Quote Originally Posted by IamInuit View Post
Valid points but a bit of a broad brush. Yes fighters fought much more in other eras and yes in many cases it was simply to literally put food on the table and pay rent but I do think that hard times makes better fighters both in and out of the ring.

Other factors need to be taken into account though. For instance Langford fought Wills about 20 times because he could not get fights. The same can be said about the entire Murdrers Row. They had to fight each other lots because the establishment would not embrace them. Robinson would not even fight them although he did fight Marshall after Lloyd was essentially done.

Another factor is that only 1 belt existed not 25 so the drive was there and legacy had a meaning. Today it’s a bunch of tin pots who all claim to be world champions and for the most part staying away from each other.

Greb fought 45 times in one year once and it was not a tour bus. Stribling fought more then that once and sure boxing was a "job" more so then today but these guys wanted to fight. P4P actually meant something then to. Langford was a short middle at best and yet knocked out almost every hev of his day including Wills, Mcvey and Jeannette. Probably the first man to introduce the shoulder roll and would fight the last part of his career pretty much blind.

Greb beat 7 world light heavy champions, dominated the middleweight division and beat several contending heavyweights and finished his career blind in one eye. He only lost 11 times in 300 fights and was only stopped twice, once because his arm was broken.

Today if you lose or get knocked out you are almost written off or tossed to the recycling bin but in past eras a loss was looked on almost as a badge of honour.

@Beanflicker . I know what you mean man, we history buffs can go a little overboard at times in comparisons but the differences from the past and today as far as attitude goes is really quite striking.
The difference between risk and reward as applied today and how it was applied in other eras even as early as the mid 80's almost has its own taste. Point well taken though as all one has to do is look at Leonards 40 fights. His resume stacks up to almost anyone in history quality wise.

Meh to me it's all just romanticizing the "good old days", which is something that we do in almost every subject. How many times have you heard "dude I only listen to 60s/70s rock because that's when music was PURE, man". Most of these guys like Greb we've never even seen fight. We really don't know a whole lot about him or his opponents.

I still say if you take Roy Jones, same record and accomplishments, but put him back in the 1920s or so and all we had were newspaper clippings and hearsay about him, he would be the absolute undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

You can also see this with SRR. People have this great view of the guy, as opposed to PBF who everyone agrees is an asshole. But SRR was as big an asshole as PBF. He flaunted his money, hired an entourage to keep him company, hired a midget to make him laugh, beat his wife and was a horrible absentee father to his sons. But we all have this rosey view of him like he was a real man's man, a gentleman.

The past is the past to me. With all the new stuff we learned about concussions and the effect of subconcussive blows, I think fighting all the time like they did is just stupid. Even if you're fighting bums, you're still taking punches that are chipping away at your health. We all have a different biological clock, getting smashed in the ring and in training takes a toll and you can only go to the well so many times until the well is dry.

So I think today is way better, because guys are still young and fresh when they hit the main stage.

Does fighting more often make you more seasoned? Definitely, but you're also accruing punishment to your body and mind. So it's a double edged sword IMO.

I say we leave the past in the past, remember back when Greb fought doctors would recommend smoking cigarettes lol.