The Past vs the Present - different arguments

[StarshipTrooper]

I don't need to read my post history - I know, what I have said.

It is YOU, who claim, that in practically every post in this and the parallel thread, I'm implying that the present is significantly better than any other era. So I'm asking you: Where in this thread have I said something that makes you think that? Can you not answer a simple question like that?

It's pretty damn clear where you come down on the issue. Are you denying it? If so stop being coy and tell what your position is instead of snarking at people defending earlier eras.

[StarshipTrooper]

What, one is not allowed to have an opinion that one era is superior to another era, for that would be taken as era bias, which StarshipTrooper hates? His small load of points hates this.

All eras are the same now? I would like to know if ST feels the same 'hatred' in his gut when someone favors the contemporary era. Doubtful.

I favor older eras. He hate me.

Actually, my criticism is being directed to someone who DOES favor the contemporary era. A bias towards contemporary boxing is epidemic on Boxing Scene. I've run into very few posters who have a clear bias towards pre-1970s boxing, for example.

[TonyGe]

Its not a fair fight. Historians get to pick from the best fighters in the last 100 years. Longer if records were kept. LOL.
I did some internet searching and came up with this.
From Wiki
The earliest evidence for fist fighting with any kind of gloves can be found on Minoan Crete (c.1650–1400 BCE), and on Sardinia, if we consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains (c. 2000–1000 BC).[2]

[TonyGe]

More trivia nobody gives a **** about.
Apparently in Ancient Greece there was a champion named Glaucus.

Wikipedia:

The fullest account of his life is given by Pausanias, according to whom Glaucus claimed descent from the marine god Glaucus. It is said that while still a boy, Glaucus refixed a ploughshare which had dropped out of its place by the blows of his fist, without the help of a hammer. His father, observing that, had him participate in the boxing competition at the Olympic games. Having had no previous training, Glaucus was severely injured by his opponents, and was about to pass out during the final fight, but his father encouraged him with the words "Son, the plough tough", whereupon Glaucus defeated his opponent with a final blow. He subsequently became a renowned boxer, winning all his victories. His statue at Olympia was made by Glaucias of Aegina at the request of his son. Glaucus was said to have been buried on an island which later bore his name.[2][3]

Didn't Duran knock out a horse???
What if......

[Bundana]

It's pretty damn clear where you come down on the issue. Are you denying it? If so stop being coy and tell what your position is instead of snarking at people defending earlier eras.

So you refuse to answer one simple question - and instead come up with new allegations. Ok...

Well, it's not all bad... as I have now learned a new word: "snarking". I had never heard that before, but after googling it, I found this definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary: "Critical comments that are made in order to hurt someone's feelings".

So I guess "snarking" is that thing Ray does all the time, in just about every post he makes here. So how come you accuse me of snarking, but are never critical of him?

Also, if you really despise era bias as much as you say you do, why have you never called Ray out on this? I mean, his contempt for the present is there for all to see, but apparently you're fine with that, when it's him. Why is that?

[The Old LefHook]

By God, let's set the eras straight, then, with regards to their boxing customs and techniques.

I believe going back 30 years is enough to fix as the modern era. If people want 40, OK. I say fighters pre 1977 were superior 'in many ways' to moderns. There are two sides to that coin.

Fighters became quite experienced while still in their physical primes. This can happen when you have already boxed and trained for ten years before you even reach your physical prime, as Ray has sagaciously pointed out. Lots of amateur fights and then lots of pro fights, all in a hurry. Joshua would be laugable to men of old as a champ, he has no experience. I see clearly that a good fighter will knock him off sooner rather than later, unless management protects him via paper mandatories.

The other side of the coin. Fighters wore out faster in the older era. You can't have that many fights without the wear and tear that goes with them. That is why all the longevity records have been crushed in the modern era. Customs are now much easier on fighters' bodies, so their (successful) careers last accordingly longer.

In mythical matchups it is simply necessary to put the modern with 30 fights into the ring with the ancient who has had 60-75 fights, to ensure they are both in their physical primes and therefore theoretically at their mutual best.

As for the equipment used in mythical matchups, that is for the sporting individual to decide, but I always prefer going back to the tougher times for my fighting conditions, i.e., 15 rounds, smaller gloves, less sensitive referees, same day weigh-ins and no standing eight count. I would keep the rule that a fighter must go to a neutral corner during a knockdown count.

We cannot put a Robinson who has been fighting every two weeks into the ring with a Leonard who is well rested between bouts and trained to a peak. Robinson gets a nice rest, too, only if he prefers it. Robinson of about 1946, against the Leonard in the Duran II or first Hearns fight. Why would we want to speculate on anything less than two opponents at their very best? We wouldn't, would we?

First you must decide the rules, equipment and conditions. Then the boys are ready to go. Now we can argue about something.

[StarshipTrooper]

So you refuse to answer one simple question - and instead come up with new allegations. Ok...

Well, it's not all bad... as I have now learned a new word: "snarking". I had never heard that before, but after googling it, I found this definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary: "Critical comments that are made in order to hurt someone's feelings".

So I guess "snarking" is that thing Ray does all the time, in just about every post he makes here. So how come you accuse me of snarking, but are never critical of him?

Also, if you really despise era bias as much as you say you do, why have you never called Ray out on this? I mean, his contempt for the present is there for all to see, but apparently you're fine with that, when it's him. Why is that?

I haven't seen Ray post since I've been back. I've been away for three years and wasn't even aware he was still around. If I recall correctly, Ray, while certainly critical of the current era, wasn't particularly biased in favor of any specific earlier era. If I see him nuthugging on, say, the 1940s (or any other era you want to insert), I'll make note of it. Bear in mind that doesn't mean extolling the virtues of a weight class within a particular era as the quality of individual weight classes fluctuates wildly from era to era.

Example: The Heavyweight division from 1965 to 1975 was very strong, while from 1975 to 1990 is was very weak. When one division is up, another is down, so it balances out.

[The Old LefHook]

List your top ten ATG fighters in any division, and it is likely that a pairing between them at random will produce a difficult fight for both.

One quality about ATG's does not change: they are used to finding a way in their guts, overcoming the impossible. They will fight each with those attitudes. I believe the odds favor a difficult fight in most cases when any ATG is paired with another. This is as expected. By Jehovah, there are top contenders from any era that would give most ATG champions a good run.

From experience, we know something else about them--almost without exception they have granite chins. None will go out easily. KO artists may be lucky to win a decision in such a contest. I believe mythical matchups between ATG's would usually require everything they had to edge a victory, including outstanding endurance.

There should reasonably be a lot of decisions in these matchups of sterling chins. Let's face it, Robinson and Hagler are not likely to go out, even from each other's thrashing.

* * * * *

Knowledge possessed by former eras is always there for the studious minded modern boxer, on film somewhere, to add layers to their own game.

Theoreticaloly, someone with enough talent, widely knowledgable trainers and drive, could absorb it all, and be one of the few complete fighters ever. I have a couple of conjectures as to why we hardly ever see a complete fighter.

1 Those who lack super talent usually lose their drive, or even they might become complete.

2 The super talented are able to make millions and beat everyone else long before they have become complete in the sense of aborbing past traditions and classical techniques fully. At that point, their attitude is likely to become: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[aboutfkntime]

An important factor, but certainly not the only factor, for why the performance levels in sport has improved over time is the technological advances in the equipment. So for example in sprinting there have been major improvements in the track, shoes, suits and blocks. What improvements in the boxing equipment that has been made have at best only had a very small improvement in the quality boxing (mostly it has just made boxing safer and fairer). This is why the improvements in boxing have been significantly less pronounced than in most other sports.

As to your claims about Olympic records, the oldest Olympic record is from 1968 set in the Long Jump by Bob Beamon. That was an extraordinary jump, way beyond Beamon's previous ever best but it was also helped significantly by the Olympics being at high altitude. Anyway the vast majority of the records were set in the 2000s. As for world records I think maybe 1986 is the oldest world record and again the majority of the records are from the 2000s and almost all the rest from the 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_athletics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._athletics#Men

For all the best athletics times go to this website
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/men.htm

That video you posted was interesting, I love that sort of experiment but as an experiment it was far from conclusive but I do like how it does highlight the advantages that modern athletes have over their ancestors.

I would not at all be surprised if a prime Nunn defeated a prime Golovkin but no way would he make a fool of Golovkin. Again you are using poor evidence, you are comparing a prime Nunn with a 34 year old Golovkin. At 30 years old Nunn was losing to Steve Little, at 31 to Frankie Liles and at 34 to Rocchigiani.

not sure if I believe that ?

I think it is much easier now, than back in the day

1) life was harder, period
2) there was only one title, so only one path
3) there were only 8 weight divisions
4) everyone wanted to fight the best, because that is where the money was, so the competition was fierce
5) they fought more often
6) there was no welfare, hence the boxing term, bringing home the bacon

boxing has changed HUGELY

just having 4 sanctioning bodies made boxing 300% easier to succeed

[aboutfkntime]

You make some good points but there are other factors as well. A lot of records may have been set in the 2000's but once again how many of them were due to technology improvements? some sports are also very new so it makes sense that every year they improve. If you look at boxing, the sport was already experienced even in the 1940's. Compare a 1940's basketball player to a top level boxer from 1940. The basketball player looks like a total amateur compared to a modern day player or anyone after 1980 even.

Also, GGG turned pro later. his prime is right now. age doesn't mean everything. Tysons prime was 21. Hopkins prime was probably 38-39. The best version of GGG isn't 23 years of age.

Another huge factor is that olympic records are often just numerical scores. All a person has to do is compete with that number. There are a lot less variables involved in beating a sprinting record for example.

lastly I could easily see a peak nunn making a fool of GGG. who has GGG even beat, let alone fought?

the WBA " regular " title did not even exist back when Hopkins was doing his thing.....

the current system made it much easier for Golovkin