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

[Inspired]

Just because that might apply to the Romans doesn't mean it applies to everything.

What new boxing technique has been invented since the old days? New age fans creamed their pants over Golovkin doing "shifting" but that has been around forever.

Look up the Fitzsimmons Shift. Or Dempsey's double shift.

when we judge 'greatness' we judge it off it's overall weight in it's time and place.

if you were to judge the greatness of the roman army based off our position today, you'd conclude that the romans were short little men who didnt posess guns and missiles, so would get annihilated by by even a third world army. obv that's not how we compare 'greatness'.
fury would beat ali..but that comparison is unfair and obv not possible anyway.

Athletes/boxers are getting bigger and stronger partly because of natural selection and eugenics...aswell as the BCAA's in the whey powder and other supplements and even just the general increased knowledge around diet.

[ShoulderRoll]

Athletes/boxers are getting bigger and stronger partly because of natural selection and eugenics...aswell as the BCAA's in the whey powder and other supplements and even just the general increased knowledge around diet.

So boxers are getting bigger and stronger, but not actually more skilled or with a higher a boxing IQ? Got it.

And no new technique advancements are being made. Instead the old ones are being forgotten. Many try to use the shoulder roll but can't get it right, just to give one example.

[Inspired]

So boxers are getting bigger and stronger, but not actually more skilled or with a higher a boxing IQ? Got it.

And no new technique advancements are being made. Instead the old ones are being forgotten. Many try to use the shoulder roll but can't get it right, just to give one example.

i didnt say anything about skill here..
my only point was that we can't compare different generations by talking about who beats who to gauge who was better, since it's a n/a scenario anyway.
the generation today being taller than the old, wasnt to argue that 'this generation is better', it was just to point out that it's due to natural selection, eugenics and diet.
so if you could imagine an ali born in this generation being taller and stronger in line with the above...then maybe we can start comparing..
but the problem there is there's no equation to work that one out. how would you look at the same age if you were born in 1930? a lot different im sure.

[ShoulderRoll]

i didnt say anything about skill here..
my only point was that we can't compare different generations by talking about who beats who to gauge who was better, since it's a n/a scenario anyway.
the generation today being taller than the old, wasnt to argue that 'this generation is better', it was just to point out that it's due to natural selection, eugenics and diet.
so if you could imagine an ali born in this generation being taller and stronger in line with the above...then maybe we can start comparing..
but the problem there is there's no equation to work that one out. how would you look at the same age if you were born in 1930? a lot different im sure.

I'm not arguing about diet or natural selection or supplements or training methods.

I'm saying that the old timers by and large could FIGHT better than the modern generation.

[shza]

i didnt say anything about skill here..
my only point was that we can't compare different generations by talking about who beats who to gauge who was better, since it's a n/a scenario anyway.
the generation today being taller than the old, wasnt to argue that 'this generation is better', it was just to point out that it's due to natural selection, eugenics and diet.
so if you could imagine an ali born in this generation being taller and stronger in line with the above...then maybe we can start comparing..
but the problem there is there's no equation to work that one out. how would you look at the same age if you were born in 1930? a lot different im sure.

I ain’t no biologist, but I know natural selection takes far more than 2-3 generations to produce appreciable changes ... It manifests a lot quicker in short-lived species like fruit flies but human beings? We’re talking tens of millennia...

Here’s an analogy for you: imagine there are two people trying to learn something (guitar, unicycle, whatever). Person A practices 20 times a month, whereas person B practices 2, maybe 3x a month. Who’s going to be better at the end of the month?

Same thing applies to boxers: obviously the guy who stays in fighting shape and fights 20x a year is going to get better, faster than the guy who fights 2x or 3x and gains weight in between. Pick any great modern boxer and imagine how great they’d be if they took as many risks and were as active as a SRR. It’s not genetic, it’s about experience and putting in WORK.

[Science]

Maybe if we're talking fighters pre 1930s but mid 1930s early 40s skill level improved a ton in boxing. Sugar Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Willie Pep, Billy Conn. Jersey Joe Walcott, Henry Armstrong.Their skills and talent passes the test of time.

I agree...there was a JUMP in talent in the 1940s..

[Ascended]

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?

Facts i have told these crazy idiots mutiple times to show me video of joe moving like the 70s-90s they refuse to cause it doesn't exist all it is is these outdated quotes like that can change video its odd

It has been said how joe could beat lennox yet fighting nobody ever like him

Mutiple blind trolls have said how wlad fights like canera yet wlad is way more tech advanced he fights with way better tech and throws from mutiple angles can never did and is way tougher

Joe is able to beat the modern 2nd joe from 70s yet joe stuggled with others

Joe is able to beat the most flashy mid level name in hw history which was a less polished ver of the greatest most flashy reflexer of all time Roy the man's name was byrd
yet joe had trouble with jers who was the most advanced mover in the black and white era before ali came and byrd moves way more them him and has way better defense and punches from way more angles he would destroy louis

It has been said mutiple even now that joe is the best skilled hw ever yet he isnt a hw compared to 70s-90s and is missing mutiple advances they had so its impossible for that to be true and its mutiple 70s-90s hws who would do great in his era and never lose which shows the advances I said

[Ascended]

I was mostly with you about a 190 pound fighter being crushed by the heavyweights of today.

When you went on to suggest that he had no skill, you just sounded ignorant.

No you sound ignorant your slow it means compared

[Ascended]

Lmao idiotic, Usyk would stand him on his head and no amount of "adaption" would help him.

Facts usk would embarrass that whole era and go undefeated with no stuggle

[Ascended]

You literally know NOTHING about boxing...

That quote makes no sense idiot cause its on video everything he said is fact you crazy idiot you literally can't see