I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

[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.

[powerpuncher]

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.

[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!

[TitoFan]

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.

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

[TitoFan]

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.

[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?

[powerpuncher]

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.

[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.

[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!!!

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. What fight is this fool watching?

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? 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.

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

[TitoFan]

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.

[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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[TitoFan]

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

[Master]

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.

[Fenster]

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?