Where Is The Disconnect Between the General & Classic Forum?

[acb]

To start, I will point out the obvious in that classic forum posters are known to have the tendency to glorify classic boxers amongst general forum posters, while many general forum posters have the wrap of not having the overall boxing savvy to discuss classic fighters amongst the classic forum posters.

So, where the disconnect? Do both forums have legitimate points on this issue? Are both forums guilty of embelleshing for their part?

[salsanchezfan]

............Interesting question.

Age mostly. When you're a kid, you don't wanna hear about the old days, by and large. Oh some do, we have them here, but it's far more common for them to get wrapped up in the here and now. We get more wistful and remember everything as better as we age though, and the kids get tired of hearing about it. :lol:

[Cerberus]

I just hate it when ol' timers overrate fighters from the past.

Human beings evolve. Athletes get more athletic as generations pass. Today, in every professional sport you can think of, the athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, better. There are more people fighting professionally than ever before.. more tough competition = easier to lose. Fighters today are also better prepared to succeed. Training methods are more complex, physical therapy/medical technology is 10x more advanced.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the legends of our sport but I usually call BS when I hear some ol' timer ranting about how a great fighter from the past would destroy all the fighters in the same division today.. Some folks will not let go of the past..

[PhillyPhan69]

Oh there are idiots...dreamers...the unknowledgeable...the uneduacted...the huggers and haters in...those well versed....articulate..well researched in both forums...

I believe many here in the classic forum have a balance between knowing the past, and appreciating the present. I enjoy a good Cotto/Mosley fight just as well as a mancini/Camacho and a Charles/Walcott or dempsey/Williard. the problem comes when nothing can touch the past and the disconnect on the other side that if it was 25+ years ago it was inferior. Usually in trying to justify our opinion we go to far in under valuing the other side.

For the most part I enjoy good boxing conversation on both forums...although my strong preference is here as I feel more people (or a higher percentage) can appreciate both the past and present.

[salsanchezfan]

I just hate it when ol' timers overrate fighters from the past.

Human beings evolve. Athletes get more athletic as generations pass. Faster, stronger, better. That's why I get sick of hearing about how a great fighter from the past would destroy all the fighters in the same division today..

Some of those old geezers just have no objectivity!



..............Incorrect. Boxing is one HUGE exception to this rule, and I don't understand how anyone can intelligently argue that.

Boxing isn't a 100 yard sprint or a relatively even playing field like the old days, like the length of a basketball or football season. The road to the top is the same there as it always was, as well.

Boxing is different. Today, fighters fight less. Hence, they learn less. It's simple math. I'd also like to know some stats or proof of any sort that fighters of today are faster or stronger. Good luck providing it.

[Cerberus]

..............Incorrect. Boxing is one HUGE exception to this rule, and I don't understand how anyone can intelligently argue that.

Boxing isn't a 100 yard sprint or a relatively even playing field like the old days, like the length of a basketball or football season. The road to the top is the same there as it always was, as well.

Boxing is different. Today, fighters fight less. Hence, they learn less. It's simple math. I'd also like to know some stats or proof of any sort that fighters of today are faster or stronger. Good luck providing it.
Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?

Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.

Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump or how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?

[PhillyPhan69]

Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?

Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.

Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

Does that mean that Shaq was taller than wilt the stilt too!!!

PS your average height figures are slightly (LOL) off!

[Cerberus]

Does that mean that Shaq was taller than wilt the stilt too!!!

PS your average height figures are slightly (LOL) off!
Wilt is the exception. He was a freak of nature. A man amongst boys...

Funny you bring up Shaq, because I'd like you to name another player in history who's 7 foot and 300 pounds and can run and jump and do the things Shaq does..

[salsanchezfan]

Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?

Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.

Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump or how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?


...........A five foot man playing linebacker is at a disadvantge. A five foot man fighting is called a flyweight and has no such problems.

How is the training better today? Specifically. If conditioning is so much better now, why are so many guys gassed at the end of fights now? I mean, if their training is all that, you'd think they could all fight 12 hard rounds without drawing a breath.

[PhillyPhan69]

Wilt is the exception. He was a freak of nature. A man amongst boys...

Funny you bring up Shaq, because I'd like you to name another player in history who's 7 foot and 300 pounds and can run and jump and do the things Shaq does..

For all of his greatness...Shaq could never run and jump like Wilt! More physical yes..without a doubt. The point is there is alway an exception...one in the past and yes one in the present. In your vigor to promote today in the face of those who devalue it...you have in turn done the same thing in justifying today and undervaluing yesterday...appreciate both..Peace

[OuterDrake]

I agree with mcnasty..Look at this video and you`ll see a a perfect example
of what is still acquiring today.Old timers are stubborn.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Cerberus]

...........A five foot man playing linebacker is at a disadvantge. A five foot man fighting is called a flyweight and has no such problems.

How is the training better today? Specifically. If conditioning is so much better now, why are so many guys gassed at the end of fights now? I mean, if their training is all that, you'd think they could all fight 12 hard rounds without drawing a breath.

Are you trying to say there have been no technological advancements in the field of sports medicine? That training methods aren't more complex now? That athletes don't heal and recover faster from an injuries?

Some athletes today are poorly-conditioned. You're right. But that is completely their fault. The technology is there. It's up to the athletes to use it to their full advantage. You can have the best trainers in the world, but if you don't have the work ethic to train, what good is it? I think today, there are more things that distract athletes and more variables that mess up their training (unhealthy foods, drugs, etc.)

[acb]

Ok time out... I can see this thread going down the same road as the threads that it was written to analyze. Lets not do it.

Rather than debate old vs. new, I'm interested in some self reflection and some reflection on others. Namely, do you as a classic forum poster believe you embellish the past, or have you thought about it? Or is the disconnect due to what SSfan pointed out- an age desprepency and lack of knowledge on the behalf of the general forum posters.

I ask because the dialogue that is found on forums, like any dialogue, can serve to create reality. If a new fan came to our forum, he would get a distinctly different view of reality between the general forum and the classic forum.

Is the reality we create here on the classic forum the more accurate one? Does it lack for something? Vice-versa? Could both forum use some updating in some way or another?

[salsanchezfan]

Are you trying to say there have been no technological advancements in the field of sports medicine? That training methods aren't more complex now? That athletes don't heal and recover faster from an injuries?

Some athletes today are poorly-conditioned. You're right. But that is completely their fault. The technology is there. It's up to the athletes to use it to their full advantage. You can have the best trainers in the world, but if you don't have the work ethic to train, what good is it? I think today, there are more things that distract athletes and more variables that mess up their training (unhealthy foods, drugs, etc.)


...........Out of consideration for ACB's wishes, I won't continue this debate here. We can do this on another thread sometime.

[Boilermaker]

Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?
5ft or less 100 years back? Are you serious?



Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.


It is a very bad example (as is swimming, running etc) NBA players in th 60s and 70s did not train anything like modern pros. In contrast, Modern boxers (except for some exceptions) do not train anything like or anywhere near as hard as some of the old time boxers.



Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?

I am sure there are some advances, with better health, nutrition etc, but i guess this should be ballanced with other areas such as ease of access to junk food, lack of hunger from a generally pamperred life (and boxings best fighters are nearly always from a hard lifestyle).


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump or how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

the level of quality in a sport will be indirectly attributable to a number of things. How hard someone is prepared to apply themself ie how hard they will train, dig deep etc. and how big the talent pool to choose from is. The problem with the 'evolution' theory, is that it does not take into account the fact that the world is evolved. The world heavyweight champion is no longer the dream of everyone. Baseball, basketball etc is usually a far better goal for most kids. In facteven the best fighters, nowadays, will often prefer kickboxing or MMA to boxing. The pool gets reduced too much, so in many ways to be the best of the current boxing world, could be said to be no different to being the best of say one state in some of the earlier times, because participation is dropped so much. That is just common sense and surely noone can argue against that.

If you want proof that records can stand forever, look no further than Walter Lindrum. His training feats will never be matched (because billiards is simply not important enough to anyone to train as hard as him). But there can be no arguing (unlike running swimming etc) that the measure of scoring in billiards is as objective across the ages as is possible (even though there have probably still been some technological advances with time).



But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?

facilities are better. Physiotherapy and recovery treatment is better. But no one can seriously argue that the modern fighters train as hard as many of the best older fighters. Interestingly, there is some argument as to whether weight training (which is largely concentrated on today) is more effective than stamina training which was more prevalant in older days (if so, is this due to rule changes?). one thing that i do think is common among newer fighters is that while much slower, they do hit very hard (even the "average" fighters). I would not be the least bit surprised if many atg fighters would suffer some losses to lesser fighters in upset knockouts, just like Lennox was beaten by two lesser fighters, during his career. Saying that, I wouldnt be surprised if many good modern fighters were outpointed and outslicked by many of the unknown older fighters as well, so i guess it cuts both ways.

In reality, the only thing that one can do is judge a fighter for how good they were in their own time and assume that a good fighter in one era is a good fighter in another.

[acb]

...........Out of consideration for ACB's wishes, I won't continue this debate here. We can do this on another thread sometime.

Ehh, fuck it. Just have at it. :lol:

[pugilist_boyd]

The last sentance BOILERMAKER typed was the best answer on this thread.Yes of course people our getting bigger and stronger,but this dont meen a blubber ass heavy,or half inshape,or mediocre skilled heavy could beat jeffries-or louis-or rocky -dempsey-jack johnson-ali -tunney the list goes on and on.Also if in the same era tunney would prob. be 210 instad of 185,190 and also mentiond half the reseon the oldtimers were better skilled and in shape is cause they didnt fight 2 times a year but 12 to30 times.

[Longhhorn71]

Wilt is the exception. He was a freak of nature. A man amongst boys...

Funny you bring up Shaq, because I'd like you to name another player in history who's 7 foot and 300 pounds and can run and jump and do the things Shaq does..


George Miken....Minn. Lakers...of the late 40's ...60 years ago.

[sthomas]

Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?

Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.

Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump or how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?

Overall correct, but then you have guys like Nolan Ryan. He started in the major leagues in the 1960's and he would still dominate now. His speed routinely was over 100 mph!! All but a few if any of todays pitchers bring that kind of consistant heat.

[istmeno]

the bigger, stronger, faster theory does not work in boxing, simply becase unlike other sports, boxing is broken down into weight classes, a ww fighter in 1950 or 2008 still only weighs 147 lb

[fists of fury]

The disconnect for me lies in the fact that here, we all know each other and can argue civilly. Disputes are settled in a peaceable, adult manner.
I'm not prepared to debate with someone who has more emoticons than common sense in his posts.

As far as boxing goes, many here are very clued up regarding modern boxing. It's fallacious to assume all we know is the old timers. I do think what Sal said really is the key difference though: to general forumites, the here and now is really all that counts. To us, the past is much more fun to talk about, although contemporary boxing is discussed as well sometimes.

Edit:

I don't think there is a right and wrong in this regard by the way. I know we tend to glorify the past too much, but then again the general guys are too fond of the newer=better argument, which is not always true.

[teeto]

Obviously i cant speak for every person on both forums, but its not difficult AT ALL to see that on the general you have people (nuthuggers) that talk absolute madness to stick up for a fighter, you have guys who are fans of fighters, here we have fans of BOXING, massive difference.

This nuthugging does happen here aswell, but all you have to do is read the posts to understand that it is nowhere near as severe, on here we dont mind picking someone over our fave boxer if we see it happening like that.

Like i said, i cant speak for everyone, but by large, this is right

[McGrain]

I really enjoy both forums.

But there is a FAR higher proportion of - and pardon me - fucking idiots on general.

[fists of fury]

I've noticed you can be quite patronising to some of them...it makes me laugh.

[McGrain]

I can't help it.

[Johnboywalton]

Hey folks,

Since this is a technical discussion, I thought I'd put my question here. Does this forum block hyperlinks? Or are posts with them just referred to a moderator? I made a few yesterday, but they have not appeared. I read the FAQ, which was vague on the subject - it implied that if there wasn't appropriate buttons, then HTML was disabled. Yet HTML buttons are right here on the panel...

[McGrain]

Hey folks,

Since this is a technical discussion, I thought I'd put my question here. Does this forum block hyperlinks? Or are posts with them just referred to a moderator? I made a few yesterday, but they have not appeared. I read the FAQ, which was vague on the subject - it implied that if there wasn't appropriate buttons, then HTML was disabled. Yet HTML buttons are right here on the panel...

You are speaking a foreign language as far as I am concerned, but if you've got technical difficulties PM "esboxing". He's not on 24/7 but he is admin and probably qualifies as technical support. Posting this question in here will probably get you nowhere, this is the forum time forgot - we haven't seen a moderator here since 1963.


EDIT: And pick out an avatar please!

[teeto]

You are speaking a foreign language as far as I am concerned, but if you've got technical difficulties PM "esboxing". He's not on 24/7 but he is admin and probably qualifies as technical support. Posting this question in here will probably get you nowhere, this is the forum time forgot - we haven't seen a moderator here since 1963.


EDIT: And pick out an avatar please!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[janitor]

[quote=SmokyMcNasty]
Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


As a postgraduate Palaeobiologist, yes I argue against that in the strongest terms.

It is social darwinist eugenics nonsense that serious evolutionary biologists stopped following around the 1930s.

But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?

Having compared the training regimes of fighters from the late 1800s to the present day I can asure you that the old timers were much better conditioned.

[McGrain]

For some reason, the chasm between those who believe in "modern conditioning" and the advantages it brings and those who beleive otherwise is completely unbridgable.

I believe that there is no serious difference. It's when people get into "nutrition" I really start to crack up, like people didn't know what was good for them before Roy Jones turned pro.

[Lobotomy]

Now this is idle speculation, but maybe the posters on the Classic Forum are more literate and articulate than many on the General Forum. Beyond that, those Classic contributors who have familiarity with current happenings may enjoy the advantage of historical oversight which could be lacking in those who largely confine themselves to the General Forum. Many Classic posters are not hampered by the sort of "only the present" myopic tunnel vision that could be permeating the General Forum.

Bigger, stronger, faster does not always equate to success in boxing. Experience and intelligence can certainly trump those advantages, as can superior technique.

Is the greatest high jumper of all time the individual who holds the current record, or is it Dick Fosbury, who completely revolutionised high jumping technique for all time?

Over four decades ago, Bob Hayes played in the National Football League, complete with 4.1 speed in the 40 yard dash. Not only did he fail to dominate the league, he's not even in the Pro Football HOF. The first wide receiver to catch a pass in 100 straight games was Danny Abramowicz, a contemporary of Hayes who ran the 40 in only 5.1 seconds.

When the Denver Broncos won back to back Super Bowls, they did it with the smallest (and best) offensive line in the league.

In the 1995-1996 NBA Eastern Conference finals against the Orlando Magic, 6'8" Dennis Rodman of the Chicago Bulls slammed the door on a young Shaq defensively, and the Magic was wiped out in four games. Rodman gave an updated demonstration of how Bill Russell was able to win so many championships against Wilt.

Bigger and stronger is always better? Muggsy Bogues had a very creditable 14 year career in the NBA. At 5'3," he is the smallest player in NBA history. No, he didn't play during the late 1940s, but from 1987 to 2001.

"Newer is always better" is a constant declaration of the young and uninitiated, though there are plenty of exceptions.

Larry Holmes was old and fat when he upended previously unbeaten Ray Mercer, prompting Mecer to concede: "I guess I'd better learn how to box!" What do you suppose a peak Holmes might have done to Mercer? OR, could it be that Larry had an additional advantage through sheer weight of accumulated experience an intelligence which he successfully exchanged for his earlier youthful athleticism?

Perhaps today's performers are indeed bigger, stronger and faster, but do they know how to jab properly? Do they understand ring generalship, or would they get schooled by old maestros of previous generations, as Mercer was by Holmes, and Foreman was by Ali?

SRR, Pep, and Moore, weren't merely prodigies, but they possessed tremendous experience against first rate opposition by the time they were peaking. Having over 200 or even 300 professional outings by age 30 was not unknown.

Boxing, along with baseball and horse racing used to be one of the big three sports, one which could attract the very best athletes of all sizes.

No heavyweight using more modern training methods has eclipsed Ali, somebody who employed a more traditional approach to conditioning.

[Stonehands89]

... and that's that.

[Bokaj]

Now this is idle speculation, but maybe the posters on the Classic Forum are more literate and articulate than many on the General Forum. Beyond that, those Classic contributors who have familiarity with current happenings may enjoy the advantage of historical oversight which could be lacking in those who largely confine themselves to the General Forum. Many Classic posters are not hampered by the sort of "only the present" myopic tunnel vision that could be permeating the General Forum.

Bigger, stronger, faster does not always equate to success in boxing. Experience and intelligence can certainly trump those advantages, as can superior technique.

Is the greatest high jumper of all time the individual who holds the current record, or is it Dick Fosbury, who completely revolutionised high jumping technique for all time?

Over four decades ago, Bob Hayes played in the National Football League, complete with 4.1 speed in the 40 yard dash. Not only did he fail to dominate the league, he's not even in the Pro Football HOF. The first wide receiver to catch a pass in 100 straight games was Danny Abramowicz, a contemporary of Hayes who ran the 40 in only 5.1 seconds.

When the Denver Broncos won back to back Super Bowls, they did it with the smallest (and best) offensive line in the league.

In the 1995-1996 NBA Eastern Conference finals against the Orlando Magic, 6'8" Dennis Rodman of the Chicago Bulls slammed the door on a young Shaq defensively, and the Magic was wiped out in four games. Rodman gave an updated demonstration of how Bill Russell was able to win so many championships against Wilt.

Bigger and stronger is always better? Muggsy Bogues had a very creditable 14 year career in the NBA. At 5'3," he is the smallest player in NBA history. No, he didn't play during the late 1940s, but from 1987 to 2001.

"Newer is always better" is a constant declaration of the young and uninitiated, though there are plenty of exceptions.

Larry Holmes was old and fat when he upended previously unbeaten Ray Mercer, prompting Mecer to concede: "I guess I'd better learn how to box!" What do you suppose a peak Holmes might have done to Mercer? OR, could it be that Larry had an additional advantage through sheer weight of accumulated experience an intelligence which he successfully exchanged for his earlier youthful athleticism?

Perhaps today's performers are indeed bigger, stronger and faster, but do they know how to jab properly? Do they understand ring generalship, or would they get schooled by old maestros of previous generations, as Mercer was by Holmes, and Foreman was by Ali?

SRR, Pep, and Moore, weren't merely prodigies, but they possessed tremendous experience against first rate opposition by the time they were peaking. Having over 200 or even 300 professional outings by age 30 was not unknown.

Boxing, along with baseball and horse racing used to be one of the big three sports, one which could attract the very best athletes of all sizes.

No heavyweight using more modern training methods has eclipsed Ali, somebody who employed a more traditional approach to conditioning.

Bigger, stronger and faster isn't anything, but it is a lot. I like watching older boxing more (especially ca 1940-1980), but I favour the best boxers of today (especially heavyweights) over the past greats. Even if they often were greater in their own era. I think Lewis would beat Louis, but I have Louis as the greater fighter.

I still favour Ali in almost all h2h scenarios, but he was a freak of nature IMO and those doesn't come along to often. That I'm a huge Ali fan may also play it's part.

[Mantequilla]

I sure hope no one thinks boxers suddenly got quicker or stronger after some magical post 80s cutoff point...one which always tends to coincide with when they started watching the sport of course.:lol:

[Bokaj]

I sure hope no one thinks boxers suddenly got quicker or stronger after some magical post 80s cutoff point...one which always tends to coincide with when they started watching the sport of course.:lol:

What happened was that they started with weight-lifting and also steroids to some extent. That might have made them better, but also more boring to watch. At least the HWs. Personally I enjoy watching boxing pre 80s the most.

When did nutrition start to become a big thing? In the 70's?

[eddiesammon]

Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?

Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.

Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump or how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?

i'll argue that, i dont think that crap applies to boxing all this about modern athletes being superior. i think elite fighters years ago who had like 100, 200+ fights, fightin champions who have also had over 100 fights are gunna be better boxers because of the experience and the experience of the opposition, compared to elite fighters nowadays who have had like 30, 40, 50 fights. also these fighters years ago trained for 15 round fights, n fought on a more regular basis so were probably fitter too, as long as they arent punch drunk. i think someone above briefly mentioned this point, glad someone else could see it! oh and there werent as many weight classes, so many fighters had to overcome more physical disadvantages, and also boxing was a more popular mainstream sport back then, so the talent pool was probably larger which makes it harder to rise to the top. think ive made a decent case! i dont post often, some things just annoy me.

[eddiesammon]

oh it was my first post lol