Im sorry Old school fighters are not automatically the best

[Goldie]

I somewhat agree the premise of this thread. The older generation fighters are not automatically better just on GP. As a fan it frustrates me to know that people tank fighters based mainly on resume and the perceived strength of 1's resume. I mean the fighters if today can't help that the fight game has completely changed. They can't help that the competition today isn't what it was generations ago. I just think that fans need to be a little more open minded and how they compare and evaluate fighters from different eras against 1 another.

[IronDanHamza]

Man, maybe the saying should be changed to "Those who ignore history are doomed to say ****** sh**."

The thing is there's a lot of young kids on here who are just like Larry and are witnessing their first era of Boxing but you don't see them showing this level of ignorance and it's understandable to hold some bias's to the first guys you see but I mean, to say the **** being spouted is just taking ******ed and ignorance to a whole other level.

[therealpugilist]

Take Brandon Rios without him cutting weight & bung him in with todays middleweights, record it in B&W and you have a true ATG, the second coming of Jake LaMotta.

Jake Lamotta is remembered as a brawler but most people that feel that way only ever saw the movie Raging Bull or only saw the St.Valentine's day Massacre....LaMotta had waay more skill than Rios....Lamotta was a good counterpuncher, could brawl, could swarm and spoil...had a way better defense than given credit for, he slipped punches and rolled with them very well.....people need to watch fighters and make their own opinions based on what they have witnessed not what someone else has said

[Larry the boss]

oh they fought over 200 times.so damn what so chavez jr can fight a bum a week and he is a atg

[The Big Dunn]

Way to skip over the parts where I say I've made this argument dozens of times and that they have beaten fighters who do what Floyd and Manny do just as well as them.

But the assumption is the older fighters who lost, "do it just as good as floyd and manny do". Thats another bias point. They may not do it just as well, especially if you forming your opinion of old tapes shot at one angle, and only watch tapes of the big wins or big losses.

It seems you either have to choose the older fighter or get labeled a nuthugger or d!ckrider etc. There are some people who actually can make a reasoned argument for the younger guys and that doesn't mean they are nuthugging.

[IronDanHamza]

I somewhat agree the premise of this thread. The older generation fighters are not automatically better just on GP. As a fan it frustrates me to know that people tank fighters based mainly on resume and the perceived strength of 1's resume. I mean the fighters if today can't help that the fight game has completely changed. They can't help that the competition today isn't what it was generations ago. I just think that fans need to be a little more open minded and how they compare and evaluate fighters from different eras against 1 another.

I'm still waiting on a quote of someone who has said that.

I don't recall anyone saying this.

[Larry the boss]

The thing is there's a lot of young kids on here who are just like Larry and are witnessing their first era of Boxing but you don't see them showing this level of ignorance and it's understandable to hold some bias's to the first guys you see but I mean, to say the **** being spouted is just taking ******ed and ignorance to a whole other level.

young kids.son im 30 damn years old and this is far from my first era.see this is what i mean when you disagee with the posters who have old ass avi's they assume you are young and new to the sport..id bet my life you have never even set foot in a boxing gym before yet along actually sparred or had a fight...i dont agree with you and think you are wrong son....................those old school fighters 90 percent of the time look like hot **** ive seen 10 year olds with better coordination

[VapeRippa]

Jake Lamotta is remembered as a brawler but most people that feel that way only ever saw the movie Raging Bull or only saw the St.Valentine's day Massacre....LaMotta had waay more skill than Rios....Lamotta was a good counterpuncher, could brawl, could swarm and spoil...had a way better defense than given credit for, he slipped punches and rolled with them very well.....people need to watch fighters and make their own opinions based on what they have witnessed not what someone else has said

Man youre wasting your time, these idiots started watching boxing since May/DLH.

[IronDanHamza]

But the assumption is the older fighters who lost, "do it just as good as floyd and manny do". Thats another bias point. They may not do it just as well, especially if you forming your opinion of old tapes shot at one angle, and only watch tapes of the big wins or big losses.

It seems you either have to choose the older fighter or get labeled a nuthugger or d!ckrider etc. There are some people who actually can make a reasoned argument for the younger guys and that doesn't mean they are nuthugging.

Ok.

But still, where in his post did he say they are better or would win because they are older?

I can't see it.

[Larry the boss]

Where?

Show me where I said Pacquaio and Mayweather wouldn't be great in any Era.

you posted this rubbish

Great logic.

They're ATG's so that means they can be "the best of the best in any damn era"

Does it? Is that what it means to be an ATG?

Because I'll tell you now, if Pacquaio and Mayweather were in Hearns and Leonard's WW Era then they wouldn't be "The best of the best"

Being an ATG doesn't mean you can be the best of the best in any era. Do you know how ****** that sounds?