70s-90s compared to 30s boxers

[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.

[joe smith]

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

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Is this Alpha

[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?

[joe smith]

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?

[NoSavingByTheBell]

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.

[joe smith]

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