I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

I always see all of these comparisons of current fighters to fighters of yesteryear. I think that some comparisons are fair, but too many things have changed to fairly compare certain feats. Things like fighter x has beaten an x amount of world champions. That’s more than what a fighter from 1950 did. Well obviously because there was only one title back then and you weren’t fighting people with trinkets.

Or being a multi division champion. Again, there are tons of belts per weight class so it’s much easier to get a title now, and there are twice as many weight classes so it’s much easier to hold a title in three weight divisions now instead of back in the day.

I’m not saying this to compare old and current fighters. I guess I have just seen a lot lately dumb comparisons. And it’s slow with no boxing so I decided to write a rant.

It's equally as dumb for fans - self-proclaimed "experts" - to shit all over modern world-class/great fighters. Every single all-time great would get the exact same shit from fans/"experts" in this era. There would be no 100 fight records padded with 50 coal miners and factory workers.

Modern fighters don't have the skill of old timers. Why? They don't fight enough. Say the same "experts" who waffle about modern fighters "padded records."

For example - Canelo has beat a bunch of HOF-ers yet gets dogs abuse for "cherry picking" not just Rocky Fielding but Kovalev!!! Kovalev!!! And the very same fans will wax lyrical about some fossil they have never seen fight. Ridiculous. Stop these people in the street they'd never name 5 fighters their all-time no.1 beat but they know Canelo/Loma/Joshua/Choco/Golovkin are "duckers." Pathetic.

Unlike other sports boxing hasn't changed much over the years (old classic fights are still thrilling to watch today), hardly any other sport is like that, we can see how slower and smaller and less athletic the fossils were - football, tennis, golf, T&F, snooker etc. However, boxing is the only sport that so-called "experts" claim has regressed. Hilarious.

It’s just really difficult to compare the two in accomplishments. I do agree that you can’t hold modern fighters to the same standards of fighting 200 times in their careers. Old fighters obviously had a lot of padding on their record because of that. Although I do like it to an extent. I don’t want Canelo fighting someone with a record of 2-3-1, but I think that upsets would happen quite a bit if you were constantly fighting journeymen. You will eventually run into someone with a difficult style for you and you are having a bad day and you lose. I think it just makes it more interesting.

Weight classes are also something that is different from other sports. Many sports depend on size as an advantage. A welterweight is still a welterweight whether now or then.

The sport is just so different comparatively, but still basically the same when it comes to the in ring stuff. Maybe it’s time to start just saying who is the greatest per decade or at least generation rather than of all time because it’s so hard to compare a fighter from 1920 to a fighter now.

Outside of the heavyweight division you could compare fighters at the lower weights and speculate how they would do in 15 rounds or same day weigh in which are some of the major things that have changed in the time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Outside of the heavyweight division you could compare fighters at the lower weights and speculate how they would do in 15 rounds or same day weigh in which are some of the major things that have changed in the time period.

---

It’s interesting because we like to compare the same weight classes, but tons of these fighters today couldn’t make same day weigh ins at their weight. So then depending on how the weigh in is, depends on what weight class people would fight in. Sugar Ray Robinson said he could have made lightweight at that time but just never did it. It just seems weird to think that the night before weigh in he would definitely be a lightweight. Or someone like Chavez Jr. would at best be a light heavyweight during his prime if it were same day weigh in.

Do fans of other sports have similar comparisons? I don't frequent other sports forums but kinda think its the same for all sports.

I'm okay with comparing old to new, so as long as we reverse the scenario.

I do like to muse how well could Floyd Mayweather had done with no hand injections and have hand issues. I also like to consider the only way for Pac to win 8 back then would be to go from the lowest to Heavyweight!


Comparing records though is kinda iffy-in that I am in the age bracket where magazines was how we compared when I was a kid. From 1980s back to who knows? Rings start? for decades all fans had was a magazine that told us of who fought who, when and where. As a result it wasn't their record we went by -rather the blow by blow we depended on--then comparing previous fight issues. I think as a result losses weren't that big of a deal. Today losing means it's harder to get that shot...regardless of how many belts there are.

But thanks to YouTube -one can clearly see a 25-1 padded record fighter compared to vs a 19-6 well earned record...is the likely winner between the two!

Boxing is unique in that "so-called" experts are decried by others who then turn around and claim to be "so-called" experts themselves. Rich. ;D

Actually boxing is unique in many ways, none that I have time to go into right now... but definitely a thread-worthy topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Do fans of other sports have similar comparisons? I don't frequent other sports forums but kinda think its the same for all sports.

I'm okay with comparing old to new, so as long as we reverse the scenario.

I do like to muse how well could Floyd Mayweather had done with no hand injections and have hand issues. I also like to consider the only way for Pac to win 8 back then would be to go from the lowest to Heavyweight!


Comparing records though is kinda iffy-in that I am in the age bracket where magazines was how we compared when I was a kid. From 1980s back to who knows? Rings start? for decades all fans had was a magazine that told us of who fought who, when and where. As a result it wasn't their record we went by -rather the blow by blow we depended on--then comparing previous fight issues. I think as a result losses weren't that big of a deal. Today losing means it's harder to get that shot...regardless of how many belts there are.

But thanks to YouTube -one can clearly see a 25-1 padded record fighter compared to vs a 19-6 well earned record...is the likely winner between the two!

---

Good point on the "other sports." You only have to look as far as the "Jordan vs Lebron vs Kobe" arguments...... the "Brady vs Montana" arguments..... and maybe a little closer to home for most folks here, the "Messi vs Ronaldo" arguments.

Yes... these are team sports... but fans engage in these entertaining (if unwinnable) arguments just the same.

Back in the day we read about more fights than what we saw, which made the fighters more heroic and the era more romantic, however, we were totally influenced by the narrative of the time/writer.

Today we get to see every single contest, therefore, young fighters go from future stars to "bum" overnight (See Josh Kelly). Why? Because they have a tough night with a "no-name." And likewise young "hype jobs" turn into world-beaters over night after spectacularly ironing out a "no-name."

Put any all-time great, from any era, under the same scrutiny today, half the fans who wax lyrical about Ali, Roy, Hagler, Leonard, Chavez, whoever, would be calling them "overrated," "bum," "ducker," "coward," etc.

Here's a test? Name how many all-time great/HOF-ers Ali, Foreman and FRazier beat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Back in the day we read about more fights than what we saw, which made the fighters more heroic and the era more romantic, however, we were totally influenced by the narrative of the time/writer.

Today we get to see every single contest, therefore, young fighters go from future stars to "bum" overnight (See Josh Kelly). Why? Because they have a tough night with a "no-name." And likewise young "hype jobs" turn into world-beaters over night after spectacularly ironing out a "no-name."

Put any all-time great, from any era, under the same scrutiny today, half the fans who wax lyrical about Ali, Roy, Hagler, Leonard, Chavez, whoever, would be calling them "overrated," "bum," "ducker," "coward," etc.

Here's a test? Name how many all-time great/HOF-ers Ali, Foreman and FRazier beat?

---

I definitely agree that the way that boxing runs today creates an unfortunate narrative for many fighters. It’s way too focused on records and less focused on the overall fighter. Just like other sports that have tons of games per season, you aren’t going to go undefeated and that’s alright. The issue is that with boxing, you generally don’t go on like normal after a loss. Like when Lubin got knocked out by Charlo in the first round. He got protected again rather than getting to prove that he belongs up there or not. So sometimes we don’t really know how good someone is because they get protected after a loss.

As for your question about how many HOFers Ali, Foreman, and Frazier beat. I’m not sure because I’m not sure who is inducted into the HOF.

In a broader sense the whole internet age has given us instantaneous information at our fingertips and that has sped up people's thought processes and coming to conclusions much quicker then say fifty or a hundred years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Outside of the heavyweight division you could compare fighters at the lower weights and speculate how they would do in 15 rounds or same day weigh in which are some of the major things that have changed in the time period.

---

I know championship fights were changed from 15 rounds to 12 mostly because of safety....... but have many times wondered how certain classic 12-rounders would've finished had they gone 15.

Many of those old time 15-round classics actually needed all 15 rounds to produce what was the final outcome. The Thrilla in Manila comes to mind.

We're extremely fortunate to have the databases, record keepers and historians we have in boxing. For a sport that shoots itself in the foot every other month and is generally treated by 'main stream' sports media like a red headed step child it's near the bottom of the list in regards to historical appreciation and general recognition. Basically, there's a big gap between researching an era and actually living an era. We gravitate to what we know and experience first hand, totally natural. Fans early on did the exact same thing. And being honest we do at times tend to wave off and quick glance eras and fighter we don't know. Just names on a page. The 'old timey B&W stuff'. Used that myself when I first started trading tapes way back :p. But again..the records and accounts are there to at least research and bone up on. Regardless of era you can dig into every fighter over history. But as the saying goes seeing is believing and that's the rub when you're talking fighters near the turn of the early Century. To what level do you count newspaper or wire accounts if at all? Harry Greb is HOF and counted as legend yet we've seen literally nothing save for some shadow boxing. Try talking of him to some young fan and praise him and they blow a gasket...it would piss CutmeMick off very much ;D. On records there is one huge thing that has never changed, numbers can be misleading and manipulated. Be they ko records, wins or loses, even the final "ko or tko". Never just take a record at face value. Every single fighter currently in a HOF or certain to go that way today has run up numbers at one point or another. Guys of yesteryear simply had to fight more often. And yes with that came more than a few lap dog opponents. I tend to look at time over early career just as much as wins loses.

I think by 1930, boxing as an industry was in a form that would be recognizable to us. Gone were the days when a man got a world title and not defend it for years, somethimes they went to pursue entertainment instead. In America it was second only to baseball in terms of popularity, so tons of supply of contenders for a title. The Great Depression made men fight for whatever purse was offered, even if the fight was risky or a disadvantage. Only some boxers were able to refuse poorly paid fights. Go back to 1928 as an example, take Featherweight/Jr Lightweights Benny Bass (101 -41-9) or Tony Canzoneri (141 - 24 - 10), they would fight 3 times a month, for years. What did they earn? A few bucks. They didn't care if they got a few losses. The money wasn't there, so keep taking fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Do fans of other sports have similar comparisons? I don't frequent other sports forums but kinda think its the same for all sports.

I'm okay with comparing old to new, so as long as we reverse the scenario.

I do like to muse how well could Floyd Mayweather had done with no hand injections and have hand issues. I also like to consider the only way for Pac to win 8 back then would be to go from the lowest to Heavyweight!


Comparing records though is kinda iffy-in that I am in the age bracket where magazines was how we compared when I was a kid. From 1980s back to who knows? Rings start? for decades all fans had was a magazine that told us of who fought who, when and where. As a result it wasn't their record we went by -rather the blow by blow we depended on--then comparing previous fight issues. I think as a result losses weren't that big of a deal. Today losing means it's harder to get that shot...regardless of how many belts there are.

But thanks to YouTube -one can clearly see a 25-1 padded record fighter compared to vs a 19-6 well earned record...is the likely winner between the two!

---

You only have to look as far the "Brady vs Montana" arguments.....

Yes... these are team sports... but fans engage in these entertaining (if unwinnable) arguments just the same.

---

Montana man here!!! When I hear the Brady won more, bigger, stronger argument that IMO plays to the reason for catapulting that older guy whose body build was that of an office worker. 3 SB appearances 3 won.
0 interceptions in all his trips there plus SB MVP -count me old school Joe wins!!!;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Back in the day we read about more fights than what we saw, which made the fighters more heroic and the era more romantic, however, we were totally influenced by the narrative of the time/writer.

---

True. Back then we depended on the writer, whereas today we don't have to depend on the commentator, we can turn the volume down then call him a fool.;D What fight is this fool watching?:rolleyes:

What I love about the magazine days that all the databases can't do is..... preserve the moment.
Meaning when I /you read that issue be it June 1985..they covered everything that happened.
With a database, or historian they only cover events meaningful to (THEM) during June 1985 as the example.

That Ring magazine... the then-Bible of Boxing listed every fight, every place, how each sanctioning body ranked them..thats how I learned of USBA NABF...otherwise I wouldn't know to type it up on the internet.

And then the subsequent pages of that great Bible of Boxing told us about their lives. Who got locked up that month?:rolleyes: Who was released that month? It was Ring magazine that I learned Riddick Bowe paid people in the inner city to turn their guns in I think at a church? and how he was kinda pissed off when he learned how much he had to pay.;D

In other words Ring magazine (back then) told us about Boxing, boxers and their lives. (as it related to that timeframe, of course) usually behind by 2 or so months? Today it is instant!

Technology we'd have to ask those questions...but some questions we wouldn't know to ask...like - this case in point- When did Bowe last give charity? Depends on whose covering it.
I loved those days man. Not sure if they still cover all aspects of a fighter's lives cause I've drunk the Kool Aid...Ring is just a magazine for shifting ranks of fighters :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Outside of the heavyweight division you could compare fighters at the lower weights and speculate how they would do in 15 rounds or same day weigh in which are some of the major things that have changed in the time period.

---

I know championship fights were changed from 15 rounds to 12 mostly because of safety....... but have many times wondered how certain classic 12-rounders would've finished had they gone 15.

Many of those old time 15-round classics actually needed all 15 rounds to produce what was the final outcome. The Thrilla in Manila comes to mind.

---

Rocky would never have become champion, Leonard would have lost to Hearns so big difference's in careers and history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Outside of the heavyweight division you could compare fighters at the lower weights and speculate how they would do in 15 rounds or same day weigh in which are some of the major things that have changed in the time period.

---

I know championship fights were changed from 15 rounds to 12 mostly because of safety....... but have many times wondered how certain classic 12-rounders would've finished had they gone 15.

Many of those old time 15-round classics actually needed all 15 rounds to produce what was the final outcome. The Thrilla in Manila comes to mind.

---

Rocky would never have become champion, Leonard would have lost to Hearns so big difference's in careers and history.

---

That Leonard-Hearns one was HUGE. Hearns was comfortably ahead on the cards after 13 rounds, so yes..... Leonard would've lost to Hearns. Instead, we ended up with a timeless classic.

The "ebb and flow" I love about some championship classics would've never had time to develop over "only" 12 rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

The "ebb and flow" I love about some championship classics would've never had time to develop over "only" 12 rounds.

---

Agreed and it would have provided decisions for big fights such as Hagler v Leonard too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell

In a broader sense the whole internet age has given us instantaneous information at our fingertips and that has sped up people's thought processes and coming to conclusions much quicker then say fifty or a hundred years ago.

---

Good point. However, we don't need some random observers interpretation, full of natural prejudice and bias to give us the "truth."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

The "ebb and flow" I love about some championship classics would've never had time to develop over "only" 12 rounds.

---

Agreed and it would have provided decisions for big fights such as Hagler v Leonard too.

---

It's not quite as simple as that (for pedantic cunts like me, anyway). If Leonard and Hearns knew the fight was 12 rounds the pace and their entire outlook/training - as well as life on the planet - would have been utterly different. Angelo Dundee "would" be shouting - "you're blowing it son," well before the 12th? This may have got him knocked out? Who knows? :)

True, fighters would fight AS IF there were 12 rounds, adjust their attack strategies to 12. Leonard would've made his move earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

The "ebb and flow" I love about some championship classics would've never had time to develop over "only" 12 rounds.

---

Agreed and it would have provided decisions for big fights such as Hagler v Leonard too.

---

Hagler vs Leonard was so frustrating to watch, it may have ended in controversy not only after 15 rounds, but even 20.

Although someone else made the valid point of changing strategies if you know the fight will go 15 instead of 12, there have still been some fights with sudden endings which would probably not have occurred as such had the fight only gone 12.

Mike Weaver vs John Tate was one such fight.

Tate (WBA heavyweight champion at the time) had the fight in the bag, only to get shockingly knocked out in the 15th round.

So yeah..... there's a little of both in there.

I saw that fight live on TV. It really look like Tate had the whole thing wrapped up. Next thing boom.