Were the past greats really that great!?

[edgarg]

I agree with you as well. Boxing and boxers themselves have evolved a great deal since those times. Take Joe Louis for example, he would get ****ing sparked by the likes of Tyson, Lennox Louis and The Klit brothers in my opinion.

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.

[4Corners]

I'd say prior to the late 50's, early 60's, very few of the champions or ATG's of those era's would have beaten the top people of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90', 00's.

For instance, I don't think Joe Louis would beat Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, or the Klitschko's, but that doesn't take away from his ATG status and spot. To me, Joe Louis is the 2nd greatest HW of all-time based on his career in his era, but that doesn't mean head-to-head he'd beat so and so, because the 1900's, 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's were so different from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's.

[-Kev-]

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!?

Well you can't mention Floyd, a guy who not even these "advanced modern fighters" can get to. How about Peterson vs Khan, Khan is an outside fighter, Peterson beat him for his inside work. How about Cotto-Margarito I? Margarito beat Cotto with inside uppercuts even though Cotto ran for the most part and tried to fight outside.

[cupocity303]

Lets talk about a subject that becomes very heated amongst the old school and new of boxing fans. How do the old legends of boxing stand up to the new breed?

Im not talking about fantasy matchups between duran and pacquiao, the pugilistic art hasnt changed that drastically in that space of time. Im talking about the likes of gene tunney, jack johnson etc......All are are ring legends, and deserve to be, but how would they fare against the modern era?

The reason i ask this is because i have been a boxing fan for 9 years now, there is only so many archived fights i can watch until i wound up looking up these guys that so many boxing historians talk about. And i know im going to get blasted for this....but i was not impressed.

Jack Johnson, who many historians believe would have beaten any heavyweight from any era is one that stands out. In the fight i watched with jess willard i wasnt overly impressed. Its not that its in black and white and old grainy footage. Ijust dont see the skill shown by the older boxers. Wheres the head movement? the bobbing and weaving? the defense!?!?! most of the time the 2 fighters are winging punches from the waist and dont have their hands up to defend themselves.

Dont get me wrong, i respect the hell out of these guys, youd have to respect fighters that have hundreds of fights back in those days, with the small gloves etc...It just seems to me that it was more fighting back then as opposed to boxing. It was about hard as nails men who could punch and take a punch. When you look at the likes of mayweather jr, with his impeccible defense, fast as lightning hands. is it logical to assume that these primitive fighters would have beaten our new breed??

Maybe im being stupid and am missing something. But isnt it just a case of boxing has evolved? A 1920s manchester united would be dumbfounded by the 2011 squad. Is boxing much different???

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.

[-Kev-]

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 aren't an awful lot of fighters right now that can go 15 rounds with less padded gloves.

[edgarg]

I meant to add, but was "sidetracked" was that many mistakenly equate the Paddy Ryan, John L Sullivan era and earlier for the early 1900's. Modern boxing as we know it today was taking place then, not by everyone of course, because it took time for the old-timers to retire and the new breed to take over. But by 1910, one could say that the modern era had arrived.

One thing different today, apart from 6'2" middleweights, scientific training and eating, is that many of today's bigger fighters are rather faster because of training etc. But no new punches have been invented, indeed many punches and tactics commonly used then have become forgotten, training is still blood and sweat, and one thing for sure; nobody tried to protect an unbeaten record. They fought so that they could eat. And many literally had hundreds of fights. Many went unrecorded. In small cities, or large towns they would have maybe 100-150 shows in a year. It was the top sport. There were so many more fighters then it cannot even be remotely compared. Probably more fighters in one US State than in the whole world today.

They used to travel the country taking on the best local competition and giving exhibitions. So the best fighters then HAD to be top class, there was so much competition. And they weren't afraid to fight each other. Johnson fought Joe Jeanette, a top Black fighter a recorded 10-12 times, but reputedly about 25 times. And all the other top black fighters multiple times. He was "Coloured World Champion" for many years before he beat Tommy Burns. Sam Langford fought Harry Wills about 8 inches taller, about 20 times, and KO'd him twice, the only times he'd ever been KO'd. Ted "Kid" Lewis of England fought Jack Britton the American about 20 times, when there were no air flights. Kid Lewis was voted the best British boxer of the 20th century. He had about 300 fights. I'd better stop now........

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

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.

[cupocity303]

There aren't an awful lot of fighters right now that can go 15 rounds with less padded gloves.

Scientifically, it's irrelevant.

The guys who went 30 rounds in the early 1900's don't have the stamina of a 12 round fighter today. I have seen plenty of footage to know the type of punches they were throwing isn't expanding as much energy as a modern day punch does.

And if you go up in time a bit, most of the 15 round fighters weren't 15 round fighters. If they did go 15, they looked as tired as a 12 round fighter would today, and conserved their energy. Most of them got their guys out earlier, unless they were a pillow puncher like Malignaggie, in which case you go 12 or 15 rounds in every fight and better train your ass of in the strength and conditioning department.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

Scientifically, it's irrelevant.

The guys who went 30 rounds in the early 1900's don't have the stamina of a 12 round fighter today. I have seen plenty of footage to know the type of punches they were throwing isn't expanding as much energy as a modern day punch does.

And if you go up in time a bit, most of the 15 round fighters weren't 15 round fighters. If they did go 15, they looked as tired as a 12 round fighter would today, and conserved their energy. Most of them got their guys out earlier, unless they were a pillow puncher like Malignaggie, in which case you go 12 or 15 rounds in every fight and better train your ass of in the strength and conditioning department.

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.

[MRBOOMER]

Yes they were better..

Today's fighters can't even fight on the inside..!!!

Look at.....Pacman...Berto...Canelo...Khan...They can't fight on the inside worth a shi.t...........LOL..........


Fighters don't BOB N WEAVE anymore..

That is a lost art......GONE....!

One of the most effective styles(especially at heavyweight)......VANISHED........!

Fighters from the past had to deal with an array of styles..it's not like that anymore..

Well that's not there style you just listed a lot of jump in jump out midrange fighters