It is INTELLECTUALLY & ANALYTICALLY DISHONEST to rank fighters with NO FIGHT FOOTAGE

[B-Bomber]

They aren't bigger and faster though, except for heavyweights, and even there they aren't faster. Boxing is a big exception to every other sport that way. A guy weighing 5'6" 147 fighter is a 5'6" 147 fighter, no matter how many years pass. And I've seen nothing to suggest welterweights today are any faster overall than fighters 50 or 60 years ago.

You are right, indeed. I edited it into bigger and stronger, and even stronger is debatable.

However, my point was more about the mental aspect of boxing, than measuring inches of muscles

[The Tase]

going those extra rounds is what diminished the ole' timers explosiveness i think
so many speed demons(real speed demons, with power) ever since the 70's came around

training must have changed
think sprinting and distance running

or maybe im wrong, any fighters you can recommend as explosive/fast as leonard, taylor, camacho, mike tyson, roy jones, floyd mayweather, manny pacquiao, amir khan, yuriorikis gamboa, andre berto gary russell etc?

and imo that's what makes fighters today better, they hit alot harder are faster, just overall more powerful, skills wise though, probabley the ole' timers

if you talked to old timers who still follow the game they will tell you the before the fight weigh in is more beneficial to boxers than the same day weigh in. Back then a lot of fighters got affected by trying to make weight.

they were lethargic, lacked energy, and their overall performance suffered greatly because of the weigh in rules.

its completely different today.

[MexicanMauler]

same will happen in MMA. bum fighters like royce gracie, ken shamrock, mark coleman, etc... guys who wouldn't be top 200 in this day in age, are all time greats because they were fighting when there was no "talent" in mma.

[bojangles1987]

you watch on youtube but if you actually talk to real people who watched fights back then they would tell you that the 24 hr rehydration rule has made it physically safer for fighters of today and they are in much better shape. If you talk to a fight fan who watched boxing back then they would tell you that a lot of fighters struggled to make weight (hence the rule change) and it affected them greatly in their performance in the ring.




of course they are bigger.

welterweights come fight night as 154 lbers some as high as 160lbs. bantamweights coming in as super feathers and lightweights. Its like this across the board in almost all divisions.

boxing has changed greatly. to say it has always been the same is ridiculous.

Now you're trying to tell me not to trust what I'm watching, when the thread is supposed to tell me that I can't judge a fighter unless I can watch his fights. I'm watching, like you want me to, and I see that these fighters throw more, and go more rounds, with basically the same speed and strength as fighters today.

And who cares that welterweights come in weighing 160? Fighters back then fought guys who heavily outweighed them as well. And Mayweather and Pacquiao should make it very clear that such size differences don't matter nearly as much as the skill a fighter has. As should the beating Sergio just put on Chavez Jr.

[DragonBox]

im always skeptical when it comes to Greb as well (especially after watching his training footage), but we have footage of his opposition, and a lot of them were greats for their time. A lot of boxing personalities (from fighters to trainers, historians, fans etc) who attest to his greatness. So he deserves his spot imo


from what very little footage of him that i've seen, i'd say hes a fighter who was exceptionally great for HIS time. i wouldn't match him up with modern fighters, but for what he did in his time, he deserves to be among the greats. same with benny leonard, jack johnson, etc

[SplitSecond]

I can't claim to be completely knowledgeable about every fighter from 60 years ago. I'm sure someone who is would be able to give you names of speed demons like them. Maybe not Jones, no one really compares to Roy it seems, most historians seem to agree on that.

I wouldn't say Robinson was really any slower than Floyd or Leonard. Joe Louis's handspeed was better than any heavyweight today. Ali was faster than Tyson.

dont agree with that at all, but ali isn't what i'd consider an ole' timer, even though i said since the 70's, think of it like he was giving the signs of what was to come

as a person blessed with the twitch muscles, i can't even see my own jab man, ali showed off his jabs and straights alot, but tyson was hooks, uppercuts, body head, moved his whole body, he was much faster and that was with full power in every punch in the combo, with his body behind everything at all times

[MARKBNLV]

Im sorry but i cannot respect nor find it credible any ATG list that has highly ranked fighters with no fight footage over fighters with extensive video evidence.

It is intellectually and analytically dishonest and its done by the vanguards of old school golden age fighters to preserve their history.

The most glaring example is this guy:



How can you take this seriously? How can you take a guy with two sets of records; offiicial & newspaper record, seriously?


Historians and older boxing fans love to talk about the "Golden Age" of boxing and how pure and so much better it was when in reality the golden age of boxing was the most crooked era in all of boxing.

Referees as judge, jury, and executioner. Mob Controlled fights. Black fighters not given title opportunities and when given get royally screwed. How can a black fighter get a fair shake in the "Golden Era" when he cant even get a fair shake when it comes to his most basic civil rights?



When we see list done by boxing "historians" its littered with past great white hopes.








Its all done to preserve history.

There's a reason why as civil rights started getting momentum, the number of great white fighters started declining. In fact, this happened in almost all sports especially basketball and baseball.

Today is not as bad and back then wasnt all its cracked up to be.

Thank you i actually agree with you 100 percent,sports writers musings of the event are not enough for me a lot of them are heavily biased.

[DragonBox]

same will happen in MMA. bum fighters like royce gracie, ken shamrock, mark coleman, etc... guys who wouldn't be top 200 in this day in age, are all time greats because they were fighting when there was no "talent" in mma.

no ones saying they're the best, just that they're the pioneers of their sport

[The Tase]

same will happen in MMA. bum fighters like royce gracie, ken shamrock, mark coleman, etc... guys who wouldn't be top 200 in this day in age, are all time greats because they were fighting when there was no "talent" in mma.

at least there's film on shamrock, gracy, coleman, and you forgot dan severn.

You can make a honest analytical take on their fighting skills.

What irks me is all these alleged boxing historians ranking someone like harry greb so high when there is no freaking footage.

then i see posters like irondanhamza making lists and putting a buncha fighters he has never seen himself nor has footage and say these fighters are better than fighters that we have extensive footage on.

its ridiculous, asinine, and quite dishonest.

Now you're trying to tell me not to trust what I'm watching, when the thread is supposed to tell me that I can't judge a fighter unless I can watch his fights. I'm watching, like you want me to, and I see that these fighters throw more, and go more rounds, with basically the same speed and strength as fighters today.

And who cares that welterweights come in weighing 160? Fighters back then fought guys who heavily outweighed them as well. And Mayweather and Pacquiao should make it very clear that such size differences don't matter nearly as much as the skill a fighter has. As should the beating Sergio just put on Chavez Jr.

who cares how big?

you're the one that posted that fighters today are the same as back then when in fact they are not.

they are bigger because of the 24 hr rehydration rule.

Thank you i actually agree with you 100 percent,sports writers musings of the event are not enough for me a lot of them are heavily biased.

can you imagine if we just judged someone like pacquiao based off boxing articles? remember how pac was described when he was prime? What about floyd?

Can you imagine just judging pac and floyd based off ronnie nathanielz and fighthype articles?

You would think these guys were ****ing omniscient interstellar aliens stopping by to play sports in planet earth.

its ridiculous to rank fighters who you have never seen and those who dont have fight footage.

its a matter of honesty and principle.

[StarshipTrooper]

LarryX and his butthurt alts

Poet