Past Greats Vs. Current Greats

**RozzySean** · 12-14-2006 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Scrap

Seane what do you mean activity was less

The activity was less in the 70s-80s era than in the 30s-50s era. By the 70's-80's, fighters had activity levels more similar to those today, but the talent pool was still deeper than today.

**diamonddavestafford** · 12-15-2006 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by SeanE

Two things got me thinking about this. First, the thread on PBF vs Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Robinson led me to think about this in a more general sense. Second, I just finished Jeremy Schaaps, "Cinderella Man" and a few things about "old time" boxing boxing struck me as relevant to the issue. A few posters argue that boxers legends grow over time. We overrate past greats and underrate current greats. Most, I think, can agree, there is probably some truth to this. The degree is up for debate.

Here is a case for modern boxers being able to stand up to the greats of old. Due to nutrition, modern training and human evolution, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster that previous generations. The are also just as skilled and smart, if not more so, because they have access to video and trainers who have analysed just about every style, technique, and trick. They have the benefit of being able to study all the greats of the past and learn from them. Also, since boxing has diminished in popularity, current fighters don't have the "household name" factor that helps build public perception of greatest, and eventually, legend. Today's fighers are just as great, but they aren't as relevant to the mainstream. Most people, as we age, get a little nostalgic. We long for the good old days of our youth, and overrate many things from that time, including boxers.

Now I'm going to switch sides. Boxing today is a fringe/niche sport. Why are most of us on Saddoboxing? Because most of us are the only hardcore fans our circles of friends. There are plenty of us, but we are spread out and in the minority. Until the 1960's, boxing was the #2 sport in the US. For kids in inner city immigrant communities and minority groups, boxing was then what basketball is now. It was a way out. Not only did many more people box, but local boxing was a huge thing, kind of like local basketball is now (and some places high school football). How many kids now see boxing as a way off the streets? Sure, some, but not like is once was. Almost everyone was a boxing fan, at least a little, and that meant there was more work for more fighters.

If you follow my logic, you know where I'm going with this. The talent pool was bigger then. The BEST ATHLETES became boxers or baseball players (in America, anyway). Why is the heavyweight division a mess? Because the Ken Norton Jr's of the world play football now. Even in lower weight classes, kids that could be spending time in boxing gyms are out playing 50 and 3 on 3 at the local park. They are kicking soccer balls and playing Pop Warner. Boxing simply does draw as many of the best pure athletes anymore, even as compared to the generation that produced Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler.

OK. I'm not taking sides. Yet. I'm hoping some people can add things to both arguments. I'm interested to read other peoples thoughts.

i think you gotta look at the fact that the fighters of old fought WAY more consistently. Nowadays stars like Floyd or Pacquiao fight MAYBE twice a year. There was a time when Sugar Ray Robinson fought 30 times in a MONTH. So it depends on which generation or era of "older fighters" you are talking about here. I dont think anyone who has ever boxed before will argue the fact that that consistency of sparring, of being in a ring against another person cannot be substituted by any kind of other types of training and sparring is not the same as a real fight by any means. So these guys back in the day, fighting their guts out for peanuts fifteen, maybe twenty times a year or more, they would have that hardened edge over the fighters of today. That consistency of being in the ring more, at the peak of their abilities, fighting another guy who is determined to take them apart would be like tenfold what fighters like Delahoya and Klitschko and Tyson; who fought only once or twice every year once they reached their peak, would be able to bring to the table. And yes you can argue that the fighters of today DONT NEED to fight as often because of the much higher pay scales of today versus Depression era fighters like James Braddock, but does it or does it not make them less seasoned and at a disadvantage in this situation? If you play darts three times a week and I play darts six times a day, who do you think will have the edge in a high pressure dart showdown with fifty thousand people watching?

**Scrap** · 12-15-2006 01:43 AM

I with you, Im with Dax on training methods and yourself on activity. In the 30s they were hard times and that breeds hard men. If you didnt work you didnt eat.At first hearing this arguement from the old school of trainers I use to think silly old cunts, living in the past. but over a period of 50 years Ive come to the realiseation that they were right call it progress in a way, people dont want hard work. Weve even got machinery to do it for us, even in gyms. WE dont even let muscles think for themselves now. If somebody 10 years ago ad told me that I would learn to type in 9 years time and spend time on Websites doing this Id have told them to fuck off. But here we are instead of doing were talking about it and having fun, who wants hard work not many .

**Taeth** · 12-16-2006 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by SeanE

Two things got me thinking about this. First, the thread on PBF vs Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Robinson led me to think about this in a more general sense. Second, I just finished Jeremy Schaaps, "Cinderella Man" and a few things about "old time" boxing boxing struck me as relevant to the issue. A few posters argue that boxers legends grow over time. We overrate past greats and underrate current greats. Most, I think, can agree, there is probably some truth to this. The degree is up for debate.

Here is a case for modern boxers being able to stand up to the greats of old. Due to nutrition, modern training and human evolution, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster that previous generations. The are also just as skilled and smart, if not more so, because they have access to video and trainers who have analysed just about every style, technique, and trick. They have the benefit of being able to study all the greats of the past and learn from them. Also, since boxing has diminished in popularity, current fighters don't have the "household name" factor that helps build public perception of greatest, and eventually, legend. Today's fighers are just as great, but they aren't as relevant to the mainstream. Most people, as we age, get a little nostalgic. We long for the good old days of our youth, and overrate many things from that time, including boxers.

Now I'm going to switch sides. Boxing today is a fringe/niche sport. Why are most of us on Saddoboxing? Because most of us are the only hardcore fans our circles of friends. There are plenty of us, but we are spread out and in the minority. Until the 1960's, boxing was the #2 sport in the US. For kids in inner city immigrant communities and minority groups, boxing was then what basketball is now. It was a way out. Not only did many more people box, but local boxing was a huge thing, kind of like local basketball is now (and some places high school football). How many kids now see boxing as a way off the streets? Sure, some, but not like is once was. Almost everyone was a boxing fan, at least a little, and that meant there was more work for more fighters.

If you follow my logic, you know where I'm going with this. The talent pool was bigger then. The BEST ATHLETES became boxers or baseball players (in America, anyway). Why is the heavyweight division a mess? Because the Ken Norton Jr's of the world play football now. Even in lower weight classes, kids that could be spending time in boxing gyms are out playing 50 and 3 on 3 at the local park. They are kicking soccer balls and playing Pop Warner. Boxing simply does draw as many of the best pure athletes anymore, even as compared to the generation that produced Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler.

OK. I'm not taking sides. Yet. I'm hoping some people can add things to both arguments. I'm interested to read other peoples thoughts.

The best athletes back then aren't even decent athletes today... and there are still been some top-end athletes in boxing like Roy Jones Jr., PBF, Mike Tyson, Shane Mosley, Leonard, Lennox Lewis....