Will people ever STOP OVERRATING old primitive era boxers with little skill?

[Rick Taylor]

A 38 year old washed up version. So yes, fury would also beat that version of Ali too as well as povetkin.

Clay lost to Frazier and got beat up by bum Norton three times.
What excuses do you have for those fights?

[Marchegiano]

Clay lost to Frazier and got beat up by bum Norton three times.
What excuses do you have for those fights?

Bum Norton?

[buddyr]

Clay lost to Frazier and got beat up by bum Norton three times.
What excuses do you have for those fights?

Norton would beat a lot of the guys today and Fraizer would too. Joshua was ko'd by a fat out of shape fighter that he was supposed to beat easily. Wilder is trash and has always been (as I have stated for years. Do search). Fury is just big and has beat nothing but bums(wilder included). The HW division right now is trash. I think I've been pretty consistent on stating that over the years. As bad as Wladamir's era was(and it was bad too), he beats all of these guys today. ****, lamon brewster and corrie sanders slow azz are better than the hws today. These guys are just big. Michael Grant would fit in great today with big lumbering hws because he was trash too. I knew that when an older Ice Cole gave him all he could handle before retiring in his corner. Also after Golota was beating his azz, while ahead on the cards big, and decided to quit at the end of the fight lol.

I'm just not impressed with what I'm seeing from most fighters today period. If you're gonna fight bums, at least do it 5 or 6 times a year. 2 fights a year against guys with no chance in hell of beating you or in there for a pay check is not impressive. Beat 5 or 6 of those bums a year like Chavez used to do at his peak of popularity. At least do that much. We also have to factor in that the top guys today don't even fight each other anymore. BAD when started in the late 90s on HBO was a showcase for young up and coming fighters to make a name for each other. We saw a lot of guys putting their undefeated record on the line against other top undefeated prospects. A Chris Byrd vs Ibeabuchi fight would NEVER happen in today's climate of 6 belts per division, A-side arguments, 2 fights a year.. And you think I'm supposed to be grateful for watching these puzzies today duck each other when I was born in the 70s and grew up watching guys like Starlon and Curry in the 80s and 90s fight each other while taking on fights that were 50/50?

[Gandhi]

I don't consider Dempsey top 10 of all time but almost everything else you wrote was dumber than the article you're criticising.

The eye test matters but so does the fact that film of guys like Dempsey is very poor compared to current standards, the low frame rate, grainy image, only one camera angle. Jack Johnson was a master of inside fighting but a lot of that is not fully captured on film because of the video quality. Johnson was perhaps a better inside fighter than anybody of the last 20 years. But if a young boxer wanted to study an ATG they would pick somebody more recent because the camera picks up so much more these days.

People say 'Jack Johnson wasn't that skilled, only beat smaller men' but when you point to Dempsey wins against big guys 'yeah they were big but ******'. So there always an argument against the achievements of the older era. It's always hard to compare people a century apart so you have to put a lot of consideration on if they beat the best of their era and how dominant they were.

I think Dempsey would KO AJ. Dempsey was a huge star, especially in New York. AJ would have to go there and have a panic attack even worse because the crowd would be heavily against him, and his opponent even more aggressive. Dempsey hit harder than Ruiz, fought with more ferocity, and had quicker feet. Fury would beat Dempsey, but likely it would be through using his size, strength, unpredictability. Clinch when they expect a punch, punch when they expect you to clinch. Feints, unorthodox angles, taunting the opponent. Which are all the exact same tactics that Jack Johnson developed, perfected, and influenced the entire sport with. So old fighters obviously had some skill...

You're actually dumber than the guy you're calling dumb. Dempsey won't last 2 rds against LHW of this era & he would get his head splattered everywhere.

[Gandhi]

The only decent boxers from the ancient times are Joe Louis and Sugar Ray Robinson. The rest were trash.

I don't know why people talk about Dempsey when he never even fought a legit black boxer in his own era. It's basically like saying basketball players from the ancient times when black players couldn't compete are better than today's NBA players.

I understand the need for "the great white hope" but stop comparing bums who fought when all races weren't allowed to compete with modern athletes who come from the most advance stock of human beings and are competing against every race of people.

[buddyr]

The only decent boxers from the ancient times are Joe Louis and Sugar Ray Robinson. The rest were trash.

I don't know why people talk about Dempsey when he never even fought a legit black boxer in his own era. It's basically like saying basketball players from the ancient times when black players couldn't compete are better than today's NBA players.

I understand the need for "the great white hope" but stop comparing bums who fought when all races weren't allowed to compete with modern athletes who come from the most advance stock of human beings and are competing against every race of people.

50-70 years ago is not ancient lol. And Turpin gave Robinson all he could handle. I do believe either Robinson or Armstrong are the greatest of all time, but there were fighters that Robinson avoided as well. I don't disagree with what some of what you have said.

As for the 60s and 70s era of basketball, that era back then was harder than today's NBA.

- Less teams meant you were playing what would be hall of famers damn never every night
- back to back games were a regular occurrence as the season was condensed which led to shorter career as less time for recovery was present. Factor in that there were no guaranteed contracts so players played hurt, hiding injuries out of fear of losing their contract.
- physical play in the 60s NBA games was tougher than the NFL today. Most players in the NBA back then had false teeth because they were always getting knocked out in games. Wilt lost a tooth and could have died from an infection due to one of his teeth being pushed into his gums during a game. Potential Hall of famer Maurice Stokes ended up being paralyzed from a foul in a game that led to his death

add in that the refs called a really tight game as the NBA wasn't about high scoring for kids and college bball was the way more popular. The NBA today is a goddamn joke. Constant traveling, ticky tack fouls, has taken defense out of the game and turned that bs into a circus. What's considered a flagrant now would probably not even be called as a foul in other eras. John Stockton wrote in his autobiography that during his rookie year, he went to the basket and was clotheslined in a game. He went to the ref for help and was told, "you shouldn't go down there"

[sicko]

This Thread Exposes a lot and confirms what I already knew about many of this forum


Just because you're completely F^cking Ignorant on the History of this great sport, don't try to downplay and disrespect LEGENDS all because you want to try and convince everybody that your favorite Current fighter is the greatest or some BS

The Bar is not going to be Lowered for fighters today nor should it! You want to be considered a all time great like them...EARN IT!

[15round]

I just got finished reading a RING MAGAZINE article from a few years in degust, for several different reasons. One being how ring magazine and many boxing fans/journalist/critiques, disregard the EYE TEST.

For example, this particular had Jack Dempsey as the 5th greatest heavyweight of all time . Dempsey in his prime was 190 pounds, had no skill (neither did his opponents) and would get CRUSHED by an average amateur middleweight of today?

I recall one idiot (FROM THIS MESSAGE BOARD) saying how fighters were so great back then "because they fought 30-40 rounds". The reason they were able to fight all those rounds was because they didn't do anything but circle each other and hold. If you fight 30 rounds in a Boxing match that means your not doing anything.

Logic gets thrown out the window when it comes to old primitive boxers.

Will people ever stop overrating old fighters from the past?

What a DUMBASS!

[Rick Taylor]

Bum Norton?

What part don't you understand about me calling Norton a bum?

[strykr619]

Fight IQ is universal. Jack Dempsey's IQ for boxing was pretty insane. Those "old timers" fought more often, at a more vicious pace and refs didn't save your ass.