Were the past greats really that great!?

[shadeyfizzle]

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.

Right...but my point is that the more frequent fighting and the coddling cancel each other out when it comes to discussions of modern vs golden age. Because when it comes down to it, past greats still only fought top contenders 2-3x a year which is no more than today.

The olden fighter stayed sharp by being more active, the modern fighter is brought along to ensure he has all the tools at his disposal to be consistent fighting nothing but top contenders. Different paths with the same goal in mind. Making it imo, irrelevant.

[AlwaysOnTop]

Well, it's just your opinion, and you're entitled to it. but you picked the top champions of this era. Who else who wasn't a top champion of this era could do it...an...anyone?? I lived through the Joe Louis era and have read the opinions of literally dozens, maybe hundreds of experts. And they all concur that Louis was at least a top 5 ever fighter. I think he'd have eventually carved up Ali and Foreman. Even maybe the Klitschkos, because although they are big, and different, they are vulnerable to a brilliant boxer-puncher like Louis. Tyson I'm not sure because he was so explosive and went hunting right from the bell, and had both a terrific defence and attack. You could say an attacking defence because he used it to get close to his opponent.

Johnson, according to all the top experts who saw ALL the champions from Johnson to Ali, said that Johnson was the best or at least #2. Nat Fleischer, Founder of RING who saw them all until he died in 1972, was adamant that Johnson was #1 Charlie Rose an expert of the kind we don't have today, said he was #2. He is reported to have been as fast, both hands and feet, as Ali, with far better skills and defence, could virtually do anything in the ring. He was KNOWN to carry his opponents for many rounds to make a fight of it for the cash customers. He is seen on film dropping opponents but grabbing them before they can fall and holding them up in a clinch until they've recovered. He routinely carried on conversations with ringside observers in many of his fights, including championship ones. He
could and did pick off punches in mid-air, and touched up opponents just when they were going to punch, putting them off. Even with the herky-jerky primitive film existing his superiority is very apparent. He rarely was hit clean, and actually boxed until he was about 60. He was KO'd when a kid by Joe Choynski, and then not until Willard about 15 years later.

He was also quite a brain. He was a good musician, and led an orchestra, playing very good string bass. He took out several patents, and invented the famous Stiltson wrench which is indispensible today. As you can see I've read a lot about him, and as I was growing up in far off Ireland, they were always talking about him.

About your comments on the Willard fight, you saw mainly exerpts and the part leading up to the KO. Unless you know something that I dont. The full fight never released for youtube. What you likely don't know is what led up to all this. The powers that be were determined to get rid of Johnson once and for all. They made the fight for 45 rounds, in other words, really a fight to a finish. Johnson was broke and needed the money so agreed to the 45 rds. They were sure that Willard, 6'6", much younger and fit, would outlast 6'1" 50 lbs lighter, unfit, paunchy (you can see it in the film) 37 year old Johnson. Yet, Johnson according to all the reports I've read, both contemporary and investigative (maybe about 50) drove Willard all round the ring, winning practically every round until the 25th when he wore down, and was KO'd in the 26th. All this under a blazing hot sun.

I like to quote Jack Blackburn, who knew Johnson well, having fought for many years in his era, and was the maker, yes the maker of Joe Louis, is on record as having told Louis that Johnson would have beaten him very badly. He even told him why.

Joe Gans was as fast and as shifty as the very best of today. The modern "style" was around in those days too, although we seem, for some reason to think not. I think that because of lack of film, closeups, colour, and technology, we are inclined to underestimate rather than the opposite. Joe Walcott was unbeatable in his time. Welterweight, fought much heavier opponents and only 5'2". It's too long a subject for this site, and actually very interesting.

Awesome post.....!!

[JAB5239]

Right...but my point is that the more frequent fighting and the coddling cancel each other out when it comes to discussions of modern vs golden age. Because when it comes down to it, past greats still only fought top contenders 2-3x a year which is no more than today.

The olden fighter stayed sharp by being more active, the modern fighter is brought along to ensure he has all the tools at his disposal to be consistent fighting nothing but top contenders. Different paths with the same goal in mind. Making it imo, irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree. Constantly fighting different fighters and different styles keeps you sharp on top of your 2 or 3 times a year fights against top contenders. Take Harry Greb for example. He would fight more than 20 times in a year taking on 5 or 6 top 10 and even all time greats. Who is going to be sharper, him or say a Carl Froch who is toughly the same size, a great fighter today, but has only fought twice a year the past 3 years?

[edgarg]

No I'm not exaggeraing one little bit, I'm being very modest. These guys fought becuase they found they had a talent for it. Then once fighting , they had had to fight to eat it was their job. There were so many fighters of all kindsshape sizes and syles that they got LOADS of experience, .nd turned down nobody.The competition pool was so enormous that when a guy reached the top you could be sure that he was the BEST of the best. These top fighters by the time they reached their peaks, couuld do EVERYTHING. And I defy anyone to prove to me that today's best are better than yesteyear's best, except in size,anddid routinely
things that have become lost to today's fighters, because the poor film we have of their movements casn't show closeups, subtle moves, feints etc. They knew a hell of as lot mora about boxing than we do if lessabuut isometric exercise. Althouh they may know it under a different name.

One big way hey were different...there was no protectng unbeaten records,they fought all comers. It meant a bigger reputationand more food for the family.
/





















































































































































































abot boxing, even if less about calorific intake and balanced protein drinks. they had all the equipment we have today, and maybe more. Except electronic walkery pushed their bodies othe utmost to beome fitenugh to go 15-25 tough fast rounds someimes under blazing sun

[Slyboots]

No I'm not exaggeraing one little bit, I'm being very modest. These guys fought becuase they found they had a talent for it. Then once fighting , they had had to fight to eat it was their job. There were so many fighters of all kindsshape sizes and syles that they got LOADS of experience, .nd turned down nobody.The competition pool was so enormous that when a guy reached the top you could be sure that he was the BEST of the best. These top fighters by the time they reached their peaks, couuld do EVERYTHING. And I defy anyone to prove to me that today's best are better than yesteyear's best, except in size,anddid routinely
things that have become lost to today's fighters, because the poor film we have of their movements casn't show closeups, subtle moves, feints etc. They knew a hell of as lot mora about boxing than we do if lessabuut isometric exercise. Althouh they may know it under a different name.

One big way hey were different...there was no protectng unbeaten records,they fought all comers. It meant a bigger reputationand more food for the family.
/





















































































































































































abot boxing, even if less about calorific intake and balanced protein drinks. they had all the equipment we have today, and maybe more. Except electronic walkery pushed their bodies othe utmost to beome fitenugh to go 15-25 tough fast rounds someimes under blazing sun

What


















































































happened?

[SCtrojansbaby]

There is also a key difference in comparing boxing to other sports. Boxing, unlike the NFL or NBA, has weight limits and those have been static for years. A welterweight is still, roughly given day before weigh-ins, a Welterweight. If today's athlete looks bigger in the ring for a Welter, it is because they are allowed to put on 10-20 before the opening bell. For the most part though, a Welter is still a Welter.

Ray Robinson was between 5'10-5'11 and moved between Welter and small Middle. Is there a Welter right now who evolution has made too big for him? Seriously? The two best welters in the world right now were at their absolute peak below the limit. Size hasn't hampered them.

That is not true.

[IronDanHamza]

"Fighters are bigger, faster and stronger today then they were 50 years ago"

Based on what?

50 Years is really not a long time. Not enough for a drastic evolution anyway.

[NChristo]

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.

Pongsalek Wonjongkam disagrees with your entire post.

[studentofthegam]

You have to be on the side of styles make fights. You cant say this era crushes that era because there is no finite answer. Its a fighter by fighter kinda subject. Fighters of the past got just as tired as fighters of today. Their rules and rounds allowed them to adjust their training. SRR is top class in any era and man handles most fighters right now.. Fmj is elite in any era. Ali gives Johnson fits in the early 1900's or late 70's. The Klits size and athleticism is trouble for any era. A young Foreman blasts out most fighters in the era that preceeded him. No need for the ongoing debate. Great fighters would be great regardless of the year and circumstances. Im only partial to certain fighters not certain eras. Its funny that that public opinion is the only thing that has seemed to change over time. Back in the day great champions were revered and put on pedistals regardless of how bad a person or the wild lifestyles they led. What they did in the ring was all that was important. Today's champs are overly scrutinized for what happens after the last bell rings. Somewhere we got clouded into thinking fighters of the past were "classier" than today's wave. Its just not true. They were looked at as hero's as opposed to today when fighters are looked at more as products to be bought and sold for our entertainment. Its kinda sad.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Can someone explain and breakdown the drastic differences in diet and training regimes between Floyd Mayweather Jr and Sugar Ray Robinson.

What does Mayweather, possibly the most gifted fighter of the last few decades, do differently that makes him so much more modern and evolved than Robinson?

Chin ups? Jump rope? Heavybag? Pads?

What about diet? What's in Mayweather's diet that makes him so much more evolved than Robinson?

Meat? Vegetables?

I too would like an answer to this. I could understand being more advanced in skills; techniques maybe, if we're going back to Jack Johnson, but better conditioned, nope