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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43faR5uc4Ew

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBBiQx8bMDU

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...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtnZH1jqe2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8f9hayqEJQ

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???

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyV297

Quote:

---

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.

BUMP

OOPS LOL

I guess we can take the complete ignorance of the video comparisons above and the sudden abandonment of the thread to signify we will require no further entertainment of this absurd idea anymore.

Myth busted!!

I could be wrong but I'm sure that if anyone has decided to make a case for an old timer, they'd usually prefix their argument with the acknowledgment that nutrition and training methods are very different.

Also, I'm not sure how a clear difference in training methods is equal to the differences in a mans natural ability to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

I could be wrong but I'm sure that if anyone has decided to make a case for an old timer, they'd usually prefix their argument with the acknowledgment that nutrition and training methods are very different.

Also, I'm not sure how a clear difference in training methods is equal to the differences in a mans natural ability to fight.

---

About as clear as it is how the difference in training methods is equal to the differences in a mans natural ability to play football, tennis, run and jump and just about everything else.

At birth they would be on a level playing field lb for lb. Except modern training and nutrition and modern opponents makes that differentiation more striking as the boxer grows.

Obviously!

I got no problem with any of those old guys. But they'd get completely smashed would they compete today no doubt.

Wow. That's actually like saying George Best didn't have the natural ability that Ryan Giggs has.

Utter nonsense.

No it isn't, it's saying they DO have the natural ability the same as the modern fighter but that natural ability alone does not make them a champion.

Fighting comes natural to some and they make the best natural boxers but "boxing" is anything but natural and proficiency only comes with endless hours, days and years of practice. No matter how good one is "naturally" they are not going to become a professional boxer unless they are trained like they are.

In the olden days it was perfectly acceptable to go for a jog, do some sparring and hit a bag for awhile in between ridiculous fight schedules. Unfortunately in todays landscape it takes a little bit more than that to be successful.

In fact, it take a LOT fucking more!

An old school elite fighter that has experienced 70 professional fights by the time he's 24 years old against all manners of styles(unprotected) is going to be a better fighter than a current 24 year old elite fighter with about 21 fights against hand-picked opposition(protected).

End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradlee180

An old school elite fighter that has experienced 70 professional fights by the time he's 24 years old against all manners of styles(unprotected) is going to be a better fighter than a current 24 year old elite fighter with about 21 fights against hand-picked opposition(protected).

End of story.

---

Completely wrong and has been busted time and again.

An old school elite fighter with that many fights by that time is a number of things..

1/ Wasted and drained and damaged from improper recovery and management.

2/ Not as experienced as a modern boxer, not by a long shot!

Why???

Because..

(a) Modern boxers have on average larger amateur careers and turn pro later these days, they are in fact more experienced by time they even start overall.

(b) The opponents those old school boxers faced were overwhelmingly bums. If you combine the total records of all their fights and compare them to the total records of modern boxers in general it becomes abundantly clear that their experience against quality opposition is sorely lacking by comparison.

(c) The professional circuit at journeyman level in the distant past was equivalent or even LESS in level than todays amateur ranks, meaning that experience today is worth far more than it was back then.

(d) Because of the excessive fight schedules of olden days boxers, modern fighters have the time not just for recovery but for better skills and conditioning preparation and far more sparring experience in the interim period with intensive coaching filling the void between fights highly productively.

The article "Past fighters were 15 rounders, Past fighters fought more often" completely debunks this myth further.

And your last comment was just absurd. That they would be better than a "protected" modern fighter, HA!

The opponents that top contenders fight today are FAR more highly matched than in the past! And furthermore a fighter only affords himself the kind of "protection" that allows him to inflate his rankings after he has already established himself a top prospect. And unlike in the past, where if a top boxer lost a ton of fights they could still be considered an elite boxer whereas today, even a couple of losses can seriously damage a boxers credibility in this highly competitive landscape.

I wonder why that is? Because the competition is highly competitive! Past eras fought mainly bum fights! And that's a fact!

If you would like an overview of a fighter from the past who has been heavily hyped as the greatest of his division all time but in reality fought lack lustre competition, read carefully the breakdown of the opponents in the eye opening article... Muhammad Ali's opponents in the eyes of modern fans -OR- Ali's bum of the month club.

Muhammad Ali's opponents in the eyes of modern fans -OR- Ali's bum of the month club | Box statistics, analysis of boxing history records, stats of boxing eras

For what its worth, is happily argue for the opinion that Ali is I've of the most readily overrated fighters in boxing history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

For what its worth, is happily argue for the opinion that Ali is I've of the most readily overrated fighters in boxing history.

---

Yes Ali is one of the main offenders to be sure but you will find in general that the further back in time we go, the more overrated the boxers in general and conversely the closer we get to the present the more underrated they become!!

In general of course!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Wow. That's actually like saying George Best didn't have the natural ability that Ryan Giggs has.

Utter nonsense.

---

if george best was born when ryan giggs was and lived like ryan giggs then he would be a massive superstar

Things are so different now bests career would have probably have been even shorter due to his life style as the competition is so much more great

Brazil 70, considered the best world cup winning team in history, woudnt qualify today :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

For what its worth, is happily argue for the opinion that Ali is I've of the most readily overrated fighters in boxing history.

---

Yes Ali is one of the main offenders to be sure but you will find in general that the further back in time we go, the more overrated the boxers in general and conversely the closer we get to the present the more underrated they become!!

In general of course!

---

I'm not an Ali fan, but Ali had the guts to step in and fight 'em all, unlike Floyd Mayweather. One talked the talk and walked the walk while the other talked the talk and, well, y'know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradlee180

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

For what its worth, is happily argue for the opinion that Ali is I've of the most readily overrated fighters in boxing history.

---

Yes Ali is one of the main offenders to be sure but you will find in general that the further back in time we go, the more overrated the boxers in general and conversely the closer we get to the present the more underrated they become!!

In general of course!

---

I'm not an Ali fan, but Ali had the guts to step in and fight 'em all, unlike Floyd Mayweather. One talked the talk and walked the walk while the other talked the talk and, well, y'know...

---

And that's a point I will give you Bradlee, Ali fought all opposition and didn't duck anybody and Floyd Mayweather is probably the most shameful ducker of all time by comparison.

I don't think Ali's actions here speak for all old schoolers and I don't think Mayweather's cowardly antics speak for the entirety of boxing.

Where individual modern fighters are lacking I would criticise. Where individual old timers deserve credit I would appraise accordingly.