70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
https://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=yTeUEHofuyN5h3p2
this disproves the odd quotes/lies/dumb comments for years on forums saying conn/louis/schmeling were so skilled they would beat the big names in the 70s-'90s,all based on highlights or quotes not actually full matches
no one from his era even looked like they would last 1 round even vs no names as the no-names/mid-carders in this video we're way more advanced than his whole era they look like novices
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
I think there's no dispelling the fact that boxers from the 20's and 30's were infinitely more static and robotic than their counterparts of today. Their greatness is based on comparisons within their own eras.
Lots of you don't follow baseball on here. But similar arguments are used when talking about guys like Babe Ruth, et al. Ruth was totally dominant in his time, and totally worthy of the admiration, lofty, and ATG status that has followed his memory throughout the years. But let's face it. Changes in the game... specialized relief pitching... higher pitching mounds... advances in pitch variations... and others... make it very likely that if you suddenly dropped Ruth into today's game... that just maybe he wouldn't be as "head and shoulders" above everyone else.
Like I've said before, boxing has evolved in size and technique. Heavyweight is easier to contrast "now vs then" because heavyweight has no upper limit. Heavyweights back then were smaller. Joe Louis was 6'2"... averaged 200 pounds. A cruiserweight by today's standards. Tough to go up against a 6'-9", 250-260 pound guy with more mobility and hand speed. It's a big ask.
Also, it's obvious watching tapes from old fights. Yes... movement at the waist was limited. There was more plodding. It was just the style back then. It's no slight on past champions. It's just the way it was.
Let's try basketball.
In the old days, nobody could dunk... and a preferred shot was the 2-handed set shot. Go into the NBA with something like that today, and you're likely to never score not even once in a real game. Yet the old champions are still revered. It's all part of the evolution of sports.
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I think there's no dispelling the fact that boxers from the '20s and 30's were infinitely more static and robotic than their counterparts of today. Their greatness is based on comparisons within their own eras.
Lots of you don't follow baseball on here. But similar arguments are used when talking about guys like Babe Ruth, et al. Ruth was totally dominant in his time, and totally worthy of the admiration, lofty, and ATG status that has followed his memory throughout the years. But let's face it. Changes in the game... specialized relief pitching... higher pitching mounds... advances in pitch variations... and others... make it very likely that if you suddenly dropped Ruth into today's game... that just maybe he wouldn't be as "head and shoulders" above everyone else.
Like I've said before, boxing has evolved in size and technique. Heavyweight is easier to contrast "now vs then" because heavyweight has no upper limit. Heavyweights back then were smaller. Joe Louis was 6'2"... averaged 200 pounds. A cruiserweight by today's standards. Tough to go up against a 6'-9", 250-260 pound guy with more mobility and hand speed. It's a big ask.
Also, it's obvious watching tapes from old fights. Yes... movement at the waist was limited. There was more plodding. It was just the style back then. It's no slight on past champions. It's just the way it was.
Let's try basketball.
In the old days, nobody could dunk... and a preferred shot was the 2-handed set shot. Go into the NBA with something like that today, and you're likely to never score not even once in a real game. Yet the old champions are still revered. It's all part of the evolution of sports.
This post isn't for you,it's specifically for people who have said for years those guys in 30s could beat guys in 70s-90s,they need to respond
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I think there's no dispelling the fact that boxers from the '20s and 30's were infinitely more static and robotic than their counterparts of today. Their greatness is based on comparisons within their own eras.
Lots of you don't follow baseball on here. But similar arguments are used when talking about guys like Babe Ruth, et al. Ruth was totally dominant in his time, and totally worthy of the admiration, lofty, and ATG status that has followed his memory throughout the years. But let's face it. Changes in the game... specialized relief pitching... higher pitching mounds... advances in pitch variations... and others... make it very likely that if you suddenly dropped Ruth into today's game... that just maybe he wouldn't be as "head and shoulders" above everyone else.
Like I've said before, boxing has evolved in size and technique. Heavyweight is easier to contrast "now vs then" because heavyweight has no upper limit. Heavyweights back then were smaller. Joe Louis was 6'2"... averaged 200 pounds. A cruiserweight by today's standards. Tough to go up against a 6'-9", 250-260 pound guy with more mobility and hand speed. It's a big ask.
Also, it's obvious watching tapes from old fights. Yes... movement at the waist was limited. There was more plodding. It was just the style back then. It's no slight on past champions. It's just the way it was.
Let's try basketball.
In the old days, nobody could dunk... and a preferred shot was the 2-handed set shot. Go into the NBA with something like that today, and you're likely to never score not even once in a real game. Yet the old champions are still revered. It's all part of the evolution of sports.
This post isn't for you,it's specifically for people who have said for years those guys in 30s could beat guys in 70s-90s,they need to respond
As far as I know, this is an open forum. Which means anyone in here is free to express their opinion, including those who "have said for years...".
Disliking my post and then snapping at me that this post isn't for me sort of rubs me the wrong way.
But carry on.
Just a word of advice to please remove that Gibraltar-sized chip from your shoulder.
Good points can get lost in the methodology.
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I think there's no dispelling the fact that boxers from the '20s and 30's were infinitely more static and robotic than their counterparts of today. Their greatness is based on comparisons within their own eras.
Lots of you don't follow baseball on here. But similar arguments are used when talking about guys like Babe Ruth, et al. Ruth was totally dominant in his time, and totally worthy of the admiration, lofty, and ATG status that has followed his memory throughout the years. But let's face it. Changes in the game... specialized relief pitching... higher pitching mounds... advances in pitch variations... and others... make it very likely that if you suddenly dropped Ruth into today's game... that just maybe he wouldn't be as "head and shoulders" above everyone else.
Like I've said before, boxing has evolved in size and technique. Heavyweight is easier to contrast "now vs then" because heavyweight has no upper limit. Heavyweights back then were smaller. Joe Louis was 6'2"... averaged 200 pounds. A cruiserweight by today's standards. Tough to go up against a 6'-9", 250-260 pound guy with more mobility and hand speed. It's a big ask.
Also, it's obvious watching tapes from old fights. Yes... movement at the waist was limited. There was more plodding. It was just the style back then. It's no slight on past champions. It's just the way it was.
Let's try basketball.
In the old days, nobody could dunk... and a preferred shot was the 2-handed set shot. Go into the NBA with something like that today, and you're likely to never score not even once in a real game. Yet the old champions are still revered. It's all part of the evolution of sports.
This post isn't for you,it's specifically for people who have said for years those guys in 30s could beat guys in 70s-90s,they need to respond
Why am I insane?
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I think there's no dispelling the fact that boxers from the '20s and 30's were infinitely more static and robotic than their counterparts of today. Their greatness is based on comparisons within their own eras.
Lots of you don't follow baseball on here. But similar arguments are used when talking about guys like Babe Ruth, et al. Ruth was totally dominant in his time, and totally worthy of the admiration, lofty, and ATG status that has followed his memory throughout the years. But let's face it. Changes in the game... specialized relief pitching... higher pitching mounds... advances in pitch variations... and others... make it very likely that if you suddenly dropped Ruth into today's game... that just maybe he wouldn't be as "head and shoulders" above everyone else.
Like I've said before, boxing has evolved in size and technique. Heavyweight is easier to contrast "now vs then" because heavyweight has no upper limit. Heavyweights back then were smaller. Joe Louis was 6'2"... averaged 200 pounds. A cruiserweight by today's standards. Tough to go up against a 6'-9", 250-260 pound guy with more mobility and hand speed. It's a big ask.
Also, it's obvious watching tapes from old fights. Yes... movement at the waist was limited. There was more plodding. It was just the style back then. It's no slight on past champions. It's just the way it was.
Let's try basketball.
In the old days, nobody could dunk... and a preferred shot was the 2-handed set shot. Go into the NBA with something like that today, and you're likely to never score not even once in a real game. Yet the old champions are still revered. It's all part of the evolution of sports.
This post isn't for you,it's specifically for people who have said for years those guys in 30s could beat guys in 70s-90s,they need to respond
Why am I insane?
is the louis era more advanced or as advanced as those guys in the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a27vtfAuSyI
Why am I insane?
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
People were tougher back then, could fight with serious injuries for 15 rounds, and still win a fight. Tough as nails. Their toughness alone will give them a very good chance of beating some of these marshmallows today despite their enormous size ....there is no way that Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury could take the kind of punishment for example that the old timers could take, they would fold, they would quit, even Mike Tyson for the amount of punishment he took said he could never take the amount of punishment that for example Muhammad Ali could take and keep fighting and that he was willing to die in the ring. This bigger more advanced generation of fighters is not willing to die in the ring and they would quit when the times got really tough like in the first Ali Frazier fight for example or for example in Rocky Marciano and Joe Walcott that was one of the most brutal wars of attrition I have ever seen in the ring or you take Aaron prior and Alexis arguello and there is no way this newer breed of fighters is going to dig down that deep and take that kind of punishment for 15 rounds and keep getting stronger and stronger.
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
https://youtu.be/ILifpVvnIww?si=9Tn981S1J3kfGoVU
Yes their toughness and also greatness destroys these newer marshmallows
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
WTF does "advanced" mean in any OBJECTIVE sense? We all know what it means subjectively because each person has their own definition of advanced. Furthermore just because something is advanced doesn't mean it is going to win
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Joe Frazier is not as advanced as Anthony Joshua but Joe Frazier could fight for 15 rounds and Anthony Joshua gases after 8:00 or 9 rounds and will get smoked when he runs out of gas
Just like Joe Smith gets smoked when his arguments run out of gas 😂
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NoSavingByTheBell
Joe Frazier is not as advanced as Anthony Joshua but Joe Frazier could fight for 15 rounds and Anthony Joshua gases after 8:00 or 9 rounds and will get smoked when he runs out of gas
Just like Joe Smith gets smoked when his arguments run out of gas 😂
This topic is 70s-90s compared to 30s nothing else
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NoSavingByTheBell
WTF does "advanced" mean in any OBJECTIVE sense? We all know what it means subjectively because each person has their own definition of advanced. Furthermore just because something is advanced doesn't mean it is going to win
Not when it's a direct question
https://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=XA2O_qf3GZiBeseg and it relies purely on what's on video, that you avoided so I'll ask again do you see any angle/timing/defense/tech/flaws differences with these era's, compared to the louis era, you see them as advanced in every area or more advanced and would do great without changing anything?
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
is the louis era more advanced or as advanced as those guys in the video
post one quote from this forum of a member saying that the louis era is more advanced or as advanced as those in the video. please provide the link to the thread & the post number
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Honestly, I think by simplistically broad stroking entire "eras" you're just incapable of discussing specific fighters' case by case. You've been given case by case examples from multiple members here then revert to exactly where you started. Foreman fought in the 70's so therefore he was more 'advanced' aka tech, timing, defense, skilled than Louis who fought in the 30's. Did they not fight in said eras. Is that how this paint by numbers works? Redundant rubbish.
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Honestly, I think by simplistically broad stroking entire "eras" you're just incapable of discussing specific fighters' case by case. You've been given case by case examples from multiple members here then revert to exactly where you started. Foreman fought in the 70's so therefore he was more 'advanced' aka tech, timing, defense, skilled than Louis who fought in the 30's. Did they not fight in said eras. Is that how this paint by numbers works? Redundant rubbish.
Why should I not stick to the topic if it's said specifically the way I said it and asked?, I ask the questions specifically to stick to a certain topic which means stick to that nothing else cause anything else is going away from the topic, and I never said louis only so you just made that up I have mutiple boxers in my video which is showing 4 fighters at once, I don't need to discuss certain fighters cause I'm comparing general movements between era's
Louis is included in all the 30s compare because people have said for years how skilled he was, if they said someone else in the 30s was the most skilled I would've had them instead
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
So you are comparing 20 years over 10 years. Those 20 years had most of the best heavyweights in the history.
The 70-90's boxers were better than most of todays boxers so what does that do your theory that fighters get better each generation?
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
So you are comparing 20 years over 10 years. Those 20 years had most of the best heavyweights in the history.
The 70-90's boxers were better than most of todays boxers so what does that do your theory that fighters get better each generation?
Wilder is raw and no better technique than the fighters you criticise in the 1920's. This is you're comment so prove they we're show the matches why is this the 3rd day asking this now?
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
So you are comparing 20 years over 10 years. Those 20 years had most of the best heavyweights in the history.
The 70-90's boxers were better than most of todays boxers so what does that do your theory that fighters get better each generation?
Wilder is raw and no better technique than the fighters you criticise in the 1920's. This is you're comment so prove they we're show the matches why is this the 3rd day asking this now?
Master Has asked you a straightforward and valid question which you cannot seem to refute. So you have resorted to ad hominem insults and milktoast.
Re: 70s-90s compared to 30s boxers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NoSavingByTheBell
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
So you are comparing 20 years over 10 years. Those 20 years had most of the best heavyweights in the history.
The 70-90's boxers were better than most of todays boxers so what does that do your theory that fighters get better each generation?
Wilder is raw and no better technique than the fighters you criticise in the 1920's. This is you're comment so prove they we're show the matches why is this the 3rd day asking this now?
Master Has asked you a straightforward and valid question which you cannot seem to refute. So you have resorted to ad hominem insults and milktoast.
Can you not read good? Did you not see him say what I said he did? Or do you think that comment doesn't exist still on the page where he said it? I need the proof that he said and then I'll need proof most 70s-90s boxers were better than now
