The oldschool of boxing is overrated

[Xpert]

No disrespect to the old boys, they're warriors, but as I study their resumes, they really DOES seem less impressive than the Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfields of modern times.

Frazier: He had 1 great win, Ali. To who he lost the two rematches. His second best win Quarry, a guy with a very flawed resume, and if anyone today had a loss like the one he Frazier had to Foreman back then, it would be considered "exposed".

Jerry Quarry: Lost to journeymen right and left and his best win was Earnie Shavers...

Earnie Shavers: He lost to journeymen right and left, got knocked out in round 1 by Quarry...

Rocky Marciano: His KO percentage and undefeated record seems impressive, but he got no great wins at all, we could hail Deontay Wilder today like many are hailing Marciano...

Just some examples. It's as if the old fighters are being hyped a lot to make each other seem better by beating each other. But we had guys like Lewis in modern times with far better resumes and more clear top quality wins.

I just don't get why so many prefer oldschool boxing, although yes, Ali and Foreman would both probably be on top today, but guys like Frazier, Shavers and Quarry would probably not even beat Holyfield... I'm trying to be realistic here.

[deliveryman]

No disrespect to the old boys, they're warriors, but as I study their resumes, they really DOES seem less impressive than the Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfields of modern times.

Frazier: He had 1 great win, Ali. To who he lost the two rematches. His second best win Quarry, a guy with a very flawed resume, and if anyone today had a loss like the one he Frazier had to Foreman back then, it would be considered "exposed".

Jerry Quarry: Lost to journeymen right and left and his best win was Earnie Shavers...

Earnie Shavers: He lost to journeymen right and left, got knocked out in round 1 by Quarry...

Just some examples. It's as if the old fighters are being hyped a lot to make each other seem better by beating each other. But we had guys like Lewis in modern times with far better resumes and more clear top quality wins.

I just don't get why so many prefer oldschool boxing, although yes, Ali and Foreman would both probably be on top today, but guys like Frazier, Shavers and Quarry would probably not even beat Holyfield... I'm trying to be realistic here.

I agree.

When it comes to ranking all time greats, the disadvantage of modern fighters is that their fights aren't filmed in low resolution black and white.

There is no question that boxers today are FAR superior to those 60-100 years ago. And it's not even close.

The most humorous remark I hear on these boards is that Willie Pep would actually give Floyd Mayweather a competitive fight, let alone beat him

Or that any Heavyweight from that era would even last 4 rounds with a Klitschko

[Sgt.Pepper]

I agree.

When it comes to ranking all time greats, the disadvantage of modern fighters is that their fights aren't filmed in low resolution black and white.

There is no question that boxers today are FAR superior to those 60-100 years ago. And it's not even close.

The most humorous remark I hear on these boards is that Willie Pep would actually give Floyd Mayweather a competitive fight, let alone beat him

[Holywarrior]

Seriously? Holyfield is a top 40-50 ATG and Lennox is a top 4 heavyweight. That doesn't mean the old school guys were overrated at all.

There are just legitimately great fighters from the 80s on.

[Xpert]

I agree.

When it comes to ranking all time greats, the disadvantage of modern fighters is that their fights aren't filmed in low resolution black and white.

There is no question that boxers today are FAR superior to those 60-100 years ago. And it's not even close.

The most humorous remark I hear on these boards is that Willie Pep would actually give Floyd Mayweather a competitive fight, let alone beat him

Or that any Heavyweight from that era would even last 4 rounds with a Klitschko

That means you're realistic. It's easy to critisise the new stuff and hold on the old stuff, but times are changing and many boxers looks better than the old era. If David Haye had fought in the era of Muhammad Ali and Haye got a loss to Frazier, then people would hype David Haye a lot to make Frazier seem better. Floyd would destroy Pep, probably stop him.

However, don't hype the Klitschkos. Wladimir got a glassjaw and would beat Frazier only because of his size. Vitali is good, but I don't like that he never defeated anyone better than Corrie Sanders... There's a reason i mentioned Holyfield and Lewis and not the Klitschkos.

[Sgt.Pepper]

No disrespect to the old boys, they're warriors, but as I study their resumes, they really DOES seem less impressive than the Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfields of modern times.

Frazier: He had 1 great win, Ali. To who he lost the two rematches. His second best win Quarry, a guy with a very flawed resume, and if anyone today had a loss like the one he Frazier had to Foreman back then, it would be considered "exposed".

Jerry Quarry: Lost to journeymen right and left and his best win was Earnie Shavers...

Earnie Shavers: He lost to journeymen right and left, got knocked out in round 1 by Quarry...

Just some examples. It's as if the old fighters are being hyped a lot to make each other seem better by beating each other. But we had guys like Lewis in modern times with far better resumes and more clear top quality wins.

I just don't get why so many prefer oldschool boxing, although yes, Ali and Foreman would both probably be on top today, but guys like Frazier, Shavers and Quarry would probably not even beat Holyfield... I'm trying to be realistic here.

Who could Ross Purrity beat from the past??

Maybe you are quick to downplay the greats from the past because they don't look like you

THAT is what it is.

Not once did you mention Rocky Marciano...now I wonder why that is.

[Xpert]

Who could Ross Purrity beat from the past??

Maybe you are quick to downplay the greats from the past because they don't look like you

THAT is what it is.

Not once did you mention Rocky Marciano...now I wonder why that is.

I'm black, you stupid idiot, and Marciano is so unimpressive that I forgot about him. I'm impressed by his KO rate, but other than that, I thought that all of us knew he wasn't that good.

And Quarry is white too...

[Sugarj]

I agree.

When it comes to ranking all time greats, the disadvantage of modern fighters is that their fights aren't filmed in low resolution black and white.

There is no question that boxers today are FAR superior to those 60-100 years ago. And it's not even close.

The most humorous remark I hear on these boards is that Willie Pep would actually give Floyd Mayweather a competitive fight, let alone beat him

Or that any Heavyweight from that era would even last 4 rounds with a Klitschko

Please go and watch some fights of Pep in his prime. The guy looks absolutely superb and his skills look terrific to to my eyes. No old timer rose tinted glasses thing going on at all.

There are definitely some of his fights filmed in good quality black and white footage. You might be surprised........

[Xpert]

Please go and watch some fights of Pep in his prime. The guy looks absolutely superb and his skills look terrific to to my eyes. No old timer rose tinted glasses thing going on at all.

There are definitely some of his fights filmed in good quality black and white footage. You might be surprised........

Pep was a good boxer, his insane record speaks for itself, but he was from a weaker era. Floyd would probably stop him or get a UD.

[Holywarrior]

Pep was a good boxer, his insane record speaks for itself, but he was from a weaker era. Floyd would probably stop him or get a UD.

Just because Pep could possibly lose to Mayweather doesnt make him overrated