Top 90's heavyweight boxers vs top 70's heavyweight boxers?

sxt

70's

1.Ali
2. Foreman
3. Fraizer
4. Norton


VS

90's

1.Holyfield
2.Lewis
3.Bowe
4.Tyson


Who would you bet your house on in winning in a round robin tournament ?

I would put my house on the 1990's. I think Holyfield is physically most like the 70's fighters , but an improved fighter all round. I think the physicality and skill of Tyson , Bowe, and Lewis were not possible in the 70's and were a dramatic improvement from the 1970's ?


I can't think of any sport in history where the sports people from a generation ago were better ?

walshb

sxt wrote: »

I can't think of any sport in history where the sports people from a generation ago were better ?

Here we go again:

Go watch 1960s and 1970s swimming and tennis, and yes, soccer. I watched a replay of the 1986 FA Cup Final today, one of the best finals, and they would not have competed with the teams from today.

sxt

walshb wrote: »

Here we go again:

Go watch 1960s and 1970s swimming and tennis, and yes, soccer. I watched a replay of the 1986 FA Cup Final today, one of the best finals, and they would not have competed with the teams from today.

I agree , I think in any sport where the instinctive and competitive goal is to improve , this will happen . Every generation learns and benefits from the previous generation. I don't think it is physically possible for humans to regress in anything that they decide to put their minds to?

walshb

sxt wrote: »

I agree , I think in any sport where the instinctive and competitive goal is to improve , this will happen . Every generation learns and benefits from the previous generation. I don't think it is physically possible for humans to regress in anything that they decide to put their minds to?

Ok, I misread your post. But, of all the sports, to me, boxing has no clear sign of improvement in the last 30-40 years or so. It's just not as easy to see an improvement as it is in other sports.

Littlehorny

walshb wrote: »

Ok, I misread your post. But, of all the sports, to me, boxing has no clear sign of improvement in the last 30-40 years or so. It's just not as easy to see an improvement as it is in other sports.

Agree walshb, saw a video on youtube recently where a 42 yr old Foreman held his own against a 28 yr old Holyfield. Also Holyfield said Foreman was the hardest hitter he ever fought and he shared the ring with all the guys from the 90s.
Ali moved like no other heavy ever and Frazier was the toughest sob going!

sxt

walshb wrote: »

Ok, I misread your post. But, of all the sports, to me, boxing has no clear sign of improvement in the last 30-40 years or so. It's just not as easy to see an improvement as it is in other sports.

They have to improve based on knowledge and experience .It is not possible to regress in science and technology and sport in my opinion. The current heavy weight champions are 30 lbs heavier than the top fighters from the 70 's ?

Monty Burnz

sxt wrote: »

They have to improve based on knowledge and experience .It is not possible to regress in science and technology and sport in my opinion.

Nonsense on the science score anyway. It's happened before. It may happen again.

walshb

sxt wrote: »

They have to improve based on knowledge and experience .It is not possible to regress in science and technology and sport in my opinion.

If they have to improve, how in boxing can you prove it, clearly? Boxing is too difficult a sport to argue this case. It is that complex.

Littlehorny

sxt wrote: »

They have to improve based on knowledge and experience .It is not possible to regress in science and technology and sport in my opinion.

Where is your examples in the context of this thread we are dicussing?

walshb

BTW, the 90s list of heavies in the thread at peak are beasts. Very difficult to beat them.

sxt

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nonsense on the science score anyway. It's happened before. It may happen again.

Okay, do you think sports persons will digress?

walshb

Simple: Many sports one can compare over time with times. Speeds and distances, giving times. Boxing is much more complex. Some women today are swimming faster than men from 50 years ago.

RiseToTheTop

following sxt's logic, I can't wait to see the boxers in the early 2020's who would have blown the Klitschko's out of the ring.

walshb

One "sport," snooker. Was this down to improvement, or because most of the players back in the old days were drunk at the table? Darts too. Money has changed sport so so much.

sxt

walshb wrote: »

BTW, the 90s list of heavies in the thread at peak are beasts. Very difficult to beat them.

I agree .

Monty Burnz

sxt wrote: »

Okay, do you think sports persons will digress?

Regress? It's certainly possible. I'd imagine that standards will often drop in sports that lose popularity. I wouldn't fancy a modern fencer against someone from an age where it was more widely practiced (and your life depended on doing it well).

walshb

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Regress? It's certainly possible. I'd imagine that standards will often drop in sports that lose popularity. I wouldn't fancy a modern fencer against someone from an age where it was more widely practiced (and your life depended on doing it well).

And boxing has been losing popularity for many years. The depth pool is not like it once was. I will say that in the ams the overall talent probably has and is improving.

sxt

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Regress? It's certainly possible. I'd imagine that standards will often drop in sports that lose popularity. I wouldn't fancy a modern fencer against someone from an age where it was more widely practiced (and your life depended on doing it well).

Okay ,Boxing is more popular than fencing , there are more millions / blillions of dollars at stake? Boxing has more money at stake than fencing by a thousand fold...

walshb

sxt wrote: »

Okay , what about a popular sport where there were millions / blillions of dollars at stake? Boxing has more money at stake than fencing...

So do sports like NBA, Soccer, MLB, and NFL. These sports, and the money in them, are taking many men away from boxing.

Monty Burnz

sxt wrote: »

Okay ,Boxing is more popular than fencing , there are more millions / blillions of dollars at stake? Boxing has more money at stake than fencing by a thousand fold...

Right, but we are talking about whether it's possible for standards to drop in a sport, right?

Do you think the standard of hurling can be maintained as fewer and fewer counties take it seriously?

sxt

walshb wrote: »

So do sports like NBA, Soccer, MLB, and NFL. These sports, and the money in them, are taking many men away from boxing.

no

sxt

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, but we are talking about whether it's possible for standards to drop in a sport, right?

Do you think the standard of hurling can be maintained as fewer and fewer counties take it seriously?

no

sxt

I am the only person to give an opinion..

Syferus

Dude, are you on drugs

. ?

RiseToTheTop

sxt, you've no idea what you're talking about.

walshb

sxt wrote: »

I am the only person to give an opinion..

No, you are not the only one to give an opinion. I gave an opinion. I agree, yes, humans will alwyas strive to improve and become more efficient in everything they do, and they usually succeed too. In sports it's evident in many many disciplines. You can see and measure it too. Now, in boxing it is IMO not at all clear cut or evident. I would argue a regression has occurred since the 80s and 90s. I do not think overall the fighters today are better in any area.

Littlehorny

You only have to look at the ages of alot of the guys fighting at world level at the moment to see how boxing is at a low ebb. Of the top of my head we have Hopkins, Mosley, the Klitchkos, JMM, Martinez and Morales fighting world title fights. Alot of the rest of the top dogs are in their early to mid thirties as well. After Wlad dominated Haye last year some people in the media wanted Lennox Lewis to come back to give the Klitchs a challenge, ffs Lewis is about 45 and asnt fought in 7 yrs!
Really fear for the future of boxing in ten yrs.

cowzerp

Littlehorny wrote: »

You only have to look at the ages of alot of the guys fighting at world level at the moment to see how boxing is at a low ebb. Of the top of my head we have Hopkins, Mosley, the Klitchkos, JMM, Martinez and Morales fighting world title fights. Alot of the rest of the top dogs are in their early to mid thirties as well. After Wlad dominated Haye last year some people in the media wanted Lennox Lewis to come back to give the Klitchs a challenge, ffs Lewis is about 45 and asnt fought in 7 yrs!
Really fear for the future of boxing in ten yrs.

The press always wanted ex boxers back out of retirement, this is nothing new.

The age of boxers is simply down to better knowledge in diet, training and rest and recovery than the past, 1 good reason for why boxers can progress for longer than they did in the past-5-10 years extra training and experience has to make for better fighters for the ones who stay fit.

walshb wrote: »

No, you are not the only one to give an opinion. I gave an opinion. I agree, yes, humans will alwyas strive to improve and become more efficient in everything they do, and they usually succeed too. In sports it's evident in many many disciplines. You can see and measure it too. Now, in boxing it is IMO not at all clear cut or evident. I would argue a regression has occurred since the 80s and 90s. I do not think overall the fighters today are better in any area.

The 70's has some special fighters but overall the depth of talent outside of that was lower than more modern times-I don't put the better fighters down to better training or numbers competing, it was just a freak time just like the srl, hagler, hearns, Duran era.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

.

The age of boxers is simply down to better knowledge in diet, training and rest and recovery than the past, 1 good reason for why boxers can progress for longer than they did in the past-5-10 years extra training and experience has to make for better fighters for the ones who stay fit.
.

And there are those that argue that fighters in the past were better due to being nore active; fighting a lot more and rarely breaking in training.

Also, one could argue that the older men today would never have been fighters or contenders in eras past. Yes, as young men they could have competed. Erik Morales today? C'mon, he would never have been a contender or threat in past eras. Look at some of the champs today. They would not have been great in other eras.

cowzerp

Bren if we go through history their is many boxers who where given shots due to been a name, morales is not a top fighter now any way you look at it.

Been more active means little when most are against handbags!

walshb

Well, a debate either way. Bottom line: I don't see how anyone can claim a progression or regression in the sport of boxing. Other sports are measurble. Boxing is far too complex.