Were the past greats really that great!?

[Ascended]

Like who? Name me some Historians who think Jack Johnson would beat any Heavyweight from any era.

You talk about old school fighters being 'primitive' and 'fighters instead of boxers' then how does that explain the likes of Charley Burley, Kid Gavilan, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep the list goes on and on who are frankly anything but that?

stop trolling cause they all are stiff and slow compared to 70s-90s its easy to see do you watch matches or need glasses

[Silence]

Depends on fighters. Rocky Marciano would be bum. SRR would be nightmare anytime for everyone.

[Ascended]

There;s no doubt technique was better old school.

My thing is anyone can turn on ESPN Classic and watch a million fights where guys were in great shape and throwing crisp shots for 15 rounds.

Sure we can go back to mythical legendary greats and doubt the authenticity of their abilities, but there are plenty of old fights out there showing guys with as much skill and will as anyone today.

The trolling is funny saying how they had to better tech then 70s-90s when they didn't

[Ascended]

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.

And that opinion means nothing saying how joe was top 5 cause its been way more tech skilled people them him your outdated

[The plunger man]

The likes of SRR, the cuban hawk and the wil o the wisp are different. Im tlking about older fighters. Ive heard countless interviews with boxing experts say that the older fighters always beat the new. Bert sugar has been quoted saying jack johnson beats many of the new fighters.

I wouldn’t listen to Bert sugar ....he is biased beyond words.

everything is relevant to there era....if they were leaps and bounds above the all the others in that era then that tells you great they were......if past fighters are judged against modern fighters then modern fighters should also be judged in their era....for instance 15 rounds , nutrition and training not as good as today , fighting every 8 weeks , not so many belts to win etc......I could name the fighters I know over the history of sport who would be greats in any other era .

Greb , leonard , Louis , Robinson , Armstrong , Ali , duran , monzon , hagler , Ray Leonard , Chavez etc

These fighter would rule their divisions which ever era it was

[QueensburyRules]

I wouldn’t listen to Bert sugar ....he is biased beyond words.

everything is relevant to there era....if they were leaps and bounds above the all the others in that era then that tells you great they were......if past fighters are judged against modern fighters then modern fighters should also be judged in their era....for instance 15 rounds , nutrition and training not as good as today , fighting every 8 weeks , not so many belts to win etc......I could name the fighters I know over the history of sport who would be greats in any other era .

Greb , leonard , Louis , Robinson , Armstrong , Ali , duran , monzon , hagler , Ray Leonard , Chavez etc

These fighter would rule their divisions which ever era it was

- - Took awhile, but finally you make good sense, more than these noobs can absorb in their misbegotten lifetimes.