shame on modern boxers

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

The problem is boxing fans have a limited perspective. They look at the broad scope of boxing currently, but look at the highlights of boxing in the past.

That’s a generalization. Some do, some don’t.

For the most part, my biggest concern is that some are lead to believe whatever they read (hyperbole) rather than what they actually see (in relation to what they’re actually looking for).

I've never heard any great arguments as to why boxers would have been better back in the day (if you say it's because "life was harder", you're an idiot).

Irony. Love it.
Boxing is a sport born out of struggle and so it’s fair to say that tough times make tough fighters. Mentally tough fighters I mean.

If anything, with more advancements in nutrition, training knowledge and technology, athletes are better than they've ever been.

Physically) Yes.

Tactically) Maybe, maybe not. There is a certain traceability* from generation to generation which can be built upon but there also things that are lost.

Mentally) No.

*credit to @NVSemin for the term 'tracebility', bro you need to expand on that thread you started ,I've been waiting!

[SugarBoxing]

ok soon in future

[Beanflicker]

Irony. Love it.

What was ironic about what I said?

[Beanflicker]

you sound like max power now.

It is a fact that boxing peaked 1970's for heavyweights and 80's for the smaller fighters.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Maybe boxing peaked. More than likely it's just our perception.

We say boxing peaked in the 70s because it was the era of Ali, but why was anyone else better than anyone else from any other era?

I'd love to hear from someone why exactly a Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Ron Lyle, ect were any better than guys from today, but when I ask people for specifics people get silent all of a sudden because they don't have the answers.

[beenKOed]

What was wrong with Huck vs Glowacki?

Those were C-class fighters..

Honestly (and I KNOW I'm in the minority) but I actually enjoyed the Tarver fight more

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I can't understand how you can say that.
I'm not asking for an argument (or wanting one), just saying what I think.

[Sleepwalker]

you sound like max power now.

It is a fact that boxing peaked 1970's for heavyweights and 80's for the smaller fighters.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Maybe boxing peaked. More than likely it's just our perception.

We say boxing peaked in the 70s because it was the era of Ali, but why was anyone else better than anyone else from any other era?

I'd love to hear from someone why exactly a Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Ron Lyle, ect were any better than guys from today, but when I ask people for specifics people get silent all of a sudden because they don't have the answers.

I don't see those guys being any better than the ilk of Michael Dokes, Mike Weaver, Tim Witherspoon, Carl The Tooth Williams, etc.... Marginal at best.

The 70s was a tough era, but realistically quite a few of those guys were not as great as people made them out to be yet their reputations were inflated because of the top fighters they faced.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Irony. Love it.

What was ironic about what I said?

Something to do with limited perspective.

[Master]

you sound like max power now.

It is a fact that boxing peaked 1970's for heavyweights and 80's for the smaller fighters.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Maybe boxing peaked. More than likely it's just our perception.

We say boxing peaked in the 70s because it was the era of Ali, but why was anyone else better than anyone else from any other era?

I'd love to hear from someone why exactly a Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Ron Lyle, ect were any better than guys from today, but when I ask people for specifics people get silent all of a sudden because they don't have the answers.

I don't see those guys being any better than the ilk of Michael Dokes, Mike Weaker, Tim Witherspoon, Carl The Tooth Williams, etc.... Marginal at best.

The 70s was a tough era, but realistically quite a few of those guys were not as great as people made them out to be yet their reputations were inflated because of the top fighters they faced.

You answered your own question. The top fighters faced one another.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

What was wrong with Huck vs Glowacki?

Those were C-class fighters..

Honestly (and I KNOW I'm in the minority) but I actually enjoyed the Tarver fight more

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I can't understand how you can say that.
I'm not asking for an argument (or wanting one), just saying what I think.

Yeah, no of course, I get that.

I don't really find slow paced fights boring.

Tarver wasn't running or spoiling, he was doing all his body would let him do. Tarver fought to win man. He really did!
I think there was still a good a mount of skill on show. Tarver was setting traps and must have been disappointed that he didn't have enough power to at least drop Cunningham once, albeit it set up a very tense finish with the 12th round effectively deciding the result of the contest.

For the record though, I'm not saying I didn't like the Huck fight

[SlimTrae]

And while we're at it shame on modern human beings as well especially the younger generations of lackluster pudgy burrito eating want to be pretty Boyz. Gone are the days of old time old fashion wars of attrition in the ring like we saw with gatti and ward or like we saw with Graciano and zale or like we saw with Marciano and walcott or like we saw with Dempsey and Tunney or like we saw with Ali and Frasier or Larry Holmes and Ken Norton or great wars like we saw between Aaron Pryor and Alexis or Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran well at least the first fight in Montreal anyway. Now what we have is a pile of s*** like we saw with Pacquiao and Mayweather or a pile of s*** like we saw with Deontay Wilder and bermane stiverne or absolute piss poor pile of s*** like we saw with klitschko. Shame on modern boxers and shame on modern human beings for their lackluster piss-poor uninspired pudgy money grubbing pieces of crap personalities and characters or should I say lack thereof. Bring back the good old days over by the docks in Hoboken New Jersey when a fight was a fight and people actually through 100 Punches per round nobody hurt their bicep muscle nobody tore their rotator cuff nobody broke their little pinky toe and could not throw punches in the ring like David loser piss poor sack of s*** Haye did against Klitschko. I have never seen such such piss poor subpar lackluster b******* in my entire life.

It could even be said of the modern athlete. I remember comedian Richard Pryor joking how football legend Jim Brown played- never missed a game for being hurt. Today athletes get hurt in pre-season, what kind of shit is that?

So into muscle building, with little fat, then wonder why they keep pulling tendons, snaping this, rupturing that.

An NBA player today gets hurt- and they sit his 100 million dollar ass on the bench. I remember Bob Lanier of the Bucks, Darrol Dawkins of the sixers- when they got hurt- They would put a cartoonish looking big-ass-fuck bag of ice on their knees. Then be out there next fucking play.

And these so called boxers today who whine a cry about a fighter running. Well, what the fuck happened to cutting the ring off? Took Haglar some rounds- but by the 9th & 10th Rounds, He had Ray trapped. Pretty boy had to (bang) his way out.
So when I hear Pac claiming Floyd ran. Damn it's a what? 20x20 ring? Maybe 22 at best?!

Even Ali stated Forman's plodding ass was far better at cutting the ring off, then he'd imagine. And we got to see Ali fight it out with the mummy.

True dat. Shame on modern boxers & athletes today for chasing money and not the glory.
As money will always accompany glory.

Floyd has got the record, the statistics & the money- but he didn't get the glory.