How do we really compare different eras?

[Y0cc3]

I see guys saying that HW boxing sucks today and how old champs would destroy modern boxers with no problems. But why? How can we really know Ali would beat Klitschko, Frazier would beat Haye, (prime) Foreman would beat Lewis, Holmes would beat Wilder etc.
We see guys running faster, lifting more, running longer, swimming faster, why then people think modern boxers are not better than old legends?

 

[JayElectra]

Comparing eras is very difficult. I say this as I'm ready to sleep.

 

[Rubberman1]

you just don't the new generation is always better than the one before it

 

[Francis Rossi]

Yeah, you don't. If nothing else, guys are so much fitter in general than back then.

 

[sportkillergreg]

Old legends > modern boxers

 

[Spirit Breaker]

Well athletes are running faster and lifting more because of the knowledge and methods that are being applied today. You have to take all that into account. I think it's hard to make an argument that the Klitschko brothers wouldn't be very competitive or even dominant against opposition from early eras because they are so big and athletic, but on the other hand if Joe Louis was born in a more modern era what would he have been like?

Also, when you compare eras you gotta think how would modern fighters hold up in one of the harshest sports during more harsh times. Equipment wasn't as developed, fighting careers were more demanding and fighters had virtually no say, medical science was far less advanced.

Mayweather is the greatest fighter in the world right now and his hands have barely been able to sustain his career of sub 50 fights. He fights every 6 months, what if he had to fight every 6 weeks? And we all saw the hell he raised about Maidana's gloves, you ever seen a glove from the 30's?

You can't accurately compare eras.

 

[PUO3]

You do it by sounding like a jackass usually.

Comparing eras is retarded.

 

[Seano]

By picking your favorite, and mocking people who pick anyone else and then refuse to back up your pick with any solid data.

Thats what people do.

 

[badstoppage]

I'll put it like this, Lewis who was a shell of himself stopped Wlad, Wlad wouldn't beat prime Ali because we saw how Ali dominated vs endless greats. If you're talking pre-TV it's very hard, I consider Willie Pep better than Floyd or Marciano but I know Pep literally fought a guy with 6 wins 3 times.


If you took today's heaveweights, middleweights or welters in the golden eras they would be victims, I truly believe Wlad would have losses from Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Moore, Liston, Shavers and Holmes, based on who he has fought last 10 years.

The answer is look at who they fought.

 

[Seano]

.

The answer is look at who they fought.

Agree but I think you need to go deeper than saying "Oh Robinson beat Lamotta and everyone says Lamotta was really good." (not implying that you do that)

You need to look at who those guys beat, who beat them, what stage of their career etc etc etc.

 

[Y0cc3]

I'll put it like this, Lewis who was a shell of himself stopped Wlad, Wlad wouldn't beat prime Ali because we saw how Ali dominated vs endless greats. If you're talking pre-TV it's very hard, I consider Willie Pep better than Floyd or Marciano but I know Pep literally fought a guy with 6 wins 3 times.


If you took today's heaveweights, middleweights or welters in the golden eras they would be victims, I truly believe Wlad would have losses from Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Moore, Liston, Shavers and Holmes, based on who he has fought last 10 years.

The answer is look at who they fought.

Lewis stopped Vitali by cut (not Wlad), Vitali was winning.
You say: "The answer is look at who they fought."
What about it? Ali won Frazier, Wlad won Chagaev. One could say that Frazier is bigger win but how do you actually show that Chagaev isn't as good as Frazier? Or that Haye isn't as good as Foreman etc.?

 

[PUO3]

I'll put it like this, Lewis who was a shell of himself stopped Wlad, Wlad wouldn't beat prime Ali because we saw how Ali dominated vs endless greats. If you're talking pre-TV it's very hard, I consider Willie Pep better than Floyd or Marciano but I know Pep literally fought a guy with 6 wins 3 times.


If you took today's heaveweights, middleweights or welters in the golden eras they would be victims, I truly believe Wlad would have losses from Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Moore, Liston, Shavers and Holmes, based on who he has fought last 10 years.

The answer is look at who they fought.

Most people dont know shit about boxing.

 

[badstoppage]

Agree but I think you need to go deeper than saying "Oh Robinson beat Lamotta and everyone says Lamotta was really good." (not implying that you do that)

You need to look at who those guys beat, who beat them, what stage of their career etc etc etc.

this is true Marciano defeated 4 ATGs but they were shells of themselves. With Lamotta I believe he defeated an undefeated Robinson, that's just an amazing win.

 

[badstoppage]

Lewis stopped Vitali by cut (not Wlad), Vitali was winning.
You say: "The answer is look at who they fought."
What about it? Ali won Frazier, Wlad won Chagaev. One could say that Frazier is bigger win but how do you actually show that Chagaev isn't as good as Frazier? Or that Haye isn't as good as Foreman etc.?

Lennox who was a shell won and than Vitali and Wlad reigned over a dead era and now that you have guys like Perez, Wilder, Fury and Jennings Wlad is literally fighting a truck driver. With Frazier and Foreman it's easy we've seen them fight, Foreman was an undefeated killer and Ali beat him, this isn't like Sam Langford were we only have 4 complete fights.

 

[Seano]

this is true Marciano defeated 4 ATGs but they were shells of themselves. With Lamotta I believe he defeated an undefeated Robinson, that's just an amazing win.

I also firmly believe that historians have been trying to shut down the introduction of new ATG fighters since the 80s. Its not some organized thing, but the level of offense people take to comparing a modern guy to a guy like Duran is sort of ridiculous.

There's a reason why Jack Dempsey was once a top HW but doesn't make the cut now. Guys came along and accomplished more.

Conversely, thats sort of why no one can ever surpass Robinson. No one will ever be able to accomplish more than he did.

 

[Seano]

Lewis beat Vitali fair and square. The cuts were caused by punches.


There was no controversy in that fight at all.

 

[Prefect]

Lewis beat Vitali fair and square. The cuts were caused by punches.


There was no controversy in that fight at all.

I agree with this point. Cuts happen but if you watch the fight, Lennox was working the cut and rubbing his laces into it. Lennox played it smart but going into the fight I think Lennox was running out of give a shit. If I remember correctly he was kind of heavy. He was probably tired of training to beat the best in the world. Training is probably the hardest thing in boxing. Almost everyone can give everything for one night. Try getting up every morning to run 10 miles when you have more than enough money to retire many times over and you don't have anything more to prove to yourself.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Agree but I think you need to go deeper than saying "Oh Robinson beat Lamotta and everyone says Lamotta was really good." (not implying that you do that)

You need to look at who those guys beat, who beat them, what stage of their career etc etc etc.

That is exactly what I said in a thread recently.

I compared Gatti to Mugabi, similar ammy and pro credentials, pretty comparble. Known for their power, grit, and wars.. however did have some skills.

Then I say, look at what Mayweather did to someone like Gatti, he owned him.

Then someone says, that is one style. Well take a smaller fighter, top p4p, highly skills in JMM, and also in Duran. Hagler almost lost to Duran, yet Money way completely out classed him.

How about a skilled boxer puncher in Oscar who was an Olympic Gold medalist. Floyd beat him, pretty clearly. Hagler dropped his fight vs someone comparable in SRL. NOt to mention Oscar is bigger than Floyd, and Hagler was bigger than SRL.

Floyd is clearly better.

 

[Francis Rossi]

Lewis stopped Vitali by cut (not Wlad), Vitali was winning.
You say: "The answer is look at who they fought."
What about it? Ali won Frazier, Wlad won Chagaev. One could say that Frazier is bigger win but how do you actually show that Chagaev isn't as good as Frazier? Or that Haye isn't as good as Foreman etc.?

Did you actually watch Lewis/Vitali? That wasn't just a cut, it was a multiple cuts around his left eye, closing it up and filling it with blood. Takes more than just a glancing blow to do that. Granted Lewis was down on the cards, but that's how it goes, much like someone getting knocked out in the twelfth after looking like cruising to a decision win.

And yeah, Lewis had had enough by that point. Probably realised he was in danger of stepping into Ali territory if he kept going, losing to guys he should have beaten. Okay, he did that earlier too, but he whupped ass in the return bouts.

 

[Prefect]

Okay, he did that earlier too, but he whupped ass in the return bouts.

He only lost two fights and those were probably due to poor motivation and underestimating his opponents. He whupped both of them in rematches so I am guessing motivition was an issue sometimes. The shots that put him on his ass though would have put most heavyweights on their ass. The talk about him have a bad chin I think are overstated. He just got careless and prepared poorly against some guys who had enough crack to make him pay for a mistake.