Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  1
Likes Likes:  9
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,605
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    612
    Cool Clicks

    Default I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    I always see all of these comparisons of current fighters to fighters of yesteryear. I think that some comparisons are fair, but too many things have changed to fairly compare certain feats. Things like fighter x has beaten an x amount of world champions. That’s more than what a fighter from 1950 did. Well obviously because there was only one title back then and you weren’t fighting people with trinkets.

    Or being a multi division champion. Again, there are tons of belts per weight class so it’s much easier to get a title now, and there are twice as many weight classes so it’s much easier to hold a title in three weight divisions now instead of back in the day.

    I’m not saying this to compare old and current fighters. I guess I have just seen a lot lately dumb comparisons. And it’s slow with no boxing so I decided to write a rant.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3056
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    It's equally as dumb for fans - self-proclaimed "experts" - to shit all over modern world-class/great fighters. Every single all-time great would get the exact same shit from fans/"experts" in this era. There would be no 100 fight records padded with 50 coal miners and factory workers.

    Modern fighters don't have the skill of old timers. Why? They don't fight enough. Say the same "experts" who waffle about modern fighters "padded records."

    For example - Canelo has beat a bunch of HOF-ers yet gets dogs abuse for "cherry picking" not just Rocky Fielding but Kovalev!!! Kovalev!!! And the very same fans will wax lyrical about some fossil they have never seen fight. Ridiculous. Stop these people in the street they'd never name 5 fighters their all-time no.1 beat but they know Canelo/Loma/Joshua/Choco/Golovkin are "duckers." Pathetic.

    Unlike other sports boxing hasn't changed much over the years (old classic fights are still thrilling to watch today), hardly any other sport is like that, we can see how slower and smaller and less athletic the fossils were - football, tennis, golf, T&F, snooker etc. However, boxing is the only sport that so-called "experts" claim has regressed. Hilarious.
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,605
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    612
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    It’s just really difficult to compare the two in accomplishments. I do agree that you can’t hold modern fighters to the same standards of fighting 200 times in their careers. Old fighters obviously had a lot of padding on their record because of that. Although I do like it to an extent. I don’t want Canelo fighting someone with a record of 2-3-1, but I think that upsets would happen quite a bit if you were constantly fighting journeymen. You will eventually run into someone with a difficult style for you and you are having a bad day and you lose. I think it just makes it more interesting.

    Weight classes are also something that is different from other sports. Many sports depend on size as an advantage. A welterweight is still a welterweight whether now or then.

    The sport is just so different comparatively, but still basically the same when it comes to the in ring stuff. Maybe it’s time to start just saying who is the greatest per decade or at least generation rather than of all time because it’s so hard to compare a fighter from 1920 to a fighter now.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,623
    Mentioned
    1667 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3019
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    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.
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,605
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    612
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    6,462
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    620
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    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!
    All's lost! Everything's going to shit!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    26,053
    Mentioned
    530 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1947
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,623
    Mentioned
    1667 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3019
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
    By powerpuncher in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-17-2014, 04:55 AM
  2. Comparing Trinidad's losses
    By TitoFan in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 01:27 PM
  3. Comparing heavyweights from different eras
    By Googoogachoob in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 02:10 PM
  4. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 07-28-2007, 12:32 PM
  5. Comparing Hatton and Hamed!
    By Gandalf in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2006, 08:58 PM

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Saddo Boxing - Boxing