Im sorry Old school fighters are not automatically the best

[IronDanHamza]

look at my avy and sig.ima great poster.oh let me go post in the history section.that way you cant argue with me................oh and i never boxed in my damn life so there you have it im a boxing historian

You need to know the history to be even close to a Historian.

Not just 06+

Which I assume is when you started following Boxing.

[EveryDayDrew]

You saw that lead left hook he landed. Like Floyd does, shoulder roll, similar fighters. Both, very skilled.

And, Benton ring IQ was very high as well. He knew what to do. And, it's a reason why after his fighting days he became such a good trainer. Helped trained Whitaker, Holyfield, McCallum, Meldrick Taylor.

Not sure why the disrespect of past greats.

Yeah. Idk how many times I replayed the right to the body/left uppercut combo in round 1...I don't know if its as much disrespect for past greats or current fighters as much as ppl reacting to the crazy statements the opposing side makes.

[P4P50]

Look, yes many of today's fighters are better than the ATG's of older eras but think about it this way. There's been a lot of advancement in sports science, training methods, supplementation, etc. We consider them ATG's for their level of skill and accomplishments relative to their time period. Is Tony hawk not an ATG skateboarding legend? He was the first to do the 900 but now everyone and their mom can pull it off.

[madrappa]

Meh, just depends on how far back you go and which fighters you are talking about. there is people on both sides of the argument who make ridiculous claims. such as 'none of the old school fighters could TOUCH any of the new school fighters' or 'all the golden era boxers would dominate any boxers from today.' i believe both of these claims are untrue.

first, if you go back to the very beginnings of boxing, yes there was a lack of skill because the sport had yet to develop. i believe jack dempsy would not do as well because there wasnt as much technical skill involved in his time. just like the pioneers of mma would get destroyed by todays fighters. on the other hand, when we got to the likes of muhammed ali and such, boxing then had time to develop into more of a science. yeah sure in todays age there may be new supplements/training methods etc, but can any of you deny that muhammed ali would probably beat the breaks off of most fat heavyweights of today? sure the new training methods/supplements may give an edge to modern fighters, but there are other outliers that arent considered. for example, muhammed ali era fighters had less privilege in their day to day life. things werent 'automated' and to be honest, all around their lives were a bit tougher than modern man. in my opinion, this would give mental toughness to the older era fighters. honestly when it comes down to it, boxing is about who is tougher and who can punch harder and get away from punches more efficiently. i think from every era of boxing there was someone who was just a naturally talented fighter and i believe they could replicate success in any era.

also, what is the hypothetical scenario for a matchup? would they both get a modern day training camp, or would you throw them right into a time machine after preparing for an earlier fight? i think given to the time to gameplan for one another, i would still have a lot of old boxers coming out on top of new boxers, but not in every case.

sugar ray leonard vs floyd would be an awesome ****ing fight to see. muhammed ali vs wlad klitschko would be another one. boxing grew out of its adolescence long ago, so there are a lot of undeniably great fighters and we will have to admit that we can never definitively prove which is greatest.

[I Love Jesus!]

Damn right i love this era and i have been witnessed to some damn great fighters in this era and just cause a fighter fought in black and damn white does not mean they can beat the greats of this era.people watch a few damn old fights that their grand dad told them to watch and act like it is the damn gospel..[/B].hell yea there where great fighters back then but damn it there are great fighters from present day as well....it's like a fighter can't get props until he is old or dead............Hell when Sugar Ray Leonard was fighting he was considered a duck and a pre madana just like sugar ray robinson was.now years later they are warriors.they are fighters i have seen that would wipe the floor with some of these old school cats

What makes you think that's why? That's ****** if you assume that's what people go off.

The other thing is when you watch old recordings they're slowed down. They're just poor recordings. Old school guys were every bit as fast.

[-PBP-]

You got to do comparisons like this matchup by matchup.

You can't group it and say ALL either way.

[Mike Tyson77]

Put Vitali Klitschko back 1930s-1950s and hed be 50-0 with like 48 KOs

[TheGreatA]

Old school fighters are not automatically better, neither are current fighters. I just hope that the judgments are made based on film footage and the circumstances surrounding those fights.

For example picking a Ray Robinson fight from the late 50s to show is no better than picking a Roy Jones fight from the 2010's. In both cases you have to take into account that the boxers were not anywhere close to their best.

I just don't think many people are willing to do the research required to properly judge these fighters, which is fine until people start making statements about them without enough facts to back it up.

It may also be true that after doing enough research you might start buying into the lore of the old times a little too much. Overall I've become rather disillusioned with making up lists and speculating fantasy fights, I only view it as a way to pass the time and not anything to take too seriously.

I feel historical research should be focused on what little facts and conclusions can be deciphered out of a very large amount of material, with the stories, speculations and contemporary opinions being treated as a form of entertainment on the side.

Being a "historian" and a keen observer of the sport itself does not necessarily go hand in hand. I can appreciate both. A lot of the old footage wouldn't be as readily available without some fan's historical interest.

[madrappa]

You got to do comparisons like this matchup by matchup.

You can't group it and say ALL either way.

this......

[I Love Jesus!]

This is a weird defense mechanism you have Larry.
You are sincere in saying something dumb (like Pac/Floyd would be the best in any era) and it backlashes. Instead of just admitting to ignorance or clarify your stance you start obsessively trolling just so that people will think you were not serious to begin with.

Yes. We see you're being funny now.

This is what happens when you have no job and base your life around being a fan boy on a boxing site in a chat room.