Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum Lounge European British Aussie MMA Classic Training
Go Back   East Side Boxing Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum



Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2009, 10:49 PM   #1
cross_trainer
Bergeron Avatar Club
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,280
Default Modern Fighters Are Better

vs.

Here in Classic, I think we sometimes get too tightly wrapped up in our ways. Whenever somebody claims that fighter X couldn't compete today, the gloves come off and we get defensive.

Hence, this thread.

I challenge the posters of the Classic section to post serious, well-reasoned arguments to prove that modern fighters are significantly better than their predecessors. Don't create caricatures of arguments you've heard from Klitschko fanatics or Mayweather fanboys; make a genuine attempt, and use your knowledge of boxing to the utmost.



Go.

Last edited by cross_trainer; 11-07-2009 at 01:53 AM.
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links


Old 11-06-2009, 11:24 PM   #2
lefthook31
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in a boxing gym near you
Posts: 3,475
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Talking heavyweights: The heavyweight division is being dominated by two fighters who have little dimension to their game. Vitali is more well rounded, but still lacking a part of his game that was needed to maintain the type of status they have now, in past era's. Its almost like were watching amatuer boxing in championship fights.
Even in past weaker eras, there were fighters that emerged as solid opposition and presented good diverse challenges. Its absolutely not because the Klitschkos are that good, its because their opposition is that bad.
Modern fighters are getting worse because there are less and less teachers to make them complete. Im also not certain many of these modern day heavyweights are physically capable of fighting multiple styles.
lefthook31 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 12:20 AM   #3
cross_trainer
Bergeron Avatar Club
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,280
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by lefthook31 View Post
Talking heavyweights: The heavyweight division is being dominated by two fighters who have little dimension to their game. Vitali is more well rounded, but still lacking a part of his game that was needed to maintain the type of status they have now, in past era's. Its almost like were watching amatuer boxing in championship fights.
Even in past weaker eras, there were fighters that emerged as solid opposition and presented good diverse challenges. Its absolutely not because the Klitschkos are that good, its because their opposition is that bad.
Modern fighters are getting worse because there are less and less teachers to make them complete. Im also not certain many of these modern day heavyweights are physically capable of fighting multiple styles.
Oh, come now. Surely there must be SOME argument in favor of modern superiority?

Humor me.

Last edited by cross_trainer; 11-07-2009 at 01:53 AM.
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 01:37 AM   #4
CottoDaBodykill
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Flint
Posts: 11,655
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

well we all know a 5'10 nothing floyd patterson would have all the chances in the world to whoop lennox lewis
CottoDaBodykill is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 05:10 AM   #5
ChrisPontius
Miles Davis
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,259
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

In a head-to-head sense, yes, heavyweights of "today" (meaning the last 40 years really) certainly are better than those before that. And the reason is simply really: an increase in size while retaining the level of athleticism and overal ability.

Indeed, fighters like Wlad, Lewis, Vitali and Bowe are something new. Where Corbett and Tunney were 6'0 / 6'1 and 190lbs, Ali and Holmes are 6'3 and 215lbs. Where Marciano and Dempsey scale 190lbs, Tyson is 216lbs.

Whenever a skillled 210+lbs heavyweight used to come along, he completely dominated the scene (Jeffries, Johnson). Half of the HW contenders were lightheavyweights. Middleweights competed there as well, without bulking up. They could, because of the smaller size gap.

When there are very few men that naturally scale over 200lbs, there is going to be little talent in that stratosphere, and the rare one that does have some ability, in general cannot cope with the higher talented 190 pounders. This is why Mexican heavyweights are so rare: there is no lack of Mexican fighters at all, but on average they are very small, and as a consequence, the talent pool at higher weights is too little to bring any significant talent. So, their champions are at lower weight.

Since the 60's, there have been 17 linear HW champions. 3 of those came from below 200lbs (both Spink's and Moorer); all three of them lost the title during their first title defence attempt, and all of them are considered to be very weak champions, despite M. Spinks and Moorer both being undefeated and great fighters at LHW.

The 190lbs heavyweight champions have gone instinct pretty fast and there's a reason for it. And please don't start that "well, those stupid boxers would go down to 190lbs instead of using useless muscle, they'd be champions" crap...
ChrisPontius is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 08:53 AM   #6
lefthook31
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in a boxing gym near you
Posts: 3,475
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by cross_trainer View Post
Oh, come now. Surely there must be SOME argument in favor of modern superiority?

Humor me.
whats your take on it? You dont have to go back very far to see a steady decline in th talent pool. 1995 was really the turn in my opinion.
lefthook31 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 08:56 AM   #7
lefthook31
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in a boxing gym near you
Posts: 3,475
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius View Post
In a head-to-head sense, yes, heavyweights of "today" (meaning the last 40 years really) certainly are better than those before that. And the reason is simply really: an increase in size while retaining the level of athleticism and overal ability.

Indeed, fighters like Wlad, Lewis, Vitali and Bowe are something new. Where Corbett and Tunney were 6'0 / 6'1 and 190lbs, Ali and Holmes are 6'3 and 215lbs. Where Marciano and Dempsey scale 190lbs, Tyson is 216lbs.

Whenever a skillled 210+lbs heavyweight used to come along, he completely dominated the scene (Jeffries, Johnson). Half of the HW contenders were lightheavyweights. Middleweights competed there as well, without bulking up. They could, because of the smaller size gap.

When there are very few men that naturally scale over 200lbs, there is going to be little talent in that stratosphere, and the rare one that does have some ability, in general cannot cope with the higher talented 190 pounders. This is why Mexican heavyweights are so rare: there is no lack of Mexican fighters at all, but on average they are very small, and as a consequence, the talent pool at higher weights is too little to bring any significant talent. So, their champions are at lower weight.

Since the 60's, there have been 17 linear HW champions. 3 of those came from below 200lbs (both Spink's and Moorer); all three of them lost the title during their first title defence attempt, and all of them are considered to be very weak champions, despite M. Spinks and Moorer both being undefeated and great fighters at LHW.

The 190lbs heavyweight champions have gone instinct pretty fast and there's a reason for it. And please don't start that "well, those stupid boxers would go down to 190lbs instead of using useless muscle, they'd be champions" crap...
That is the only reason, but a good amount of the guys 40 years ago could beat a good amount of the guys today, because the level of overall ability has really diminished in the last 10 years.
lefthook31 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 09:06 AM   #8
teeto
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,680
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

I just see it like this, some fighters are good, some fighters aren't, it doesn't matter when they were born
teeto is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 10:20 AM   #9
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,110
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius View Post
In a head-to-head sense, yes, heavyweights of "today" (meaning the last 40 years really) certainly are better than those before that. And the reason is simply really: an increase in size while retaining the level of athleticism and overal ability.

Indeed, fighters like Wlad, Lewis, Vitali and Bowe are something new. Where Corbett and Tunney were 6'0 / 6'1 and 190lbs, Ali and Holmes are 6'3 and 215lbs. Where Marciano and Dempsey scale 190lbs, Tyson is 216lbs.

Whenever a skillled 210+lbs heavyweight used to come along, he completely dominated the scene (Jeffries, Johnson). Half of the HW contenders were lightheavyweights. Middleweights competed there as well, without bulking up. They could, because of the smaller size gap.

When there are very few men that naturally scale over 200lbs, there is going to be little talent in that stratosphere, and the rare one that does have some ability, in general cannot cope with the higher talented 190 pounders. This is why Mexican heavyweights are so rare: there is no lack of Mexican fighters at all, but on average they are very small, and as a consequence, the talent pool at higher weights is too little to bring any significant talent. So, their champions are at lower weight.

Since the 60's, there have been 17 linear HW champions. 3 of those came from below 200lbs (both Spink's and Moorer); all three of them lost the title during their first title defence attempt, and all of them are considered to be very weak champions, despite M. Spinks and Moorer both being undefeated and great fighters at LHW.

The 190lbs heavyweight champions have gone instinct pretty fast and there's a reason for it. And please don't start that "well, those stupid boxers would go down to 190lbs instead of using useless muscle, they'd be champions" crap...
Here's the guy with the realistic take on the topic. Excellent insights.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 10:52 AM   #10
Boilermaker
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 778
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1 View Post
Here's the guy with the realistic take on the topic. Excellent insights.
Let us not forget that out of those 17, the most dominant ones were below 220 and 6ft 4. The only real exception was Bowe, who split his series with the former cruiserweight holyfield, Lennox Lewis, who struggled with the smaller Holyfield, and was KOd by two average fighters. I suppose you could probably add in Shannon Briggs (is it really worth it) or the two Klitchskos, although neither has really been dominant, and one of them (like it or not) was beaten by a former middleweight.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 11:35 AM   #11
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,110
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilermaker View Post
Let us not forget that out of those 17, the most dominant ones were below 220 and 6ft 4. The only real exception was Bowe, who split his series with the former cruiserweight holyfield, Lennox Lewis, who struggled with the smaller Holyfield, and was KOd by two average fighters. I suppose you could probably add in Shannon Briggs (is it really worth it) or the two Klitchskos, although neither has really been dominant, and one of them (like it or not) was beaten by a former middleweight.
I'll let Chris answer this, but i can already see where he will make inroads.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 12:23 PM   #12
warrior85
R.I.P THUNDER
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: manchester,england
Posts: 6,971
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

maybe.maybe not. theres no welterweights over the last 15 years id pick to beat a prime leonard or hearns though
warrior85 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 12:39 PM   #13
TheGreatA
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,535
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

It depends if you're talking 100 years ago or 40, 30 or even 10 years ago (most other sports show progress in 10 years).

Compare today's top 10 p4p with the p4p list of 10 years ago. Not only will you find the overall quality of the fighters 10 years ago better, you'll find out that about 3 or 4 of the fighters are still in the top 10 p4p. Obviously boxing can't be compared to a sport such as sprinting (as it often is) where Usain Bolt would outrun any sprinter from the 1990's.

1999:

  1. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  2. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  3. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  4. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  5. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  6. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  7. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  8. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  9. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
  10. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
2009:

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Floyd Mayweather
3. Shane Mosley
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. JM Marquez
6. Nonito Donaire
7. Miguel Cotto
8. Celestino Caballero
9. Israel Vasquez
10. Rafael Marquez


Are today's Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez, Vasquez, Hopkins, Mosley, Cotto much better than the Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Spinks, Gomez, Sanchez, Pryor of the early 1980's? I wouldn't say so.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 12:57 PM   #14
GPater11093
Arguello vs Watt
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,263
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

im with Teeto if i see a fighter who is good hes good if i think he is crap he is crap dosent matter what era he is from.
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 12:59 PM   #15
ChrisPontius
Miles Davis
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,259
Default Re: Modern Fighters Are Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilermaker View Post
Let us not forget that out of those 17, the most dominant ones were below 220 and 6ft 4. The only real exception was Bowe, who split his series with the former cruiserweight holyfield, Lennox Lewis, who struggled with the smaller Holyfield, and was KOd by two average fighters. I suppose you could probably add in Shannon Briggs (is it really worth it) or the two Klitchskos, although neither has really been dominant, and one of them (like it or not) was beaten by a former middleweight.
I never said anything about them having to be over 6'4 and 220lbs. I'm just saying that the 190lbs champion is a thing of the past, and will remain a thing of the past now that there's a good deal of talent available at 210+lbs.
ChrisPontius is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

East Side Boxing Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
East Side Boxing Forum 2001-2009
Message Board Statistics

Twitter MySpace Facebook YouTube