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

[Rick Taylor]

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?

Norton and Frazier would be even more overrated if Foreman hadn't been around to exposes them.

Frazier would struggle with modern Cruisers. Wilder would Knock him out cold.

Alfred Cole And Michael Grant were bums. Since when was Corrie Sanders slow?

[Marchegiano]

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

Not even half decent? Straight bum city?

[Rick Taylor]

Not even half decent? Straight bum city?

It's Ken Norton bro.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Will modern boxing fans ever stop overrating modern fights who fight twice a year against guys they know they'll beat?

[QueensburyRules]

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?

- -Why U in premature global warming?

[shza]

I just read a book about this called “The Arc of Boxing” by Mike Silver, which argues that boxing is the ONLY sport where athletes have actually regressed since the 1950s. While their total disregard for modern boxers is irritating, the author and interviewees made some great points:

1. Old school boxers fought as much as 25 times per year.
2. Fighting more often exposed them to every conceivable style which made these guys much more clever and versatile. It was unheard of win a title after only 20 fights... a cagey vet with experience would expose you.
3. There were thousands of boxers to fight from the 20s to 50s (6000 in the USA alone at one point) and only one champ per division, which made competition fierce.
4. Almost every division was stacked, especially from the 30s on when black fighters were allowed to compete for the world titles. That undisputed greats like SRR and Willie Pep took Ls (however few) speaks volumes.

The book goes on about the lack of great trainers and the falling out of favor of certain fighting styles but I’ll stop here by saying just watch some videos of SRR, Joe Louis, Kid Gavilan, Willie Pep, and Sandy Saddler and some of the beatings or schoolings they put on top competition. Pay attention to the timing, footwork, head movement, strategies and remorselessness. While I’m hesitant to mention Dempsey, Greb or Jack Johnson because there’s just not that much tape available, the guys I mentioned and any other great from the 30s-50s are the real deal and it’s hard to argue otherwise.

[Bandman]

send this to Breadman. I'll love to read his response lol

[_Rexy_]

Yes, Dempsey would be too small for today’s heavyweights, but he would be the top guy in whatever division he fought in today. Calling him no a no talent fighter who would get beat by an amateur middleweight just shows you’re an idiot.

[buddyr]

I just read a book about this called “The Arc of Boxing” by Mike Silver, which argues that boxing is the ONLY sport where athletes have actually regressed since the 1950s. While their total disregard for modern boxers is irritating, the author and interviewees made some great points:

1. Old school boxers fought as much as 25 times per year.
2. Fighting more often exposed them to every conceivable style which made these guys much more clever and versatile. It was unheard of win a title after only 20 fights... a cagey vet with experience would expose you.
3. There were thousands of boxers to fight from the 20s to 50s (6000 in the USA alone at one point) and only one champ per division, which made competition fierce.
4. Almost every division was stacked, especially from the 30s on when black fighters were allowed to compete for the world titles. That undisputed greats like SRR and Willie Pep took Ls (however few) speaks volumes.

The book goes on about the lack of great trainers and the falling out of favor of certain fighting styles but I’ll stop here by saying just watch some videos of SRR, Joe Louis, Kid Gavilan, Willie Pep, and Sandy Saddler and some of the beatings or schoolings they put on top competition. Pay attention to the timing, footwork, head movement, strategies and remorselessness. While I’m hesitant to mention Dempsey, Greb or Jack Johnson because there’s just not that much tape available, the guys I mentioned and any other great from the 30s-50s are the real deal and it’s hard to argue otherwise.

I have that book among others. The Sweet Science is a great one as well. You are correct

[ShoulderRoll]

I just read a book about this called “The Arc of Boxing” by Mike Silver, which argues that boxing is the ONLY sport where athletes have actually regressed since the 1950s. While their total disregard for modern boxers is irritating, the author and interviewees made some great points:

1. Old school boxers fought as much as 25 times per year.
2. Fighting more often exposed them to every conceivable style which made these guys much more clever and versatile. It was unheard of win a title after only 20 fights... a cagey vet with experience would expose you.
3. There were thousands of boxers to fight from the 20s to 50s (6000 in the USA alone at one point) and only one champ per division, which made competition fierce.
4. Almost every division was stacked, especially from the 30s on when black fighters were allowed to compete for the world titles. That undisputed greats like SRR and Willie Pep took Ls (however few) speaks volumes.

The book goes on about the lack of great trainers and the falling out of favor of certain fighting styles but I’ll stop here by saying just watch some videos of SRR, Joe Louis, Kid Gavilan, Willie Pep, and Sandy Saddler and some of the beatings or schoolings they put on top competition. Pay attention to the timing, footwork, head movement, strategies and remorselessness. While I’m hesitant to mention Dempsey, Greb or Jack Johnson because there’s just not that much tape available, the guys I mentioned and any other great from the 30s-50s are the real deal and it’s hard to argue otherwise.

"The Arc of Boxing" is a great book. A must read for boxing fans, especially those who don't understand the greatness of the old timers.