Thread: Boxing can make the best case compared to other sports.......

.....in which previous participants as a whole from prior eras would dominate it's current era, by the widest margin.

I don't quite see that in regards to other sports.

Boxing can make the best case compared to other sports in the number of fans who nut hug previous generations and thinking prior generations would dominate today's generation by the widest margins.

yes, in all other sports that i know fans tend to accept that the current generation of players are the best that has ever been mainly down to the modern approaches, diet training guidance etc

only in boxing to people actualy think that prior generations would dominate

funny really

The scary thing is, if you could go back in a time machine and grab Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, ect, bring him back to present time and set up a fight with Wlad Klitschko, I'm willing to bet that at least half this board would pick the 170-190lb HW to knock Wlad out easy. It's hilarious how hard some people ride the cocks of the old timers.

Well it depends on the sport really. In boxing you have weight classes which makes things a little easier to judge era vs era.

In Soccer I reckon past greats would still run today's game if they were in their prime. Guys like Pele, Maradona, Best, Ronaldo, Romario, Beckenbauer, could cope in today's era I think.

In baseball I believe it's the same because although in the late 80's through the early 2000's you had the steroid era, but hell back in the day you had higher pitching mounds, bats that were heavier and sometimes actually held together with nails, the baseballs weren't wound as tight but still you had guys who could strike out great batters or hit great pitchers...I think that skill would translate.

Ice hockey the players have gotten a little bigger but the rule changes that have been made would have benefitted the older players who were just amazing. You telling me Gretzky couldn't play today? Or Fedorov? Or Bure? Give those guys the ability to accept a 2 line pass and it would be 10-0 vs the youngsters before you could bat an eye!

In basketball guys have become a little more athletic but come on the game is not as rough these days. The stars of yesteryear could still dominate...want to know how Jordan would do today if he was in his prime? Look at a healthy Kobe Bryant from a few years ago and add a few more points. Kareem Abdul Jabaar could still dominate if he was in his prime, so could Wilt or Russell or Bird or Magic.

In Football it's a little more tricky because size matters so much, but there were skill position players who would still make huge impacts today. Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, Bo Jackson, etc.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Ice hockey the players have gotten a little bigger but the rule changes that have been made would have benefitted the older players who were just amazing. You telling me Gretzky couldn't play today? Or Fedorov? Or Bure? Give those guys the ability to accept a 2 line pass and it would be 10-0 vs the youngsters before you could bat an eye!

They'd all be elite guys, but they wouldn't be putting up numbers like they did. Gretzky wouldn't be potting no 200 points.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

They'd all be elite guys, but they wouldn't be putting up numbers like they did. Gretzky wouldn't be potting no 200 points.

Yeah he would, that guy did things effortlessly it seemed like. Now he'd still need an enforcer like he used to have like Semenko or McSorley or Blake, but he could just dish out great passes and score in a way that looked so easy. He had a head for the game and the rule changes didn't do anything to stop offense only to make it better.

I think some of the slower guys would have trouble with as good as everyone on the ice skates these days but guys like The Great One would still run the league.

It's a ridiculous argument. Boxing is so complex that modern people lost the ability to imitate and learn from those that knew how to move their arms and legs correctly. Be-fucking-have.

Boxing "experts," old or young, consistently predict the wrong outcome of current fights we have masses of evidence about, yet they can confidently claim, by reading about in most cases, that the old-timers were far superior to current men. Nonsense.

Actually boxing imo has a worst case than any other sport in this regard imo.

Proper analysis reveals a steady increase in performance in every aspect of the sport and no boxer prior to 2 or 3 decades ago would pose any punch threat to a modern boxer whatsoever.

Any romantic talk of a "golden age" is pure hog wash.

Boxing has more variables than other sports. More variables means more exposure to progress.

A new article has been released on everybody's favourite objective blog.

"Muhammad Ali's opponents in the eyes of modern fans OR Ali's Bum of the Month Club"

I suggest everybody read this article carefully and then consider how foolish such ideas as this thread title here actually are!

There's only one true way to settle this argument.... boxing video game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0yqDswICM

This link here above is a video of the great Joe Louis in training. This is a media training session intended to make Louis look GOOD!



This here is a training video of Chris Arreola, a top contender who hasn't actually even won a title to date and has been criticised for his lack of training in the past and coming in out of shape.

Tell me something..

Do you see the difference yes or no?

This is a training montage of Sugar Ray Robinson, described at the beginning of this video as the greatest boxer to have ever lived, let alone the greatest of his own era. Not bad imo considering how long ago this was. It is atleast clear that Ray in fact is deserving of SOME of his hype.

But the next 2 video's also make it completely clear by how much times have changed and how far we have come...





So I would like all of you gentlemen who simply refuse to accept the blatant truth in the face of converging statistical, anecdotal and empirical evidence...

Do you see the difference yes or no

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

.....in which previous participants as a whole from prior eras would dominate it's current era, by the widest margin.

I don't quite see that in regards to other sports.

Chess... it's a thinking man's game. Just that with boxing, your life is REALLY on the line.

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

.....in which previous participants as a whole from prior eras would dominate it's current era, by the widest margin.

I don't quite see that in regards to other sports.

The UNLV men's hoops team from 90-92 could still hang 20+ years later. They were that good

Originally Posted by DannyV297

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

.....in which previous participants as a whole from prior eras would dominate it's current era, by the widest margin.

I don't quite see that in regards to other sports.

The UNLV men's hoops team from 90-92 could still hang 20+ years later. They were that good

Yeah and I'm sure the Riddick Bowe of 1992 could still hang very well with Wladimir Klitschko as well. There can be made a decent case that Bowe might win too! But prior to the 90's, we are struggling to find examples of guys who could hang in current boxing and also in other sports too.

You will struggle to find a single tangible record at the Olympics for instance, no matter whether the event is based on athleticism, skill, strength or a combination thereof.