Great boxers of the past, are they really much a better fighter than this era?

[straightleft]

I don't understand why some people were held them in higher pedestal like it seems nobody can beat them in fantasy fight against these our very own new generation of fighters. The question is WHY?

1. Is that because they were much more skillful?
2. Is that because they were much more physically gifted?
3. Is that because they were much more accomplished resume wise?
4. Undefeated? I don't think so.

[straightleft]

Boxing in the past....they said, some boxers they did took drugs, alcohol or whatever to aid them in their fights as there are no proper or mandatory testing back then. Even though there was...they had many holes even a truck can pass through I think. So their wins could be a suspect plus if you add the mafia style matches fixing.

[Rockin']

I believe that this mind set comes because back in the day there was a vast ocean full of good fighters who would fight each other tooth and nail and then do it again like a month or two later because the people loved it and there was some money to be made.

Today we have a sea of good fighters who will not take on tough competition in fear of losing that 0 in the lose column. We now have promoters signing fighters to multi fight deals and if the promoters don't like each other, their boys won't fight. If one promoter has the belt in a division he won't let his boy fight another promoters fighter in fear of losing the belt, instead he'll make him fight somebody out of his own stable of fighters.

See, back then men fought for the sake of fighting, abit of change and some time in the spot light. Now they seem to fight for...... money. Against the weakest competition that they think that they can sell to the public.

I think that the most stupid thing in the boxing publics eyes is believing that a guy with a few losses is washed up or can not fight. The best fighters ever have 5 loses, 10 loses, 15 losses and even more.

Back then a fighter might fight 3 or 4 times in a month because of the enormous popularity back then, there were shows going everywhere. Today the shows seem few and far between compared to those days and spot light on the promoters fighters who are matched up so that they should all come out with wins.

I think a big part of the problem is that a promoter can sign fighters to huge deals and then set them up with easy wins. What happened to back in the day when a manager would find fights and put his boy against another boy because there was money to be made even if it was a risky fight for his boy. That all goes back to nobody wanting to lose the 0 in their lost column or maybe add another loss in there. People really need to get over a loss a know that it can happen to the best of them on any given night.

To sum it up, I believe that many hardcore fight fans believe that fighters today are spoon fed, and rightfully so. A fighter can get a title shot today with out ever beating somebody in the top 10 or top 20. That fighter gets quickly exposed and taken out by the champ and the public feels like they've had one pulled on them. Forget about losses and look at the skill, Emanual Augustus and Freddie Pendleton are great examples of fighters with losses and alot of skill. Back then it was really tough coming up, you had good fighters everywhere wanting to fight eachother. Today we have the p4p champion hand picking opponents instead of taking the best fight they could put together. I was told that nobody will hold your hand through this sport, but that doesn't really seem true anymore..........Rockin'

[straightleft]

I believe that this mind set comes because back in the day there was a vast ocean full of good fighters who would fight each other tooth and nail and then do it again like a month or two later because the people loved it and there was some money to be made.

Today we have a sea of good fighters who will not take on tough competition in fear of losing that 0 in the lose column. We now have promoters signing fighters to multi fight deals and if the promoters don't like each other, their boys won't fight. If one promoter has the belt in a division he won't let his boy fight another promoters fighter in fear of losing the belt, instead he'll make him fight somebody out of his own stable of fighters.

See, back then men fought for the sake of fighting, abit of change and some time in the spot light. Now they seem to fight for...... money. Against the weakest competition that they think that they can sell to the public.

I think that the most stupid thing in the boxing publics eyes is believing that a guy with a few losses is washed up or can not fight. The best fighters ever have 5 loses, 10 loses, 15 losses and even more.

Back then a fighter might fight 3 or 4 times in a month because of the enormous popularity back then, there were shows going everywhere. Today the shows seem few and far between compared to those days and spot light on the promoters fighters who are matched up so that they should all come out with wins.

I think a big part of the problem is that a promoter can sign fighters to huge deals and then set them up with easy wins. What happened to back in the day when a manager would find fights and put his boy against another boy because there was money to be made even if it was a risky fight for his boy. That all goes back to nobody wanting to lose the 0 in their lost column or maybe add another loss in there. People really need to get over a loss a know that it can happen to the best of them on any given night.

To sum it up, I believe that many hardcore fight fans believe that fighters today are spoon fed, and rightfully so. A fighter can get a title shot today with out ever beating somebody in the top 10 or top 20. That fighter gets quickly exposed and taken out by the champ and the public feels like they've had one pulled on them. Forget about losses and look at the skill, Emanual Augustus and Freddie Pendleton are great examples of fighters with losses and alot of skill. Back then it was really tough coming up, you had good fighters everywhere wanting to fight eachother. Today we have the p4p champion hand picking opponents instead of taking the best fight they could put together. I was told that nobody will hold your hand through this sport, but that doesn't really seem true anymore..........Rockin'

Good post and I agree most of the part what you said but one thing is bothering me. In my opinion, if someone was so great in the past...somewhere along the way someone will be born and possible will be greater than this man but the problem it is almost impossible to prove other than take a cue from others opinion. Which it has many flaws around it. I think the best way is we should look into other sports to determine the greats of the past if someone can be greater than them in this era. In other sports like the Olympic, past great world records were shattered by athletes in this era. If that were possible boxing should be no different regardless of what any reasons.

[AFighter4U]

I don't understand why some people were held them in higher pedestal like it seems nobody can beat them in fantasy fight against these our very own new generation of fighters. The question is WHY?

1. Is that because they were much more skillful?
2. Is that because they were much more physically gifted?
3. Is that because they were much more accomplished resume wise?
4. Undefeated? I don't think so.

Don't you know? If any of the fighters today achieve or even surpass any accomplishment of the greats..... they're obviously juicing.

and even subjecting themselves to random testing just isn't enough to dispel that doubt.

[champ_kw]

I think there was more emphasis on the skill aspect than the knockout spectacle. U have fighters who are visibly limited skillwise getting a great deal of props (Tyson, Tito, and to a lesser level Jeff Lacy, etc) in this era because they can knockout someone. When u witness someone that people claim is an all time great get dominated by one punch (Winky vs Tito), or circling away from a fighters strong hand (Hopkins vs Pavlik) u realize just how limited the "stars" are on a skill set level.

Another issue is the patience of the boxing fan. Fans used to watch 15-18 rounds of boxing with no problem. But a fighter with a penchant for outclassing his opponent over a duration of a fight is labeled boring. Its all relative.

[BG_Knocc_Out]

For their time they were great. But I think it's extremely ridiculous when people claim that Dempsey could KO either Klitschko in two rounds. A lot of people forget that boxing, much like every on going thing in this world, has been much more developed since it's beginning stages. You know, the Louis', Burley's, Armstrong's, Pep's, Moore's, etc. all were creators, or partly creators of advancement, to better and more efficient techniques that have to be tested and tweaked for further generations. They didn't have the guidance to the boxing knowledge that your average journeymen has access to now.

[straightleft]

Don't you know? If any of the fighters today achieve or even surpass any accomplishment of the greats..... they're obviously juicing.

and even subjecting themselves to random testing just isn't enough to dispel that doubt.

That is true and they didn't even think twice about the fighters of the past they could be using any kind of drugs like cocaine or whatever as there was no testing or better testing back then.

[RubenSonny]

Good post and I agree most of the part what you said but one thing is bothering me. In my opinion, if someone was so great in the past...somewhere along the way someone will be born and possible will be greater than this man but the problem it is almost impossible to prove other than take a cue from others opinion. Which it has many flaws around it. I think the best way is we should look into other sports to determine the greats of the past if someone can be greater than them in this era. In other sports like the Olympic, past great world records were shattered by athletes in this era. If that were possible boxing should be no different regardless of what any reasons.

The way to determine how great a fighter is by what they did and who they beat, you can say so andso could beat so and so but proof is solid whereas a prediction is not.

As for the bolded Boxing is completely different, the records that are broken are in sports where their is conservative and repetitive movement and your competing against a time or distance which is objective, boxing is absolutely different in that your trying to outpoint an opponent and this can be done with a variety of styles in a very dynamic motions, and its hugely subjective. Comparing athletics to boxing simply doesn't work, how many times have we seen the unathletic fighter beat the more physically gifted one, its such a complex sport with a ridiculous amount of variables, its extremely difficult to break down.

[straightleft]

For their time they were great. But I think it's extremely ridiculous when people claim that Dempsey could KO either Klitschko in two rounds. A lot of people forget that boxing, much like every on going thing in this world, has been much more developed since it's beginning stages. You know, the Louis', Burley's, Armstrong's, Pep's, Moore's, etc. all were creators, or partly creators of advancement, to better and more efficient techniques that have to be tested and tweaked for further generations. They didn't have the guidance to the boxing knowledge that your average journeymen has access to now.

Indeed. To be realistic, boxers of today have better access to everything they need to excel in this sport. Better coaches, gym, training equipments, nutritions, technique and many more compared to the past. Just like Floyd and the others who benefited from the enviroment they grew into.