I don't at all the sport has moved on, boxers get faster and stronger. Just like in athletics, people seem to get into there heads that boxers in the old days are much tougher and stronger etc, when thats not true you at all. Infact tell that to guys like Toney, Hagler, etc they are probably one of the toughest fighters in boxing history.

I also hate it when people say *Oh Harry Greb would beat anyone in Middleweight history* then i ask them how much footage have you seen ?? and guess what there answer is ?? i haven't seen any. and thats just it how can you rate older fighters higher than present greats when you haven't actually seen hardly any footage of them ??

Also i think older fighters have already got there legacy set, so they tend to get rated a lot higher and most fighters when they have been retired for years, i tend to find they get rated higher when there retired. Look at Larry Holmes for example he never got respect when he was fighting, but when he had been retired for years, only in last few years people are starting to realize how good Holmes was. But what people don't realize is that a lot of fighters in 80s and 90s also fought very strong opposition as well thats what i don't get when people say *Oh all old fighters had stronger opposition* but if you put most of 50s fighters in with 80s and 90s, elite fighters i think you would find that most of 50s fighters would get there a** handed to them because the sport moves on like i said earlier. I never can understand when people imply older fighters are *Unbeatable* when they have hardly seen any footage of the fighters they are calling *Unbeatable*. And they have lack of knowledge on there opposition because they wern't around in that time.

Fighters today when they really love the sport and are committed, train just as hard as older fighters take Mayweather Jr for example.