Why is it always over looked when comparing the old greatsto today's fighters

[Cus tomato]

The amount of absolute no hopers they used to fight on a regular basis padding their records immensely.even the great Robinson was fighting fighter when he was in his prime with 30 40 50 odd losses.joe Louis's resume was piss poor at best,fair enough he beat who was out there but he is no where near as good as he is made out to be.and the list goes on

[madsweeney]

One major factor among all sports keeps the old greats revered....nobody did it before. You think Mayweather would have been the boxer he is if nobody came up with the philly shell yet. The classics were game changers coming up with new techniques that those who came later benefited from.

Training, fighting, nutrition, all aspects of the sport are built upon the knowledge of our predecessors. That is what makes modern fighters able to focus more on their skills rather than figure things out for their own like the old greats had to and that is a huge advantage.

[Ham Porter]

Go look up the amount of ranked contenders Louis and Robinson fought and then compare it to any fighter today.

Thread is ****** and invalid.

[El-blanco]

One major factor among all sports keeps the old greats revered....nobody did it before. You think Mayweather would have been the boxer he is if nobody came up with the philly shell yet. The classics were game changers coming up with new techniques that those who came later benefited from.

Training, fighting, nutrition, all aspects of the sport are built upon the knowledge of our predecessors. That is what makes modern fighters able to focus more on their skills rather than figure things out for their own like the old greats had to and that is a huge advantage.

Go look up the amount of ranked contenders Louis and Robinson fought and then compare it to any fighter today.

Thread is ****** and invalid.

All that needs to be said.

[Beercules]

One major factor among all sports keeps the old greats revered....nobody did it before. You think Mayweather would have been the boxer he is if nobody came up with the philly shell yet. The classics were game changers coming up with new techniques that those who came later benefited from.

Training, fighting, nutrition, all aspects of the sport are built upon the knowledge of our predecessors. That is what makes modern fighters able to focus more on their skills rather than figure things out for their own like the old greats had to and that is a huge advantage.

This is a very good post.

[Cus tomato]

Robinson has many a great name on his record but if you filter out the garbage in between I don't think his achievements outweight pax mans.
I know it's blasphemy in boxing to suggest that but look at the streak of fighters pac fought from ledebwa onwards,you could easily throw 5 or 6 no hopers I between each of them fighters and his record would be compatible to srr.i'm not disrespecting Robinson,he was ahead of his time and a tremendous fighter it's just when people say it is impossible to surpass him it's nonesence as good as he was

[dan_cov]

Like todays fighters records aren't padded with a load of rubbish. Most of the top fighters only have a few good wins max.

Those no-hopers/fillers was no worse than Leapai, Pulev, Whack, Pianeta, Mormeck and so on. Only have you noticed nobody talks about them but praises Wladimir for fighting these bums?

''Oh Leapai has less losses, so da win is better doe''
''Pulev was undefeated so he must be better''
''Whack is a lumbering tower of **** so he is better cause they was only 6ft3 back in the day''

Its absolute ******ity.

[-MAKAVELLI-]

like Gary Russel and Leo Sta Cruz and Danny Garcia?

[Cus tomato]

I don't rate klitschko's resume either and his style of fighting is terrible so I agree with you on that,

[Cus tomato]

I don't think anyone would class them as greats tho