Past Greats Vs. Current Greats

Two things got me thinking about this. First, the thread on PBF vs Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Robinson led me to think about this in a more general sense. Second, I just finished Jeremy Schaaps, "Cinderella Man" and a few things about "old time" boxing boxing struck me as relevant to the issue. A few posters argue that boxers legends grow over time. We overrate past greats and underrate current greats. Most, I think, can agree, there is probably some truth to this. The degree is up for debate.

Here is a case for modern boxers being able to stand up to the greats of old. Due to nutrition, modern training and human evolution, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster that previous generations. The are also just as skilled and smart, if not more so, because they have access to video and trainers who have analysed just about every style, technique, and trick. They have the benefit of being able to study all the greats of the past and learn from them. Also, since boxing has diminished in popularity, current fighters don't have the "household name" factor that helps build public perception of greatest, and eventually, legend. Today's fighers are just as great, but they aren't as relevant to the mainstream. Most people, as we age, get a little nostalgic. We long for the good old days of our youth, and overrate many things from that time, including boxers.

Now I'm going to switch sides. Boxing today is a fringe/niche sport. Why are most of us on Saddoboxing? Because most of us are the only hardcore fans our circles of friends. There are plenty of us, but we are spread out and in the minority. Until the 1960's, boxing was the #2 sport in the US. For kids in inner city immigrant communities and minority groups, boxing was then what basketball is now. It was a way out. Not only did many more people box, but local boxing was a huge thing, kind of like local basketball is now (and some places high school football). How many kids now see boxing as a way off the streets? Sure, some, but not like is once was. Almost everyone was a boxing fan, at least a little, and that meant there was more work for more fighters.

If you follow my logic, you know where I'm going with this. The talent pool was bigger then. The BEST ATHLETES became boxers or baseball players (in America, anyway). Why is the heavyweight division a mess? Because the Ken Norton Jr's of the world play football now. Even in lower weight classes, kids that could be spending time in boxing gyms are out playing 50 and 3 on 3 at the local park. They are kicking soccer balls and playing Pop Warner. Boxing simply does draw as many of the best pure athletes anymore, even as compared to the generation that produced Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler.

OK. I'm not taking sides. Yet. I'm hoping some people can add things to both arguments. I'm interested to read other peoples thoughts.

If you use the modern fighters are better trained etc arguement....Then you must try and imigine the legends fighting with todays superior training methods, and if PBF without the same training for example would be as good back in there day without it. BTW very good post and :coolclick:

Some very good points you made there Seane. Im a coach who trys to integrate with other coaches from other sports at the very top and have access to probably the best facility for sports science in the world at this present time. what has improved is nutrition. In athletics in 1st world countries the numbers have increased dramatically, in sprints its what you take. In the longer events it helps where youre from. evolving doesnt make a thing better, to evolve could make the thing worse. Boxing numbers have decreased dramatically, and money can be earned by easier means. Techniques have improved, there is no evidence of this a lot of the stuff is just recycled old ideas given a different name. In this day and age with the shit they put in food, try telling me are diets better.In todays world I and a few more people beleive are senses are not as good as years ago, Im alarmed in a way because I want like everybody for the humanrace to improve for our kids to be better than us, sadly I cant see it.

Sorry seane great thread cc

Thomas Hearns or Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran would have destroyed Floyd.. Pernell would have done ok with that bunch, but not Floyd. Pernell was the real deal.

I think the point of this thread is pre the 80s or I could be wrong. Interestingly Boxing in the States peaked in the 30s the time of the depresion. you look at people like Robinson he was 90 and 0 as an Amatuer alot of the good fighters had good groundings in Boxing skills what have been lost.

Its an interesting debate and one which cannot definitively be answered.

The people who believe that the modern fighters are bigger, stronger and more skilful and would beat the old timers have a flawed logic though in my opinion.

They seem to calculate who would win in a Joe Louis vs Lennox Lewis matchup by 'teleporting' Louis in a vacuum into the modern day so that he fights Lennox Lewis at the same weight, with the same physical strength and skill, the same style, the same diet etc, completely ignoring the fact that if Joe Louis would have lived in our modern era he would have weighed slightly more, had the same advantages of training knowledge, diet, equipment etc that Lennox Lewis would have had.

It's also interesting that in most people's mind this kind of fighter transportation only occurs one way, as in how would an old fighter do if they were fighting today? So it's the old fighter who is immediately put at a disadvantage by having to adjust to a new era fighting the kind of men he has never fought before, using different training methods, fighting different styles, having months to prepare for a fight using the cutting edge in nutrition, sports equipment etc.

Under those kind of conditions its fair to say any old fighter would struggle.

But why not go the other way?

So take Floyd Mayweather and transport him back to 1930 for example and see how he does.

He won't have access to all training facilities that he currently enjoys. He won't be making enough money to afford the luxory of fighting just 3 fights a year, and then only when he's fully fit. He won't be able to rely upon modern rules and regulations and referee's who prevent fouls and dirty tactics.

He will be fighting fighter's whose styles he won't have encountered before.

The gloves will be different, his hands won't be so well protected and if he hurts them, well tough.

He won't have 4 or 5 months off after a fight to recover, he won't have the best diet available to him.

When you look at it in this way I think you can see that the pendulum swings both ways.

Personally I think the talent pool was wider back in the day than it is now. I also think men were naturally tougher and stronger.

Just watch Jess Willard getting pounded by Jack Dempsey, losing half his teeth and having his jaw broke and other injuries. He kept on getting up regardless. Nowadays even some of the greatest fighters go down after a hard punch. Referee's wave fights off as soon as it looks like someone might be getting hurt. 80 years ago they kept on fighting no matter how bad the damage got. If he got up, he carried on.

Personally I can't see a fighter like Floyd Mayweather thriving under those conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

I think the point of this thread is pre the 80s or I could be wrong. Interestingly Boxing in the States peaked in the 30s the time of the depresion. you look at people like Robinson he was 90 and 0 as an Amatuer alot of the good fighters had good groundings in Boxing skills what have been lost.

---

I would include fighters from the 80's in this debate. Even in 80's boxing was much larger than it is now. The average american sports fan could name at least 4 world champions and the pro's fighting in the 80's grew up in an era when boxing was still a big sport.

Good points Bil but my point is what new training methods are there . None at all the names have been changed. But the princables have always been there. I talk to conditioning coaches all the time they havent a clue, in fact a lot of accidents happen directly because of there involement

I think this an interesting debate.

Could you see some of the modern fighters engage in battles like La Motta v Ray Robinson? Yes there’s all the modern day training, evolution etc, but I find that fatigue is also something that occurs more in the modern day fighter. Some of the past masters could go non-stop for 15 rounds and fatigue wasn’t as big as of an issue as it is now in the modern day fighter.

Maybe some of the ‘old skool’ training methods were better, maybe with all the chemicals and ingredients consumed these days by the modern fighter contributes to fatigue.

I don’t think ALL the Past Greats beat the Modern Greats, I think each comparison has to be done it’s merit etc,

Let’s take each weight division for example.

Good point, Reality where shall we start, Heavys.Big men have always been about, its just recently that the bigger guys have got bigger because the skill level has dropped. So they have the edge with the weight advantage but not being in condition. Therefore blown up middles can take them to school

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Its an interesting debate and one which cannot definitively be answered.

The people who believe that the modern fighters are bigger, stronger and more skilful and would beat the old timers have a flawed logic though in my opinion.

They seem to calculate who would win in a Joe Louis vs Lennox Lewis matchup by 'teleporting' Louis in a vacuum into the modern day so that he fights Lennox Lewis at the same weight, with the same physical strength and skill, the same style, the same diet etc, completely ignoring the fact that if Joe Louis would have lived in our modern era he would have weighed slightly more, had the same advantages of training knowledge, diet, equipment etc that Lennox Lewis would have had.

It's also interesting that in most people's mind this kind of fighter transportation only occurs one way, as in how would an old fighter do if they were fighting today? So it's the old fighter who is immediately put at a disadvantage by having to adjust to a new era fighting the kind of men he has never fought before, using different training methods, fighting different styles, having months to prepare for a fight using the cutting edge in nutrition, sports equipment etc.

Under those kind of conditions its fair to say any old fighter would struggle.

But why not go the other way?

So take Floyd Mayweather and transport him back to 1930 for example and see how he does.

He won't have access to all training facilities that he currently enjoys. He won't be making enough money to afford the luxory of fighting just 3 fights a year, and then only when he's fully fit. He won't be able to rely upon modern rules and regulations and referee's who prevent fouls and dirty tactics.

He will be fighting fighter's whose styles he won't have encountered before.

The gloves will be different, his hands won't be so well protected and if he hurts them, well tough.

He won't have 4 or 5 months off after a fight to recover, he won't have the best diet available to him.

When you look at it in this way I think you can see that the pendulum swings both ways.

Personally I think the talent pool was wider back in the day than it is now. I also think men were naturally tougher and stronger.

Just watch Jess Willard getting pounded by Jack Dempsey, losing half his teeth and having his jaw broke and other injuries. He kept on getting up regardless. Nowadays even some of the greatest fighters go down after a hard punch. Referee's wave fights off as soon as it looks like someone might be getting hurt. 80 years ago they kept on fighting no matter how bad the damage got. If he got up, he carried on.

Personally I can't see a fighter like Floyd Mayweather thriving under those conditions.

---

CC, Bilbo. I didn't get into the "reverse" in my post, but exactly line of thinking occured to me when reading "Cinderella Man." There are very few fighters that I see who could make it in that era. I also wonder how some would have faired in the 70's and 80's when the talent pool was deep but the activity was less and the medicine better. There were just so many more quality fighters and it was harder to pick and choose and maintain a reputation. At the same time, being forced to fight better guys on the way up might toughen up some of the modern softy's. Maybe they are just soft because they can be and their isn't enough competition to push them to a higher level.

Seane what do you mean activity was less

Good post Sean and valid points but hwere are a few things you must also realize when speaking of training....The older guys used natural mathods to build strength....EG you will be stronger using freeweight than nautilis ( however you spell it)....ever notice how the strong man guys rarely use those type methods...Same with running on all terrain rather than a treadmill...todays guys have supplements that help out though...todays methods are ment for faster results..
Also..look at glove size? Type of gloves ect when factoring how they would compare in the ring...guys like robinson,,,Bassilio,,,LaMotta..Louis ect had amazing stamina and ability to stay in and fight...if they had the modern methods to build them up faster and supplements to go with it they would have been twice what they were also...CC on the topic

how about lewis mercer tony tucker riddick bowe holyfield morrison ruddock mccall and douglas that fought tyson + mike tyson how would they have faired against

muhammad ali joe fraizer george foreman ken norton larry holmes jimmy young earnie shavers jerry quarry jimmy ellis

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

Seane what do you mean activity was less

---

The activity was less in the 70s-80s era than in the 30s-50s era. By the 70's-80's, fighters had activity levels more similar to those today, but the talent pool was still deeper than today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeanE

Two things got me thinking about this. First, the thread on PBF vs Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Robinson led me to think about this in a more general sense. Second, I just finished Jeremy Schaaps, "Cinderella Man" and a few things about "old time" boxing boxing struck me as relevant to the issue. A few posters argue that boxers legends grow over time. We overrate past greats and underrate current greats. Most, I think, can agree, there is probably some truth to this. The degree is up for debate.

Here is a case for modern boxers being able to stand up to the greats of old. Due to nutrition, modern training and human evolution, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster that previous generations. The are also just as skilled and smart, if not more so, because they have access to video and trainers who have analysed just about every style, technique, and trick. They have the benefit of being able to study all the greats of the past and learn from them. Also, since boxing has diminished in popularity, current fighters don't have the "household name" factor that helps build public perception of greatest, and eventually, legend. Today's fighers are just as great, but they aren't as relevant to the mainstream. Most people, as we age, get a little nostalgic. We long for the good old days of our youth, and overrate many things from that time, including boxers.

Now I'm going to switch sides. Boxing today is a fringe/niche sport. Why are most of us on Saddoboxing? Because most of us are the only hardcore fans our circles of friends. There are plenty of us, but we are spread out and in the minority. Until the 1960's, boxing was the #2 sport in the US. For kids in inner city immigrant communities and minority groups, boxing was then what basketball is now. It was a way out. Not only did many more people box, but local boxing was a huge thing, kind of like local basketball is now (and some places high school football). How many kids now see boxing as a way off the streets? Sure, some, but not like is once was. Almost everyone was a boxing fan, at least a little, and that meant there was more work for more fighters.

If you follow my logic, you know where I'm going with this. The talent pool was bigger then. The BEST ATHLETES became boxers or baseball players (in America, anyway). Why is the heavyweight division a mess? Because the Ken Norton Jr's of the world play football now. Even in lower weight classes, kids that could be spending time in boxing gyms are out playing 50 and 3 on 3 at the local park. They are kicking soccer balls and playing Pop Warner. Boxing simply does draw as many of the best pure athletes anymore, even as compared to the generation that produced Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler.

OK. I'm not taking sides. Yet. I'm hoping some people can add things to both arguments. I'm interested to read other peoples thoughts.

---

i think you gotta look at the fact that the fighters of old fought WAY more consistently. Nowadays stars like Floyd or Pacquiao fight MAYBE twice a year. There was a time when Sugar Ray Robinson fought 30 times in a MONTH. So it depends on which generation or era of "older fighters" you are talking about here. I dont think anyone who has ever boxed before will argue the fact that that consistency of sparring, of being in a ring against another person cannot be substituted by any kind of other types of training and sparring is not the same as a real fight by any means. So these guys back in the day, fighting their guts out for peanuts fifteen, maybe twenty times a year or more, they would have that hardened edge over the fighters of today. That consistency of being in the ring more, at the peak of their abilities, fighting another guy who is determined to take them apart would be like tenfold what fighters like Delahoya and Klitschko and Tyson; who fought only once or twice every year once they reached their peak, would be able to bring to the table. And yes you can argue that the fighters of today DONT NEED to fight as often because of the much higher pay scales of today versus Depression era fighters like James Braddock, but does it or does it not make them less seasoned and at a disadvantage in this situation? If you play darts three times a week and I play darts six times a day, who do you think will have the edge in a high pressure dart showdown with fifty thousand people watching?

I with you, Im with Dax on training methods and yourself on activity. In the 30s they were hard times and that breeds hard men. If you didnt work you didnt eat.At first hearing this arguement from the old school of trainers I use to think silly old cunts, living in the past. but over a period of 50 years Ive come to the realiseation that they were right call it progress in a way, people dont want hard work. Weve even got machinery to do it for us, even in gyms. WE dont even let muscles think for themselves now. If somebody 10 years ago ad told me that I would learn to type in 9 years time and spend time on Websites doing this Id have told them to fuck off. But here we are instead of doing were talking about it and having fun, who wants hard work not many .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeanE

Two things got me thinking about this. First, the thread on PBF vs Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Robinson led me to think about this in a more general sense. Second, I just finished Jeremy Schaaps, "Cinderella Man" and a few things about "old time" boxing boxing struck me as relevant to the issue. A few posters argue that boxers legends grow over time. We overrate past greats and underrate current greats. Most, I think, can agree, there is probably some truth to this. The degree is up for debate.

Here is a case for modern boxers being able to stand up to the greats of old. Due to nutrition, modern training and human evolution, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster that previous generations. The are also just as skilled and smart, if not more so, because they have access to video and trainers who have analysed just about every style, technique, and trick. They have the benefit of being able to study all the greats of the past and learn from them. Also, since boxing has diminished in popularity, current fighters don't have the "household name" factor that helps build public perception of greatest, and eventually, legend. Today's fighers are just as great, but they aren't as relevant to the mainstream. Most people, as we age, get a little nostalgic. We long for the good old days of our youth, and overrate many things from that time, including boxers.

Now I'm going to switch sides. Boxing today is a fringe/niche sport. Why are most of us on Saddoboxing? Because most of us are the only hardcore fans our circles of friends. There are plenty of us, but we are spread out and in the minority. Until the 1960's, boxing was the #2 sport in the US. For kids in inner city immigrant communities and minority groups, boxing was then what basketball is now. It was a way out. Not only did many more people box, but local boxing was a huge thing, kind of like local basketball is now (and some places high school football). How many kids now see boxing as a way off the streets? Sure, some, but not like is once was. Almost everyone was a boxing fan, at least a little, and that meant there was more work for more fighters.

If you follow my logic, you know where I'm going with this. The talent pool was bigger then. The BEST ATHLETES became boxers or baseball players (in America, anyway). Why is the heavyweight division a mess? Because the Ken Norton Jr's of the world play football now. Even in lower weight classes, kids that could be spending time in boxing gyms are out playing 50 and 3 on 3 at the local park. They are kicking soccer balls and playing Pop Warner. Boxing simply does draw as many of the best pure athletes anymore, even as compared to the generation that produced Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler.

OK. I'm not taking sides. Yet. I'm hoping some people can add things to both arguments. I'm interested to read other peoples thoughts.

---

The best athletes back then aren't even decent athletes today... and there are still been some top-end athletes in boxing like Roy Jones Jr., PBF, Mike Tyson, Shane Mosley, Leonard, Lennox Lewis....

Taeth why would the athletes then be no good now????