View Full Version : Classic vs Modern. Aus Forum Only. You decide!
Okay, need some help guys. I am currently in the process of creating a thread which will hopefully put an end to a long running arguement. The topic is : Are the fighters from the previous eras (saddler, robinson, armstrong, pep, lamotta ect), better based on head to head match ups (ability, skill and talent) then the best fighters of the modern era (chavez, whitaker, jones jr, mayweather, calzaghe, hopkins ect). Please answer in the poll, and where possible discuss the reason for your choice. I don't have any footage currently, but plan on posting some in the completed thread. Any input is appreciated either way!
Scar/Reggie, please don't move this thread. I am only wanting the Aussie guys to post in this one, as i am working on another thread to go in the general on the same topic. Thanks.
I am of the opinion that the modern day fighters would be in a different league. With all the benefits of modern boxing: the professionalism, sports science, nutrition, advance training facilites and methods and a better technical knowledge of the sport through knowledge passed down, IMO it is an easy choice. A number of other posters argue that because the classic era were the pinnacle of boxing and that we have simply declined in some aspects since that time. Being a hypothetical situation it is very hard to prove one way or the other.
WhataRock
08-27-2007, 04:02 AM
I try to stay away from this debate for the reason that boxing was very very different then to what it is now.
The interpretation, enforcement and actual rules back in the day were quite different. The equipment ie gloves, ring, were different.
If you took a modern fighter and transported him back in time, I think he would get fucked up.
I dont think an old school fighter coming forward in time would be as out of his depth, provided he knew how the game had changed.
Comparing eras is very hard, its like comparing am boxing to pro boxing today.
I try to stay away from this debate for the reason that boxing was very very different then to what it is now.
The interpretation, enforcement and actual rules back in the day were quite different. The equipment ie gloves, ring, were different.
If you took a modern fighter and transported him back in time, I think he would get fucked up.
I dont think an old school fighter coming forward in time would be as out of his depth, provided he knew how the game had changed.
Comparing eras is very hard, its like comparing am boxing to pro boxing today.
What elements of the game (Classic Era) do you think Modern day fighters would have trouble adapting to?
more skill and more training modern fighters r better
We finally agree on something Choc.
WhataRock
08-27-2007, 04:17 AM
Longer fights, less padding on gloves, more acceptance for fouling. No standing 8 count back in the day as soon as you were on your knees you were fair game.
One of the best ever heavyweights, Marciano, had a signature punch that was basically more of an elbow than a punch. And he was allowed to do it, no one thought of him as any less of a great.
Just in general people were tougher back then, I know thats a contentious statement but you think of what boxers had to deal with not only in the ring but outside of it too, you can could easily argue that they were mentally tougher. Even the average joe had to work harder, sleep less, walk more, do more hard labour in his day to day actions, usually have to put up with pain and injury to get by. Things like that were just part of normal life but if we were to experience that Im sure most of us would whine like bitches, refuse to work (and be allowed to do so) and have a lot more options at our finger tips to make our life easier.
I think sport was affected by the culture of the day aswell.
BoppaZoo
08-27-2007, 04:44 AM
It depends i m of the belief that Modern day fighters although talented and skillful are know where near as tough and hard hitting.
Yes the great to watch today but really guys like Robinson would school Jermain Tayor aswell as being tougher and alot smarter.
They fought 15 rounders against guys that were brutal with smaller gloves.
I know we will never know but do you serious believe in your hearts that
Sugar Ray would get outclassed by Jermain (Bad Intentions) Taylor. Please Ray had more skill a bigger heart, more Power and is in another league.
Dekkers
08-27-2007, 05:04 AM
It's difficult to say, in general I think yes, however the difference isn't as big as some make out and there are exceptions in certain weights such as heavyweights. In a pound for pound sense I think there are heavyweights of yesteryear better than ones of today, and even in a head to head sense, a small, skilled heavyweight can be succesful against a larger opponent no doubt, particularly if he possesses a knockout punch (i'm of the belief that once you get round and over that 200 pound mark, if you're a good puncher you can hurt a man, even a larger one).
In terms of athleticism, the differences aren't as great as some say, what modern heavyweight can you name that could follow Marcianos' training regimen? Rhetorical question. For all the talk of modern training techniques, and diets, etc, the fact is that many boxers do not use those particular techniques, some do some don't. The biggest difference I see between modern and old school boxers physically, is that modern boxers cut a lot more weight. There are some great athletes running around though (generally better than yesteryear), but that's something that needs to be judged on a case by case basis. For every great modern athlete, like Lewis, Wlad, Tyson and Hide, there's a Ruiz, Valuev, roided Briggs, Sanil Sam, the modern heavy weight on average isn't taller than 30 years ago... just heavier (and we're not talking muscle a lot of the time).
Looking at the top class boxers today in lower weights, I think the average boxer is more 'technically sound' or 'textbook', than in the past, but there are boxers who I feel are capable of competing in the modern era even 'as is', guys who have obvious natural gifts, like the LaMottas, Robinsons, Peps, Louis', Armstrongs. There are psychological elements like the ability to control fear, confidence, temperament in the ring, pain thresholds and physical elements, power (this is different to strength, there have been plenty of gifted punchers in the past), toughness, stamina... all these things level a playing field in terms of variables, since boxing isn't just about running faster in a straight line, or lifting a heavier weight.
In summary, yes in general, with some exceptions (like heavyweight), but like anything it needs to be looked at case by case since there are more variables in boxing than athletic ones or technical ones, and modern boxers don't necessarily always carry these advantages over ALL the old school boxers (case by case like i said).
PorkChopExpress
08-27-2007, 06:25 AM
I look forward to your thread MSTR... I dont think this question will have an answer everyone will accept no matter how much you analyse and interpret information and possibilities etc.
Unless you got them to actually fight you'll never really know.
To be honest, I think it goes both ways and depends mostly on the talents of individual fighters and the state of competition/skill in the era's your looking at.
Weigh up who your trying to convince with the thread in the end dude, just dont be too disappointed if it gets the same results as posting "ALI KO LEWIS EVERYTIME!" or some shit.
The_Bringer
08-27-2007, 09:27 AM
purely head to head.. i had to vote modern.
ipswich express
08-27-2007, 10:18 AM
It's such a hard thing to debate. Different fighters = different results. Hard to generalise generations. However one thing the old fighters had was they were far more active.
Definitely depends on who you are matching up. I mean sugar Ray Robinson destroys every single welterweight (his prime weight) today. And would also beat every 154 lb and 160 lb fighter today. It's debatable how well he would do 168-175, as he only had one fight at 175 and that was past his prime, but in modern conditions he would have won that fight.
Not even all of the best boxers' today use modern training techniques. I mean modern techniques can make em a little faster, a little stronger. But boxing has too many other intangibles. For all his modern training, and nutrition Klitschko has been starched 3 times to journeyman type fighters. Roy been KO'd couple of times. Mosley has been beat by better fighters.
Some of the positives of the "classic era" include 15 round fights, definitely tougher, more stamina, fought multiple times a year, had to earn a living, (compared to say 2-3 times for a champion in modern times). Hopkins said it best, today's fighters are spoiled.
Advantages of modern fighters: Slightly more skill in general, quicker, stronger and bigger in general. Make more money.
Classic fighters: Higher stamina, more tougher, heart, chin proven, definitely hungrier, greatness proven.
I have other reasons (Socio-economic) that I would like to talk about but dont have the time at the moment that I feel deserves a mention in this topic.
later
Longer fights, less padding on gloves, more acceptance for fouling. No standing 8 count back in the day as soon as you were on your knees you were fair game.
One of the best ever heavyweights, Marciano, had a signature punch that was basically more of an elbow than a punch. And he was allowed to do it, no one thought of him as any less of a great.
Just in general people were tougher back then, I know thats a contentious statement but you think of what boxers had to deal with not only in the ring but outside of it too, you can could easily argue that they were mentally tougher. Even the average joe had to work harder, sleep less, walk more, do more hard labour in his day to day actions, usually have to put up with pain and injury to get by. Things like that were just part of normal life but if we were to experience that Im sure most of us would whine like bitches, refuse to work (and be allowed to do so) and have a lot more options at our finger tips to make our life easier.
I think sport was affected by the culture of the day aswell.
I disagree with your post for a couple of reasons. The first being that I believe it would be much easier to adapt to becoming a dirty fighter, then to improve your technical skills and win without using dirty tactics. Secondly, modern fighters are just as tough as the older ones. There is no difference. THey kill themselves in training, and if anything because they don't work and do other things on top of training, they can focus themselves much better on fighting. Perhaps the average person from eras gone was tougher, but certainly not professional fighters, who fight day in day out. In regards to your comments about Marciano. The guy was 5"10 and weighed about 190 pounds on a good day. Take a top heavy today like Wlad Klit, who is 6"6 and weight almost 245 pounds on average. Do you really think these two would be competitve. When you add in the difference in skill and technical ability also, iMO Prim Wlad vs Prime Rocky would end in 1st round KO. Rocky just wouldn't have a hope in hell.
I have other reasons (Socio-economic) that I would like to talk about but dont have the time at the moment that I feel deserves a mention in this topic.
later
Please share because I would be interested to hear either way.
It depends i m of the belief that Modern day fighters although talented and skillful are know where near as tough and hard hitting.
Yes the great to watch today but really guys like Robinson would school Jermain Tayor aswell as being tougher and alot smarter.
They fought 15 rounders against guys that were brutal with smaller gloves.
I know we will never know but do you serious believe in your hearts that
Sugar Ray would get outclassed by Jermain (Bad Intentions) Taylor. Please Ray had more skill a bigger heart, more Power and is in another league.
You really think Sugar Ray would school a prime Jermain Taylor. Jermain is a natural middleweight and very big for this division. I imagine he would weigh in well over 170 on the day of the fight. Robinson certainly wasn't prime at 160. he is a naturally smaller man. He was beaten at 160 numerous times by guys that would appear to be much lessor fighters then Jermain Taylor. Watch the two on film side by side. Not highlight reels but actual fight footage. Tell me who looks bigger and stronger, even faster to a degree. It is a very POPULAR opinion that Ray Robinson is the greatest of all time, but we are looking at actual ability here. Robinson may win, but I highly doubt he schools a guy that elite fighters from our generation could not do.
Dekkers
08-27-2007, 10:03 PM
You really think Sugar Ray would school a prime Jermain Taylor.
Hell yes (in this example), Taylor would crumble beneath Sugar Rays speed, pressure and power, I wouldn't have him schooling a prime Hagler though :yep
It's difficult to say, in general I think yes, however the difference isn't as big as some make out and there are exceptions in certain weights such as heavyweights. In a pound for pound sense I think there are heavyweights of yesteryear better than ones of today, and even in a head to head sense, a small, skilled heavyweight can be succesful against a larger opponent no doubt, particularly if he possesses a knockout punch (i'm of the belief that once you get round and over that 200 pound mark, if you're a good puncher you can hurt a man, even a larger one).
In terms of athleticism, the differences aren't as great as some say, what modern heavyweight can you name that could follow Marcianos' training regimen? Rhetorical question. For all the talk of modern training techniques, and diets, etc, the fact is that many boxers do not use those particular techniques, some do some don't. The biggest difference I see between modern and old school boxers physically, is that modern boxers cut a lot more weight. There are some great athletes running around though (generally better than yesteryear), but that's something that needs to be judged on a case by case basis. For every great modern athlete, like Lewis, Wlad, Tyson and Hide, there's a Ruiz, Valuev, roided Briggs, Sanil Sam, the modern heavy weight on average isn't taller than 30 years ago... just heavier (and we're not talking muscle a lot of the time).
Looking at the top class boxers today in lower weights, I think the average boxer is more 'technically sound' or 'textbook', than in the past, but there are boxers who I feel are capable of competing in the modern era even 'as is', guys who have obvious natural gifts, like the LaMottas, Robinsons, Peps, Louis', Armstrongs. There are psychological elements like the ability to control fear, confidence, temperament in the ring, pain thresholds and physical elements, power (this is different to strength, there have been plenty of gifted punchers in the past), toughness, stamina... all these things level a playing field in terms of variables, since boxing isn't just about running faster in a straight line, or lifting a heavier weight.
In summary, yes in general, with some exceptions (like heavyweight), but like anything it needs to be looked at case by case since there are more variables in boxing than athletic ones or technical ones, and modern boxers don't necessarily always carry these advantages over ALL the old school boxers (case by case like i said).
Good Post.
Hell yes (in this example), Taylor would crumble beneath Sugar Rays speed, pressure and power, I wouldn't have him schooling a prime Hagler though :yep
Taylor isn't an ATG at 160 and never will be, but neither was Sugar at 160. He was best as a welter weight. Look at the size difference alone. Jermain is a tall, fast strong and big middleweight. Look at some of the guys that Robinson lost 2 at 160. I think its easy to remember them as these invincible fighters, but in reality they just weren't.
I look forward to your thread MSTR... I dont think this question will have an answer everyone will accept no matter how much you analyse and interpret information and possibilities etc.
Unless you got them to actually fight you'll never really know.
To be honest, I think it goes both ways and depends mostly on the talents of individual fighters and the state of competition/skill in the era's your looking at.
Weigh up who your trying to convince with the thread in the end dude, just dont be too disappointed if it gets the same results as posting "ALI KO LEWIS EVERYTIME!" or some shit.
I realise there will be some idiots that it will attract. But that happens everytime on ESB. The debate i have going is more so between myself, Amsterdam and CHJ against a lot of the classic forum guys like Sweet Pea, McGrain, Cross Trainer ect. Obviously a lot of other people have been putting in though as well, so it will be interesting to see if we can get a heap of facts and footage together to see collectively what the opinion of the posters here is.
Dekkers
08-27-2007, 10:28 PM
Taylor isn't an ATG at 160 and never will be, but neither was Sugar at 160. He was best as a welter weight. Look at the size difference alone. Jermain is a tall, fast strong and big middleweight. Look at some of the guys that Robinson lost 2 at 160. I think its easy to remember them as these invincible fighters, but in reality they just weren't.
Look at the trouble he's had with smaller fighters like Kassim Ouma, these guys aren't Robinson, I remember seeing Robinson lose to Bassillo (?? I think it was) and thinking he'd still beat Taylor that night (and Ray was past his best). A fighter like LaMotta would also mow down Taylor with his pressure.
Taylor has talent but he doesn't put it together (athletic ability isn't enough when other factors are lacking), he's arguably lost to Hopkins (Hops would have beaten him convincingly prime, Hops v Robinson is more interesting), Wright (well above his best weight, slowing) and Spinks (Taylor would've won if he wasn't so tentative).
If Taylor convincingly deals with Pavlik, i'll take this statement back!
It's such a hard thing to debate. Different fighters = different results. Hard to generalise generations. However one thing the old fighters had was they were far more active.
Do you think fighting more often is beneficial though? IMO it would cause more injury and give less time to train. Training gives them the opportunity to practice new skills, refine their techniques and have much more sparring completed. It would have been very difficult for older day fighters to do any where near the amount of sparring that modern fighters do as they would risk injury before their fights. Is it better to spar 50 rounds in a week under the watchful eye of your technical coaches, or to fight 12 with the obvious pressures of a live fight with a crowd.
Definitely depends on who you are matching up. I mean sugar Ray Robinson destroys every single welterweight (his prime weight) today. And would also beat every 154 lb and 160 lb fighter today. It's debatable how well he would do 168-175, as he only had one fight at 175 and that was past his prime, but in modern conditions he would have won that fight.
Not even all of the best boxers' today use modern training techniques. I mean modern techniques can make em a little faster, a little stronger. But boxing has too many other intangibles. For all his modern training, and nutrition Klitschko has been starched 3 times to journeyman type fighters. Roy been KO'd couple of times. Mosley has been beat by better fighters.
Some of the positives of the "classic era" include 15 round fights, definitely tougher, more stamina, fought multiple times a year, had to earn a living, (compared to say 2-3 times for a champion in modern times). Hopkins said it best, today's fighters are spoiled.
Advantages of modern fighters: Slightly more skill in general, quicker, stronger and bigger in general. Make more money.
Classic fighters: Higher stamina, more tougher, heart, chin proven, definitely hungrier, greatness proven.
To be fair though Roy was KO'd past his prime, just like Ray lost a heap of fights past prime and many other great have as well. Mosley certainly isn't the best from our era either. Watching the film how do you compare the defense of someone like Robinson to Whitaker? What about his counter punching ability to a fighter like Mayweather. It is my belief that as boxing progresses, fighters can learn from all the fighters gone. They can watch all the tapes of old and benefit from eras of great boxers, taking the best skills and using them to bring their game to the next level. When I watch someone like Robinson I can see his natural ability, but technically often times he looks sloppy. I honestly have trouble believeing that he you could take that exact same fighter and put him in with Floyd Mayweather and watch floyd get thoroughly beaten.
Look at the trouble he's had with smaller fighters like Kassim Ouma, these guys aren't Robinson, I remember seeing Robinson lose to Bassillo (?? I think it was) and thinking he'd still beat Taylor that night (and Ray was past his best). A fighter like LaMotta would also mow down Taylor with his pressure.
Taylor has talent but he doesn't put it together (athletic ability isn't enough when other factors are lacking), he's arguably lost to Hopkins (Hops would have beaten him convincingly prime, Hops v Robinson is more interesting), Wright (well above his best weight, slowing) and Spinks (Taylor would've won if he wasn't so tentative).
If Taylor convincingly deals with Pavlik, i'll take this statement back!
Ray lost to a heap of fighters at 160. Obviously he was past his best, but if you are arguing that a 160 version of him SCHOOLS Taylor I would say you are wrong. Maybe he beats him but I definitely don't see him schooling him.
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 12:34 AM
You really think Sugar Ray would school a prime Jermain Taylor. Jermain is a natural middleweight and very big for this division. I imagine he would weigh in well over 170 on the day of the fight. Robinson certainly wasn't prime at 160. he is a naturally smaller man. He was beaten at 160 numerous times by guys that would appear to be much lessor fighters then Jermain Taylor. Watch the two on film side by side. Not highlight reels but actual fight footage. Tell me who looks bigger and stronger, even faster to a degree. It is a very POPULAR opinion that Ray Robinson is the greatest of all time, but we are looking at actual ability here. Robinson may win, but I highly doubt he schools a guy that elite fighters from our generation could not do.YES I really think he would school Taylor.
Taylor's punch output and just they way he fights he wouldnt be able to keep Robinson off him.
Sugar Ray Robinson has beaten some of the best Middleweights ever and although Taylor won against Hopkins i would hardly say he dominated (I think he lost the first fight)
Robinson at Middleweight has wins against
Robert Villemain UD 15
Carl Olsen KO 12
Jake LaMotta TKO 13
Randy Turpin TKO 10
Carl Olsen UD 15
Rocky Graziano KO 3
Carl Olsen KO 2
Carl Olsen KO 4
Gene Fullmer KO 5
Carmen Basilio SD 15
Now that is some quality wins at 160. and to say he wouldnt handle a bigger more Natural Middleweight like Tayor well Robinson fought Joey Maxim for the Light Heavyweight title in which he was dominating until a lucky punch in the 14th round.
He would kill a soft non natural killer like Taylor.
Kegsy
08-28-2007, 12:48 AM
Great topic of discussion.
Its very hard to decide as the styles of boxers have changed alot of the years.
I hate sitting on the fence, but i may this time.
I think a prime Sugar Ray Robinson would have been WAY better if he was brought up in todays atmosphere.
Sugar Ray destroys Jermain Taylor sorry to say IMO.
Some of today's unique styles from unorthodox boxers may have caused havoc IMO with some of the older fighters from back in the day tho.
I could analyse this for hours & get no where.:lol::lol:
I compare Taylor to perhaps Monzon in their styles. Both guys are very awkward to watch, but seem to get the job done. I highly doubt that he gets schooled. Perhaps losing but not schooled. Regardless, Taylor is hardly the best of our generation or even close to it. If we are comparing the best to the best, what about whitaker or mayweather as opposed to Robinson.
YES I really think he would school Taylor.
Taylor's punch output and just they way he fights he wouldnt be able to keep Robinson off him.
Sugar Ray Robinson has beaten some of the best Middleweights ever and although Taylor won against Hopkins i would hardly say he dominated (I think he lost the first fight)
Robinson at Middleweight has wins against
Robert Villemain UD 15
Carl Olsen KO 12
Jake LaMotta TKO 13
Randy Turpin TKO 10
Carl Olsen UD 15
Rocky Graziano KO 3
Carl Olsen KO 2
Carl Olsen KO 4
Gene Fullmer KO 5
Carmen Basilio SD 15
Now that is some quality wins at 160. and to say he wouldnt handle a bigger more Natural Middleweight like Tayor well Robinson fought Joey Maxim for the Light Heavyweight title in which he was dominating until a lucky punch in the 14th round.
He would kill a soft non natural killer like Taylor.
Have you seen any of these guys fight though? Some of them are VERY rough technically. jake la Motta at times looks like a lead footed punching bag. These names look great but you are comparing resume. What I am asking is to look for yourself beyond the widely accepted opinion of most here, and use your own analytical ability to see who has the better skills. Not just look at the names that we know are commonly accepted as being the greatest.
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 02:09 AM
OH i agree that styles make fights but your talking about a slick Powerful Ray Robinson.
Were talking about Robinson the way he beat opponents before they even entered the ring. There is no question that technique wise we are more advanced today but i can tell you what we are not today.
We are not naturally Stronger from years past and as we get older we are more pampered things are given to us on silver platters and you dont have to work as hard to get things.
Robinson would walk straight through a tame looking Jermain Tayor sorry MSTR but on this subject you are wrong.
I look at there records and fighters of the Middleweight division back then was probably the best era of Middleweights ever seen. with names like
Ray Robinson (173-19-6)
Gene Fullmer (55-6-3)
Carl Olson (97-16-2)
Randy Turpin (66-8-1)
Jake LaMotta (83-19-4)
Del Flanagan (105-22-2)
Dave Sands (97-10-1)
Gustav Scholz (88-2-6)
Joey Giambra (65-10-2)
Peter Mueller (134-26-14)
Thats just to name a few in the 50's and early 60's. I mean look at Taylor Today he is fighting guys like Ouma, Cory Spinks do they even compare to say LaMotta or Olson.
Please im not stupid. Yes today we are better techniquely but we are weaker naturally. Its common knowledge.
OH i agree that styles make fights but your talking about a slick Powerful Ray Robinson.
Were talking about Robinson the way he beat opponents before they even entered the ring. There is no question that technique wise we are more advanced today but i can tell you what we are not today.
We are not naturally Stronger from years past and as we get older we are more pampered things are given to us on silver platters and you dont have to work as hard to get things.
Robinson would walk straight through a tame looking Jermain Tayor sorry MSTR but on this subject you are wrong.
I look at there records and fighters of the Middleweight division back then was probably the best era of Middleweights ever seen. with names like
Ray Robinson (173-19-6)
Gene Fullmer (55-6-3)
Carl Olson (97-16-2)
Randy Turpin (66-8-1)
Jake LaMotta (83-19-4)
Del Flanagan (105-22-2)
Dave Sands (97-10-1)
Gustav Scholz (88-2-6)
Joey Giambra (65-10-2)
Peter Mueller (134-26-14)
Thats just to name a few in the 50's and early 60's. I mean look at Taylor Today he is fighting guys like Ouma, Cory Spinks do they even compare to say LaMotta or Olson.
Please im not stupid. Yes today we are better techniquely but we are weaker naturally. Its common knowledge.
How are we weaker today with much better nutritional standards. When we are constantly improving ourselves, living longer, better medicine, better training techniques and the implementation of advanced sports science. When world records are constantly being broken. Who is that common knowledge to? BTW why do you keep comparing Jermain Taylor. I never mentioned him in any of my initial posts, yet for some reason you drew the comparison, and I have never said that Jermain Taylor could beat Sugar Ray Robinson... Once again you are just looking at names Boppa. Look at the footage and think about it and make your own opinion. Also, it may be your opinion that I am wrong, but you saying so doesn't make it correct. Not by a long shot.
OH i agree that styles make fights but your talking about a slick Powerful Ray Robinson.
Were talking about Robinson the way he beat opponents before they even entered the ring. There is no question that technique wise we are more advanced today but i can tell you what we are not today.
We are not naturally Stronger from years past and as we get older we are more pampered things are given to us on silver platters and you dont have to work as hard to get things.
Robinson would walk straight through a tame looking Jermain Tayor sorry MSTR but on this subject you are wrong.
I look at there records and fighters of the Middleweight division back then was probably the best era of Middleweights ever seen. with names like
Ray Robinson (173-19-6)
Gene Fullmer (55-6-3)
Carl Olson (97-16-2)
Randy Turpin (66-8-1)
Jake LaMotta (83-19-4)
Del Flanagan (105-22-2)
Dave Sands (97-10-1)
Gustav Scholz (88-2-6)
Joey Giambra (65-10-2)
Peter Mueller (134-26-14)
Thats just to name a few in the 50's and early 60's. I mean look at Taylor Today he is fighting guys like Ouma, Cory Spinks do they even compare to say LaMotta or Olson.
Please im not stupid. Yes today we are better techniquely but we are weaker naturally. Its common knowledge.
See the biggest problem with analyzing records Boppa is that they can be so very deceptive. Do you actually know how good the fighters were that they beat? Or how good the fighters were that there opponents beat to gain there records? Or even the legitimacy of the record keeping and the judging. Not to mention you aren't taking into account the fact that todays fighters will never achieve similar records to the ones of yesteryear because of the promotional issues. Does this mean they are worse fighters though when measuring head to head ability? Definitely not IMO. Just that you need to look beyond the surface. Watch a prime Roy Jones JR at 168, and then watch SRR at 147 (if possible) or most probably his early fights at 160 and tell me honestly who you think is the more talented fighter p4p...
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 02:37 AM
Its common knowledge to everyone as we get older as a Humanity. We get weaker.
Take Medi Evil Times archers that weighed 160 pound could pull back a Bow with 120 pound pressure with ease. Now these days we need a Compound Bow to pull it back.
As we get older things are made easier for us so we naturally get weaker cant take as much punishment because medicine's are better and we dont heel naturally.
Thats why Ray Robinson and these type guys could take Punch's from LaMotta and move up weight class's etc.
Take Guys from the early 1900's and before that the late 1800's they could fight until they dropped with bare knuckles taking huge amounts of punishment.
Yes the Technique of fighters are better but there strength and overall willingness to survive is way less than the guys say back in the day.
I bet if you go to the Classic forum and post a thread like this with matchups style wise from the best fighters of yester year against the Champs of today ill bet more will pick the Robinson's before they pick a over hyped dud in Taylor.
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 03:00 AM
OK this is for MSTR
I want your picks on these fights and style wise and who wins and how and we see who is better the fighters of today or the fighters of Yesteryear.
160 (1952 Ray Robinson vs 2007 Jermain Tayor)
135 (1966 Carlos Ortiz vs 2007 Juan Diaz)
147 (1942 Henry Armstrong vs 2007 Miguel Cotto)
140 (1959 Dulio Loi vs 2007 Ricky Hatton)
HW (1938 Joe Louis vs 2007 Wlad Klitschko)
126 (1951 Sandy Saddler vs 2007 Chris John)
175 (1954 Archie Moore vs 2007 Chad Dawson)
147 (1969 Jose Napoles vs 2007 Floyd Mayweather)
Now theres are the fights.
Now the only one i think i see a modern day fighter winning is Wlad beating Louis from his sheer amount of size and reach.
The rest of the other fights i have every other guy winning easy and some by KO or TKO.
Robinson TKO 9
Ortiz UD 12
Armstrong KO 10
Loi UD 12
Klitschko UD 12
Saddler KO 5
Moore TKO 11
Napoles TKO 8
Thats the way i see all those fights going.
ipswich express
08-28-2007, 03:53 AM
I nearly fell off my chair when I saw you had Klitchsko beating Louis...not a chance. If Lamon fucking Brewster can starch Klitschko, Louis would put him in a coffin. In no way am I having a go at you, quite the opposite, but I don't follow you on that one.
Do you think fighting more often is beneficial though? IMO it would cause more injury and give less time to train. Training gives them the opportunity to practice new skills, refine their techniques and have much more sparring completed. It would have been very difficult for older day fighters to do any where near the amount of sparring that modern fighters do as they would risk injury before their fights. Is it better to spar 50 rounds in a week under the watchful eye of your technical coaches, or to fight 12 with the obvious pressures of a live fight with a crowd.
Absolutely I think them fighting is more beneficial. You often here people talking about training as much as they want, but there's no substitute for "fight fitness".
ipswich express
08-28-2007, 03:55 AM
Anyway...enough of this rubbish. Let's talk Choc and Danny...
Super_Fly_Sam
08-28-2007, 04:39 AM
Man im only a young fulla and only been into the boxing for not a very long time but from what i have seen and stuff all i know is the boxing back then is nothing like now...
the way they fought is completely different...
boxing like most other sports is a progressive thing, as technologies improve and people get a better understanding on how the body works.. the way fighters train and prepare themselves will become alot better and produce physically stronger and fitter fighters...
also i reckon the learn from the mistakes of others theory works as well... people saw what the old timers did and saw there weaknesses and strengths and built themselves as boxers based on that....
so basically i reckon todays fighters are better.....
but remeber i havent really seen alot of the old timers
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 05:10 AM
But wont some fail to realise is that Some Boxers today get protected and given decisions they clearly lost all because of Boxing Politics.
I dare anyone to compare the 50's Middleweights to 1997 to 2007 and this is what you get.
Sugar Ray Robinson
Jake LaMotta
Dick Tiger
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giardello
Carl Olson
Randy Turpin
Del Flanagan
Dave Sands
Gustav Scholz
Joey Giambra
Cecil Hudson
Terry Downes
Paul Pender
Peter Mueller
Carmen Basilio
Rocky Graziano
Spider Webb
Now from 1997 to 2007 we have seen
Bernard Hopkins
Jermain Taylor
Winky Wright
Felix Trinidad'
William Joppy
Antwun Echols
Kelly Pavlik
Kassim Ouma
Felix Sturm
Howard Eastman
Edison Miranda
Now we cant say a Modern fighter is better than older fighter because it should go by Era's in boxing not by because he seams more skillful because he has had better training.
It all counts for nothing in the Ring head to head.
Jermain Taylor against Spinks showed me all i needed to see to know he wouldnt have lasted 5 rounds with LaMotta and will more than likely get KO'd by Pavlik who isnt all that great.
WhataRock
08-28-2007, 07:42 AM
I disagree with your post for a couple of reasons. The first being that I believe it would be much easier to adapt to becoming a dirty fighter, then to improve your technical skills and win without using dirty tactics. Secondly, modern fighters are just as tough as the older ones. There is no difference. THey kill themselves in training, and if anything because they don't work and do other things on top of training, they can focus themselves much better on fighting. Perhaps the average person from eras gone was tougher, but certainly not professional fighters, who fight day in day out. In regards to your comments about Marciano. The guy was 5"10 and weighed about 190 pounds on a good day. Take a top heavy today like Wlad Klit, who is 6"6 and weight almost 245 pounds on average. Do you really think these two would be competitve. When you add in the difference in skill and technical ability also, iMO Prim Wlad vs Prime Rocky would end in 1st round KO. Rocky just wouldn't have a hope in hell.
I dont think the gap in technical skill is that big anyway. Watch old fights and guys from the 50's, 60's still had decent skills. I think it would be pretty hard to adjust, even the the hardest guys today with protection still are clearly affected by low blows as they do not train to deal with dirty tactics.
You look at a lot of fighters today who have made it to the top with little technical skill Soliman, Valero, Sam Peter (in fact much of the heavyweight division), Ponce De Leon, Edison Miranda, Chi, Magarito, Andrade, Sakio Bika, Jesus Chavez, Berrio, Joe Calzaghe (he is all talent) hell even Ricky Hatton and Vic. Its not like every single fighter today is all that technically sound. I dont think the basic art of boxing has changed that greatly obviously training, equipment and rules have though.
I made no comment about how Marciano would fair against modern heavies, it was about of Rocky had a punch in his kit that was basically an elbow and he was allowed to get away with it. No fighter today would dare foul so blatently thus would not be able to use that tactic to his advantage.
But wont some fail to realise is that Some Boxers today get protected and given decisions they clearly lost all because of Boxing Politics.
I dare anyone to compare the 50's Middleweights to 1997 to 2007 and this is what you get.
Sugar Ray Robinson
Jake LaMotta
Dick Tiger
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giardello
Carl Olson
Randy Turpin
Del Flanagan
Dave Sands
Gustav Scholz
Joey Giambra
Cecil Hudson
Terry Downes
Paul Pender
Peter Mueller
Carmen Basilio
Rocky Graziano
Spider Webb
Now from 1997 to 2007 we have seen
Bernard Hopkins
Jermain Taylor
Winky Wright
Felix Trinidad'
William Joppy
Antwun Echols
Kelly Pavlik
Kassim Ouma
Felix Sturm
Howard Eastman
Edison Miranda
Now we cant say a Modern fighter is better than older fighter because it should go by Era's in boxing not by because he seams more skillful because he has had better training.
It all counts for nothing in the Ring head to head.
Jermain Taylor against Spinks showed me all i needed to see to know he wouldnt have lasted 5 rounds with LaMotta and will more than likely get KO'd by Pavlik who isnt all that great.
Boppa you keep pulling the worst names from this generation. Antwun Echols, William Joppy, Kassim Ouma, Howard Eastmen.... This is a joke. You are comparing average fighters of out generation to the best of prior ones. Making a totally inaccurate comparison does very little to prove your point.
I nearly fell off my chair when I saw you had Klitchsko beating Louis...not a chance. If Lamon fucking Brewster can starch Klitschko, Louis would put him in a coffin. In no way am I having a go at you, quite the opposite, but I don't follow you on that one.
Absolutely I think them fighting is more beneficial. You often here people talking about training as much as they want, but there's no substitute for "fight fitness".
I never had Klit beating Louis... I had him beating Marciano. Look at the size difference. Marciano would barely be able to reach Wlad, yet alone hurt him.
Its common knowledge to everyone as we get older as a Humanity. We get weaker.
Take Medi Evil Times archers that weighed 160 pound could pull back a Bow with 120 pound pressure with ease. Now these days we need a Compound Bow to pull it back.
As we get older things are made easier for us so we naturally get weaker cant take as much punishment because medicine's are better and we dont heel naturally.
Thats why Ray Robinson and these type guys could take Punch's from LaMotta and move up weight class's etc.
Take Guys from the early 1900's and before that the late 1800's they could fight until they dropped with bare knuckles taking huge amounts of punishment.
Yes the Technique of fighters are better but there strength and overall willingness to survive is way less than the guys say back in the day.
I bet if you go to the Classic forum and post a thread like this with matchups style wise from the best fighters of yester year against the Champs of today ill bet more will pick the Robinson's before they pick a over hyped dud in Taylor.
People in medievil times had much shorter life expectancy, and were physically much smaller. I don't know where you heard they were stronger from... BTW why the Jermain Taylor comparsion again? I have never mentioned jermain in any of my posts, yet for some reason you keep brining his name up?
I nearly fell off my chair when I saw you had Klitchsko beating Louis...not a chance. If Lamon fucking Brewster can starch Klitschko, Louis would put him in a coffin. In no way am I having a go at you, quite the opposite, but I don't follow you on that one.
Absolutely I think them fighting is more beneficial. You often here people talking about training as much as they want, but there's no substitute for "fight fitness".
But you of all people would know how intense 12 rounds of sparring can be, especially if you are alternating fresh guys in and out. What is the difference here to an actual fight, especially if you are doing many more rounds by sparring then by fighting, resting and trying to recover again?
OK this is for MSTR
I want your picks on these fights and style wise and who wins and how and we see who is better the fighters of today or the fighters of Yesteryear.
160 (1952 Ray Robinson vs 2007 Jermain Tayor)
135 (1966 Carlos Ortiz vs 2007 Juan Diaz)
147 (1942 Henry Armstrong vs 2007 Miguel Cotto)
140 (1959 Dulio Loi vs 2007 Ricky Hatton)
HW (1938 Joe Louis vs 2007 Wlad Klitschko)
126 (1951 Sandy Saddler vs 2007 Chris John)
175 (1954 Archie Moore vs 2007 Chad Dawson)
147 (1969 Jose Napoles vs 2007 Floyd Mayweather)
Now theres are the fights.
Now the only one i think i see a modern day fighter winning is Wlad beating Louis from his sheer amount of size and reach.
The rest of the other fights i have every other guy winning easy and some by KO or TKO.
Robinson TKO 9
Ortiz UD 12
Armstrong KO 10
Loi UD 12
Klitschko UD 12
Saddler KO 5
Moore TKO 11
Napoles TKO 8
Thats the way i see all those fights going.
Can you elaborate for me how you can see these fights playing out and why you can see these fighters winning please? I will then give my response...
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 11:22 PM
People in medievil times had much shorter life expectancy, and were physically much smaller. I don't know where you heard they were stronger from... BTW why the Jermain Taylor comparsion again? I have never mentioned jermain in any of my posts, yet for some reason you keep brining his name up?History Channel thats where i heard. They did a special on Archers and said that only about %5 of people today could use a bow with 120 pound pressure but back then any male could use a bow with 120 pound pressure.
As for why those fighters would win its common knowledge that they would be busy stronger and better fighters thats why they would win.
Most of Today's stars are hand fed shitty fighters until they are ready for a title shot and then also if there is alot riding on them as a Pro they get gift decision's from the boxing community because they are the ones that will make more money.
Take Sturm vs Dela Hoya (Dela Hoya lost but was given the decision because of money)
and there are plenty more fights like that today. Fighters back in the day had losing records because sometimes they actually lost but at the same time why should i believe the fighters of today are better because they have better records or they are better techniquelly.
Maybe they are more gifted naturally but they are more protected they fight less because they cant handle getting like in the 50's.
Back then fighters fought 15 rounders and most fighters would fight at least 5 times a year.
Look at todays softcocks they fight once a year mybe twice if we are lucky then they get decision's given to them so the orginizations make more money out of bigger names.
This is Bullshit you question me because i believe in the past and have a bit belief in the older guys and although i think boxing is pretty good today there is alot that makes it bad like Promoters the ABC's belts and of course those shitty judges that get it wrong time and time again.
And those names i gave out for the Middleweights from 1997 until 2007 was just about every fighter that had a World Title Shot at the Middleweight title. This era is shocking i mean you have Dela Hoya going to Middleweight aswell as Spinks and Ouma. All these guys are getting title shots at midleweight.
Please if these fighters are some how better let me know how and why.
Carl Olson would tear these guys a new asshole all of them not just get by in a UD win.
Jake LaMotta Left Hook would drop all those guys without him working up a sweat.
Tell Me im wrong.
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 11:30 PM
also MSTR post this thread in the Classic section then see what they have to say i bet its close to what im trying to get across.
Thats it is more about Era's in boxing than actually about then and now but even when you do make it about then and now now is alot more fucked up than people think.
some examples
Danny Green vs Markus Beyer
Jermain Taylor vs Cory Spinks
Felix Sturm vs Oscar Dela Hoya
Erik Morales vs David Diaz
Should i go on.
History Channel thats where i heard. They did a special on Archers and said that only about %5 of people today could use a bow with 120 pound pressure but back then any male could use a bow with 120 pound pressure.
As for why those fighters would win its common knowledge that they would be busy stronger and better fighters thats why they would win.
Most of Today's stars are hand fed shitty fighters until they are ready for a title shot and then also if there is alot riding on them as a Pro they get gift decision's from the boxing community because they are the ones that will make more money.
Take Sturm vs Dela Hoya (Dela Hoya lost but was given the decision because of money)
and there are plenty more fights like that today. Fighters back in the day had losing records because sometimes they actually lost but at the same time why should i believe the fighters of today are better because they have better records or they are better techniquelly.
Maybe they are more gifted naturally but they are more protected they fight less because they cant handle getting like in the 50's.
Back then fighters fought 15 rounders and most fighters would fight at least 5 times a year.
Look at todays softcocks they fight once a year mybe twice if we are lucky then they get decision's given to them so the orginizations make more money out of bigger names.
This is Bullshit you question me because i believe in the past and have a bit belief in the older guys and although i think boxing is pretty good today there is alot that makes it bad like Promoters the ABC's belts and of course those shitty judges that get it wrong time and time again.
And those names i gave out for the Middleweights from 1997 until 2007 was just about every fighter that had a World Title Shot at the Middleweight title. This era is shocking i mean you have Dela Hoya going to Middleweight aswell as Spinks and Ouma. All these guys are getting title shots at midleweight.
Please if these fighters are some how better let me know how and why.
Carl Olson would tear these guys a new asshole all of them not just get by in a UD win.
Jake LaMotta Left Hook would drop all those guys without him working up a sweat.
Tell Me im wrong.
My mistake I thought that you were comparing all divisons to the ones of the past. Yes the middleweight division is significantly weaker at the present I definitely agree. But it has been weak for a long time. Because we have more weight divsions now the talent is a lot more evenly spread, so there will never be THAT many talented fighters in the one divsion. Welterweight has been VERY strong in comparison. In regards to your comments about lamotta and Olsen, when I watch these guys I am FAR from impressed. I do not believe they could compete with todays best guys period. I think boxing has definitely progressed, and while I respect their achievements for their respective eras, I just can't see it being an even playing field. To answer your questions about match ups, I think THE BEST guys from our generation could beat THE BEST guys from the eras gone.
also MSTR post this thread in the Classic section then see what they have to say i bet its close to what im trying to get across.
Thats it is more about Era's in boxing than actually about then and now but even when you do make it about then and now now is alot more fucked up than people think.
some examples
Danny Green vs Markus Beyer
Jermain Taylor vs Cory Spinks
Felix Sturm vs Oscar Dela Hoya
Erik Morales vs David Diaz
Should i go on.
But the classic forum are the people I am debating with. They are the worst culprits of viewing the past with rose coloured lenses. I plan on putting this up in the general where hopefully it will get in put from everyone. There were plenty of bad decisions both now and in the past I don't doubt it. What I do think though is that a lot of record keeping and match making from those times would have been very suspect.
Marcus
08-28-2007, 11:42 PM
Classic!!!! (except the modern day king of 122lbs....El Magnifico)
Its very hard to make a choice but i say the older guys hit harder but not as fast.
I make this comment because after seeing both shadow box, classic was all about power IMO.
Anyway Boppa, no hard feelings, cheers for the input. Your entitled to your opinion. From watching these guys fight IMO they simply couldn't compete with the best from todays era. The difference to me is visible.
BoppaZoo
08-28-2007, 11:44 PM
My mistake I thought that you were comparing all divisons to the ones of the past. Yes the middleweight division is significantly weaker at the present I definitely agree. But it has been weak for a long time. Because we have more weight divsions now the talent is a lot more evenly spread, so there will never be THAT many talented fighters in the one divsion. Welterweight has been VERY strong in comparison. In regards to your comments about lamotta and Olsen, when I watch these guys I am FAR from impressed. I do not believe they could compete with todays best guys period. I think boxing has definitely progressed, and while I respect their achievements for their respective eras, I just can't see it being an even playing field. To answer your questions about match ups, I think THE BEST guys from our generation could beat THE BEST guys from the eras gone.In some case i agree that some could beat others from generations gone by. im not doubting that at all.
But what i do doubt is the Courage and Heart fighters have today compared to the past or even there killer instinct and determanation.
Like we look and disect Jermain Tayor against Spinks he showed me he had no heart was just punching enough to win rounds, (i think he averaged 15 punch's a round). Now if he was to do that against a Ray Robinson or LaMotta Tayor would get killed. One fight shows me what sort of Champ a person is and Tayor is a dud.
B-Hop on the other hand was great champ. and a true modern day fighter in every word of the sense.
Maybe its me just hating on how shit i think Taylor is.:yep :good
ipswich express
08-29-2007, 05:56 AM
I never had Klit beating Louis... I had him beating Marciano. Look at the size difference. Marciano would barely be able to reach Wlad, yet alone hurt him.
That was in reply to Boppa mate.
But you of all people would know how intense 12 rounds of sparring can be, especially if you are alternating fresh guys in and out. What is the difference here to an actual fight, especially if you are doing many more rounds by sparring then by fighting, resting and trying to recover again?
I suppose the difference is, if you get hurt, you can't say "hang on a sec" while you clear your head! :)
gloveup
08-29-2007, 09:06 AM
75% of classic boxers vs modern day boxers would win. They fought often with true grit and determination. They had more reason to fight. They are truely much harder men. They didnt have refs stopping fights on a cut eyes. They boxed in 6 and 8 oz horsehair gloves. They boxed out of their division when they had to. Could you imagine today's boxers trying to fight 19 times in one year that included 15rd fights like sugar ray robinson. Times have changed and todays fighters do well with whats around now but they cannot compete in my view with the old time fighters before the 70's and even 80's.
Regards
Dino Billinghurst
gloveup
08-29-2007, 09:11 AM
Can you elaborate for me how you can see these fights playing out and why you can see these fighters winning please? I will then give my response...
Don't kmow what rounds they would KO them but i agree with all the wins except one. Klit could not beat either Loius or the rock. He would go no more than 6rds at best.
sallywinder
11-23-2010, 05:44 PM
the older fighters were better.....easy!
ipswich express
11-23-2010, 06:00 PM
Sweet dig up Sally!
sallywinder
11-23-2010, 11:40 PM
cheers ippy.
yes i think its a good discussion. considering there wre so many regitered boxers once, that fought for one title. now there are few register boxers, who are mostly old, and fight for a managery of titles.
mundine at 35 would have been slaughtered by his dad at the same age.
darcy, schooled in modern fighting would have murdered all comers.:good
Bognashavin
11-25-2010, 01:32 AM
I don't think the modern techiniques/training necessrily top the hard work and higher fight rate of the old days. As well as the general physical strength cited already, people were also mentally much tougher, most people these days are sooks. Everyone is encouraged to play the victim whenever they encounter an outcome they don't like.
Just look at the excuses presented by some fightersafter a loss, but also how easily a fighter is dismissed as a fraud as soon as they lose a bout, this creates a flucutating mentality rather than a steadfast mindset. The fluctuating mentality is much more prone to doubt, and once you doubt your effectiveness you're stuffed.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.