non stop pace for 15 rounds if anyone would like.

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

No, I've already refuted this with facts. Try again.

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.

Lol, the WORST barometer! Put Bolt on a dirt track with a regular pair of running shoes from Owen's day and see if he's still nearly as fast. I can guarantee he wouldn't be.

There is no denying Athletic Evolution.

I've just put it to rest unless you can argue anything I've posted in this thread isn't a fact.

[JAB5239]

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.

Mickey Mantle was hitting 500 foot home runs long before steroids polluted the sport. Nolan Ryan was throwing 100mph and pitcher routinely finished games unlike todays specialized era where a pitcher rarely goes more than 6 or 7 innings.

[AlwaysOnTop]

TS, watch this video and it will show you EXACTLY why technique has not improved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

[JAB5239]

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,.

I wouldn't automatically assume this, but its a fact more great fighters have come from harder and tougher environments than not.

[edgarg]

The olden fighters fightin up to a dozen times a year and the coddling of fighters today ive always believed to be irrelevant in the big picture.

Olden fighters fought more but didnt fight contenders any more frequently than modern fighters. Sugar ray robinson for example closing in on 100fights was still fighting guys with 2-15 records up to 4x a year. It would be considered an unnecessary formality today because techniques can be sharpened in training camp regardless.

Robinon used to make these fights to keep sharp,and as he said on he T V Boxing talk show that he, Fullmer Graziano and LaMotta. had, he often had to fight 20 rounds, 10 for his opponent and 10 for himself. They all laughed and agreed that they had done the same often. It was called carrying a fighter to make an evenings entertainment for the fans.

[JAB5239]

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.

Harry Greb. No footage of him, but plenty if film of the greats he didn't just beat, but dominated. Are we going to just say it didn't happen because YOU didn't see it?

[JAB5239]

The olden fighters fightin up to a dozen times a year and the coddling of fighters today ive always believed to be irrelevant in the big picture.

Olden fighters fought more but didnt fight contenders any more frequently than modern fighters. Sugar ray robinson for example closing in on 100fights was still fighting guys with 2-15 records up to 4x a year. It would be considered an unnecessary formality today because techniques can be sharpened in training camp regardless.

The point is they were staying sharp by constantly fighting different opponents, styles etc. No, they didn't always fight the top contenders, but more often tough experienced pugs. Don't let boxrec fool you, many of thise records you see on there for a 2-14 fighter are incomplete. You can as Historian and boxrec editor Henry Hascup who posts on here under "hhascup" for confirmation.

[shadeyfizzle]

Robinon used to make these fights to keep sharp,and as he said on he T V Boxing talk show that he, Fullmer Graziano and LaMotta. had, he often had to fight 20 rounds, 10 for his opponent and 10 for himself. They all laughed and agreed that they had done the same often. It was called carrying a fighter to make an evenings entertainment for the fans.

Yes im aware of that but a world champion with nearly 100 fights fighting a guy with a 3- 27 record is a foregone conclusion. Hence why it has no place in today's boxing. Its been replaced with the coddling of fighters. To bring a fighter along, gradually increasing the level of opposition to ensure that he's sharp enough with a large enough arsenal of tools at his disposal to consistently perform at the elite level. So that he wont have to fight a guy who's 1-4 as a world champion or top 5 contender.

[edgarg]

You keep associating floyd with old school. Im curious what exactly does floyd do in common with golden era fighters that absolutely noone else today does???

I personally don't think he doesanything special. He just was lucky enough to be born into a boxing family, have extra sharp reflexes, and be exposed to pro boxing at a very early age. So with his physical gift, he should be expected to have a big advantage from the beginning. He's survive in earlier days, but with nowhere near the prominence he has today.And if he didn't fight more than run, he could as well give it up. The shoulder "roll" that everybody thinks is magic is a very ordinary defensive movemen taught to everybody as a basic defensive movement when I was boxing. It's nothing special and shouldn't be relied on too much or yo can land in trouble whilst"rolling'......which will leaveyou in no position to defend yourself against a determined guy.

He didn't even get that prominence until he beat Corrales, which, for anyone who knows the background of that fight, was an out and out fraud, a disgusting advantage taken of a fellow fighters awful misforunes.