Modern Boxers vs Early Boxers

[Seano]

i'm not denigrating him for it, you use what you have to use, mentality is 90 percent of boxing. He's singular for a lot of reasons. Don't shit on him.

I didn't.

I'm just realistic.

 

[Thanatos2]

I dont think the "Old" Era vs the "New" Era is applicable in any logical sense.

At the end of the day only 1 rule matters in the fight game :

Styles Make Fights

For instance, You take a "modern" boxer, let's say a Mike Tyson, and put him in against a Johnson, I dont think it's outside the realm of possibility that the combination of handspeed, head movement and destructive power does Johnson in.

You take that same Tyson, put him in against a Dempsey, a Joe Louis, Then you have much more of a fight on your hands. It's all about how you fight.

Flloyd Mayweather has made his career making punchers look stupid. You put him against any pressure fighter like Lamotta , and I think Flloyd clowns him, you put him against a Charles Burley, like earlier in the video, or against Willie Pep, you got a different animal entirely

Nutrition, athletics, these play some part, but I think too much is given to the physicality, not enough to the style, and more importantly, the ability to impose that gameplan of your style, on your opponent

 

[mozfonky]

all this talk is frustrating because I really don't know what people see in modern boxers, are they any faster than a camacho, a pep, a robinson? Do they hit harder or with more bad intention than a foreman or Liston? It's not like basketball where it's obvious even to an unitiated eye like mines, that todays ball players are 3 or 4 times the players they were, I mean plain fucking obvious, its not like that in boxing. Go watch Emile Griffith, Basilio or anyone you want and it's not like watching some basketball player planting his feet and throwing a ball back then. I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter, posterity won't really count most of your opinions.

 

[Thanatos2]

I dont see a big difference in speed or power across the eras. I dont think you can say with any definitiveness that todays boxers would manhandle and destroy boxers of glories past. It's always styles make fights. It's always who can make the other fight their fight, fight at their pace, fight at their rhythm.

Mayweather made Cotto miss, gave him no targets, thus Cotto landed a small amount of punches. Does this mean Cotto was less conditioned, or not as strong as Mayweather? No, and you'd be a fool to say so. Floyd used his skills, his style, to trump Cotto's pressure, it's simple.

Styles make fights

 

[Codpiece]

Good posts Crackwhore but I'm not sure I agree.

I think the majority of your great boxers at any point in history were athletically gifted. Thats not a new thing.

Watch Willie Pep. He wasn't physically gifted? Robinson wasn't physically gifted? Their physical talents had as much to do with their success as their boxing IQ.

Guys like Ray Leonard and Floyd aren't really anything new.They have distinct styles perhaps, but I disagree that somehow people were physically different back then.

I also think you underestimate the fighters of today and perhaps overestimate the overall talent pool of certain historical eras.

We have guys of every style today as we did all through history. Graziano to Gatti. Pep to Whitaker to Floyd. That leads me to believe that there is a lot more technique involved with todays dominant fighters than a lot of good ole days boxing fans will allow you to think. Without technique, theres no reason Floyd beat Hatton.

I know a lot of people have a problem with what I'm about to say, but I see no real evidence other than an huge record that says Robinson was a better fighter than Leonard or Floyd.

Give me a few examples of these journeymen you speak of.

I actually agree with a large part of what you've said regarding the physical gifts that dominant champions display. Which is why I disagree with one of your final statements, the one about SRR.

I believe he was better than Leonard or Floyd, and that's because I believe he had many of their skills and advantages: speed, timing, reflexes, defensive skills and great combination punching. But what he did have that neither of them possess is incredible one punch power. Oh, and I suspect his chin was better than either of theirs, though I can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both of these are natural physical gifts which Robinson used to help him dominate his era.

 

[Fisticuffa]

I dont think the "Old" Era vs the "New" Era is applicable in any logical sense.

At the end of the day only 1 rule matters in the fight game :

Styles Make Fights

For instance, You take a "modern" boxer, let's say a Mike Tyson, and put him in against a Johnson, I dont think it's outside the realm of possibility that the combination of handspeed, head movement and destructive power does Johnson in.

You take that same Tyson, put him in against a Dempsey, a Joe Louis, Then you have much more of a fight on your hands. It's all about how you fight.

Flloyd Mayweather has made his career making punchers look stupid. You put him against any pressure fighter like Lamotta , and I think Flloyd clowns him, you put him against a Charles Burley, like earlier in the video, or against Willie Pep, you got a different animal entirely

Nutrition, athletics, these play some part, but I think too much is given to the physicality, not enough to the style, and more importantly, the ability to impose that gameplan of your style, on your opponent

Completely agreed.

This is what I was trying to say but you put it better.

Freaking Buster Douglas beat Tyson so why is it inconceivable world champs from 60-70 years from the past might have done the same.

One has to keep in mind too that what we have often is grainy, sub par footage compared to what we have today, so some of those guys might look worse than they actually were.

Look at this for example:

 

[Seano]

Freaking Buster Douglas beat Tyson so why is it inconceivable world champs from 60-70 years from the past might have done the same.
]

Its not inconceivable at all. Whats inconceivable is that all of a sudden a capable boxer just would cease being capable against someone from a different era.
Tyson had lots of tools that made him an absolute monster.

As for Douglas, I think he could hang in certain eras. The Douglas who fought Tyson would easily beat guys like Max Baer.

 

[ZroC]

all this talk is frustrating because I really don't know what people see in modern boxers, are they any faster than a camacho, a pep, a robinson? Do they hit harder or with more bad intention than a foreman or Liston? It's not like basketball where it's obvious even to an unitiated eye like mines, that todays ball players are 3 or 4 times the players they were, I mean plain fucking obvious, its not like that in boxing. Go watch Emile Griffith, Basilio or anyone you want and it's not like watching some basketball player planting his feet and throwing a ball back then. I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter, posterity won't really count most of your opinions.

Most people who haven't got a hard on for the old days will tell you the older boxers look worse than today's fighters. In fact for a lot of these guys it is blatantly obvious, and when I'm pointing out guys with 6 losses and 1 win on Rocky's record during the prime of his career I'm surprised it isn't pretty obvious to you too.

There is not one single other fighter in history who could move the way Prince Naz did and end his career being considered a worthless bum by so many. Yet slow down some murky footage to spot Rocky moving out of the way of some glass chinned potato sack's hayemaker and it could only be genius.

 

[Seano]

Most people who haven't got a hard on for the old days will tell you the older boxers look worse than today's fighters. In fact for a lot of these guys it is blatantly obvious, and when I'm pointing out guys with 6 losses and 1 win on Rocky's record during the prime of his career I'm surprised it isn't pretty obvious to you too.

There is not one single other fighter in history who could move the way Prince Naz did and end his career being considered a worthless bum by so many. Yet slow down some murky footage to spot Rocky moving out of the way of some glass chinned potato sack's hayemaker and it could only be genius.

I've had people post the same vid of Lamotta moving his head in a fight over and over again in threads like these. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

 

[mozfonky]

Most people who haven't got a hard on for the old days will tell you the older boxers look worse than today's fighters. In fact for a lot of these guys it is blatantly obvious, and when I'm pointing out guys with 6 losses and 1 win on Rocky's record during the prime of his career I'm surprised it isn't pretty obvious to you too.

There is not one single other fighter in history who could move the way Prince Naz did and end his career being considered a worthless bum by so many. Yet slow down some murky footage to spot Rocky moving out of the way of some glass chinned potato sack's hayemaker and it could only be genius.

well, when I watch guys today, I just see stupid mistake after stupid mistake and no one will convince me otherwise. Jermain Taylor looked like a good prospect but he did some stupid, stupid shit that any 2nd year amateur would know not to do and he never learned and he'd get kayoed the same stupid way everytime too. Naz was a guy gifted with a huge punch and a lot of luck, I said years ago, the first time he ran into a well schooled fighter he'll be exposed. The Brendan Ingle "style" is not a part of this discussion, it's so far of an offshoot that it can't be considered anything other than some kook making up a system that will work sometimes and sometimes get you fucked up just as bad. Also, i'm open to seeing a good fighter and there are good fighters out there who have been taught somewhat well but you look at the heavyweights, you look at some of the "stars" of the sport and it's sad. If you know someone to watch, I'll take a look but I doubt it'll change my mind.

 

[mozfonky]

and don't get me wrong kids, I love boxing, I want to see the sport flourish. I guess I could say I was suckered like some of you guys are too buy guys like Roy Jones, I learned though, maybe someday you will too.

 

[Seano]

and don't get me wrong kids, I love boxing, I want to see the sport flourish. I guess I could say I was suckered like some of you guys are too buy guys like Roy Jones, I learned though, maybe someday you will too.

Disqualifying Jones for losses late in his career is like saying Robinson was never any good because he lost to Bobo Olson.

 

[mozfonky]

Disqualifying Jones for losses late in his career is like saying Robinson was never any good because he lost to Bobo Olson.

when did robinson lose to olson. Jones was smoke and mirrors, if the talent pool were thicker, he would have ran into someone sooner, that simple.

 

[Seano]

when did robinson lose to olson. Jones was smoke and mirrors, if the talent pool were thicker, he would have ran into someone sooner, that simple.

Towards the tail end of his career, same as Jones.

The lack of quality on Roy's resume is exaggerated.

 

[mozfonky]

Towards the tail end of his career, same as Jones.

The lack of quality on Roy's resume is exaggerated.

he never lost to olson. anyway, anyone who doesn't pass tests for greatness doesn't get greatness. Roy and Tyson did not do this. did not overcome challenges, come behind to win or anything else. For whatever reason they didn't so putting them in any list is generous.

 

[Seano]

WTF? Bobo Olson? I need a nap.

 

[mozfonky]

WTF? Bobo Olson? I need a nap.

no big deal, you point was understood.

 

[Seano]

no big deal, you point was understood.

I did that exact same thing in another thread, I kept putting Olsons name to Archers fight.

Oh well, call it a victory.

 

[djacobox372]

In every sport where athletic achievement can be measure directly (track and field, weight lifting, swimming), today's athletes are MUCH better. Heck an olympic gold medalist from the 1940's would have a hard time competing at the high school level these days.

Why would boxing be an exception?

 

[Seano]

In every sport where athletic achievement can be measure directly (track and field, weight lifting, swimming), today's athletes are MUCH better. Heck an olympic gold medalist from the 1940's would have a hard time competing at the high school level these days.

Why would boxing be an exception?

I've asked this question a million times. The answer always seems to have something to do with poverty.