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.

cowzerp

It's not as measurable but why should it be different than almost all other sports?!

It goes without saying that modern boxers would have learned from past boxers and can try improve on this, their is certainly less brawls in boxing these days than days gone by, this I'm sure is because technical boxers would have been the most dominant in most cases over fighters.

gene_tunney

This is the issue in boxing where levels of ignoance are at their highest. It's astonishing really. Fighters from past eras cannot compete with their modern day equivalents. It's so obvious it shouldn't require explaining or debate.

Here is footage of Harry Greb, a boxer many enthusiasts have the temerity to call the GOAT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMA6Pd6tT3Q

Now take a look at one of the modern greats, Floyd Mayweather, sparring.

Can anyone here honestly say that boxing has regressed? Is Greb more technical? No, he was windmilling and flapping hysterically. Is Greb faster or more athletic? No, he almost looks to be fighting in slow-motion in comparison.

QED.

cowzerp

Very good point, people love to believe the legend rather than the reality-we have all the video and people still deny the difference in skill strength and tactics.

walshb

I am not going back to the early 20th century. Yes, back then boxing has progressed, but when it reached the 60s and 70s and 80s, that is when I think one cannot claim a progression or regression. The thread relates mainly to the 70s vs. the 90s.

Paul, why should it be different than other sports? Well, because it is. It is not like any track and field event, for one example. These events are timed and measured, and the progression is visible, provable and recordable.

Same with swimming. Same with motor racing. Combat sports, man on man, with very little else involved, makes it difficult to argue an improvement or disimprovement thru the eras. Soccer, NFL, Rugby etc all look to have improved in my view, but one can argue. Boxing requires even more arguing I believe.

cowzerp

There is not a major difference between the 80's and now but I'd say there is some-there is a massive difference between 1960's and now.

My question Bren is simple, why would boxers not evolve when all other sports do? Not is it provable, I don't see why boxing would stand still whole all other sports have evolved.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

There is not a major difference between the 80's and now but I'd say there is some-there is a massive difference between 1960's and now.

My question Bren is simple, why would boxers not evolve when all other sports do? Not is it provable, I don't see why boxing would stand still whole all other sports have evolved.

Yes, it can evolve. I just don't think it has, at least not in the last 40-50 years. I also happen to think that combat sports, and particularly individual combat sports, progress a lot less and slower than other sports. And, sometimes not at all. All we have is our eyes to allow us to say "yes, I see a progression," or "no, I don't see a progression, I see a regression." In many other sports we have our eyes, but also proof, records, times, distances etc.

Edit: Imagine there was no such thing as electronic timing or measurement. We'd be debating if sprinters today are faster than those in the 60s, swimmers too, and many track and field athletes. Now, there was NEVER a method to measure the efficiency of boxers. Our eyes are the only tool, and still to this day it's the only tool. And, my eyes see n real improvement in boxers today vs. boxers 40-50 years ago.

RiseToTheTop

Sugar Ray Robinson from Welterweight fought in the 1940's.

Are you guys saying the like of Victor Ortiz could beat him at WW???

cowzerp

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Sugar Ray Robinson from Welterweight fought in the 1940's.

Are you guys saying the like of Victor Ortiz could beat him at WW???

Your Picking 1 of if not the best boxer of all time versus a challenger now!

Ridoncoulus I say!

Sugar ray Robinson was not the norm for his time.

megadodge

This is an argument that gets right up my wick, meaning I probably should stay out of it, but...

Walshb, I think you've slowly been brainwashed by that pompous drunk Hawkins on Cyberboxing and his sycophantic buddies. Throw enough sh!t at a wall and some of it will stick.

You've just made my point for me in your last post by stating that if there was no way of measuring the speed in 100m sprints, you can be absolutely certain there would be numerous old-timers telling us that Usain Bolt is good, but there's no way he'd beat Jesse Owens!! Well we can measure it and Owens was so much slower, he probably wouldn't qualify for major championships anymore. But the equivalent of that is exactly the sh!te we have to listen to in boxing.

Do you not think it's an ENORMOUS COINCINDENCE that in any sport where you can measure performance the performances have consistenly improved, yet in any sport you can't the rose-tinted brigade get highly indignant at any suggestion that the modern versions are better than the past?

In other words - if you can't prove anything, the fellas in the past were better, but anywhere any proof exists the moderns easily outperform their forebearers.

But the thing that most bugs me, is the complete lack of respect for modern boxers these stuck-in-a-timewarp idiots have. I have nothing but respect for anyone brave enough and disciplined enough to step into a boxing ring and have enjoyed countless hours watching videos of boxers in the past, so I would never denigrate them, but not alone do they claim that boxers nowadays aren't better, but that boxers of 50 (or whatever) years ago were way better. Based on what???? Vague memories at best. Downright delusion and lies at worst.

The beauty of Youtube is any Joe Soap can now watch all the great fighters of the past for themselves and make up their own mind and from the evidence of my own eyes Henry Armstrong would NOT have beaten Manny Pacquaio or Floyd Mayweather, yet he'll always be rated higher than both on ATG lists, simply because he has always been there. I also think Roy Jones beats any fighter in history p4p. These are not opinions I came to lightly, but from watching so much footage I am convinced of them.

I read an old Ring magazine once from the mid 1950's (supposedly the true 'Golden Age' of boxing according to the above) and there was either a letter or article (can't remember which) in it slating the 'modern' boxers as being nowhere near as good as the 'legends' from the beginning of the century and 1920's. I'm also around long enough to remember the whinging boxing fans in the 1980's complaining about the then 'modern' boxers being nowhere as good as the 'legends' of the 1950's. Do you spot the trend?

Finally, think about the following if you really think boxing nowadays is so sh!te. When I read my favourite boxing book of all 'In This Corner' which interviewed c. 40 ex-world champs back in the late 1960's, there was a chapter on Fidel LaBarba, the former world flyweight champ from the 1920's. Firstly, he won the title in his 11th fight. Yes, that's right, in the mid-1920's!! Secondly, he had lost 2 and drawn 2 of those 10 fights!! Thirdly it was over 10 rounds!! Fourthly and most revealingly, while making a defence of his world title, he met an opponent who was a southpaw. He actually told him, once the bout started to "box properly" as this was the first time he had ever boxed or seen or even heard of a southpaw!! And this guy was an Olympic and world champion!!! Yet, the older guys knew so much more than their modern counterparts according to those who just don't want to know.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Walshb, I think you've slowly been brainwashed by that pompous drunk Hawkins on Cyberboxing and his sycophantic buddies. Throw enough sh!t at a wall and some of it will stick.

Chill. It's not like I am saying that no progression has taken place. It has, and I have said so too. Maybe if you read what I wrote you would see this. I just don't see it as clear or obvious in the past 40-50 years. How anyone can say it's clear to me is off the mark. Look at the videos of the champs today and from the 60s and show me this improvement, or how today's men are better or could beat them men from the 60s or 70s.

I believe that overall the fighters from the 60s and 70s were that bit better. Not ramming it down anyone's throat either. And, I could be wrong, but why is it that folks get so hot under the collar for others having this view? Or, they have been brainwashed? What, are we all to agree with you, and if not, we have been brainwashed?

Like I said, combat sports, and NOT just boxing, can be difficult to argue for. The sprints, yes, I will agree, one could argue with or without timing that men today are faster. But with combat sports, it's man vs. man, not like man vs. man where there is no physical interaction.

I have heard cases being made for Gene Tunney over Riddick Bowe. That to me is absurd. Although, Tunney was a helluva boxer for his time, and at LHW-CW he could hold his own against any man in history.

I am being very open, diplomatic too, but no, in the last 40-50 years I cannot see anything to suggest that the men boxing today are better.

And, where did I say boxing today is sh1te? Where do you pull this from, or how do you interpret this?

It's like you get so wound up before a post that you just start writing and then lose the run of yourself.

gene_tunney

megadodge wrote: »

post

Great post, but unfortunately none of it will sink in; if somebody just won't open their mind or can't concede that they may be wrong then no amount of logic, reasoning and evidence will penetrate their stubbornness and bring them to their senses. Some beliefs are just ingrained too deep.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Great post, but unfortunately none of it will sink in; if somebody just won't open their mind or can't concede that they may be wrong then no amount of logic, reasoning and evidence will penetrate their stubbornness and bring them to their senses. Some beliefs are just ingrained too deep.

Again, how is someone wrong if they believe that men today may not be better than men from the 60s or 70s? That logic is strange to say the least.

I don't think anyone is saying that early 20th century boxers are better, even though a case can be argued, so what is so wrong with arguing form men in the 60s or 70s agains the men today?

The poll, for example, has men from 40 years ago beating men from 20 years ago. Not saying the poll proves anything, but surely it should tel you that there is no right and wrong in a debate of this nature?

cowzerp

Ok going back 60 years but if it has not changed in 50 then I see know reason why an extra 10 years would be a deal breaker, Marciano is clearly miles behind the skill size or technique of the Klitschko's, Lewis before him, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield-and people still rate him higher than most I mentioned-it's not debatable to me, he just is not near their standard.

This is what megadodge is saying, it's bias and bs press which convinces people to believe that, old timers thinking their era was the true best blah blah!

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

a massive difference between 1960's and now.
.

This to me is just off. Difference, possibly? Massive difference? Go look at the lineal champs from that decade and compare it to the 2001-2010 decade.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok going back 60 years but if it has not changed in 50 then I see know reason why an extra 10 years would be a deal breaker, Marciano is clearly miles behind the skill size or technique of the Klitschko's, Lewis before him, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield-and people still rate him higher than most I mentioned-it's not debatable to me, he just is not near their standard.

This is what megadodge is saying, it's bias and bs press which convinces people to believe that, old timers thinking their era was the true best blah blah!

The HW scene is not the same. There will always be weight difference too. Skill wise we had the silky JJW and Ezzard Charles. Both every bit as skilled as Bowe, Lewis, Klits. No, they don't beat them, but they are every bit as skilled. So, that point is not valid. So, where is the skills progression. I see a size progression, and have said this. But, the HW scene will always show this.
Across the set weights, I would like to see a case being clearly made for todays men vs. men from the 60s or 50s.

marienbad

Of course all sports move on , that is beyond question , so just comparing the 70's with the 90's would indicate that the later generation would win. Does that mean they are better or that the science is better ?

Does anyone seriously believe that if Maradona had access to all modern
sport science and playing today he would not be top of the pile.

Or if Ali and Frazier born today and with today's knowledge would not rise to the top and in just as meteoric a fashion ?

walshb

Hey, I like Amir Khan, but no way is he a certain better fighter than a 140 lb Carlos Ortiz. Ike Williams at 135-140 would beat Khan. I have seen footage. No, he is not better. Nor is Bradley better.

walshb

marienbad wrote: »

Or if Ali and Frazier born today and with today's knowledge would not rise to the top and in just as meteoric a fashion ?

Do you think Ali wouldn't be top dog today unless he had "today's knowledge?"

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

This is what megadodge is saying, it's bias and bs press which convinces people to believe that, old timers thinking their era was the true best blah blah!

No, not BS press. You yourself posted a highlight reel of Rocky. It's there to see. No press. I happen to think that he was a fantastic fighting machine. I see subtle skills, power, variation, and stamina, heart, chin. I think he loses to bigger men like Ali and Bowe and Klit. Why? Size. I do not think he was lacking in skills. He had his set skills, like they had theirs. I think at 200 or below he's a hell of a match for any man ever. Because of his skills, and everything else.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Do you think Ali wouldn't be top dog today unless he had "today's knowledge?"

Ali and Sugar ray robinson, these where just freaks that where light years ahead of their time-and I'm pretty sure the poll of who would win had Vitali beating Ali.

Look at most the 1960's boxing champs and the champs since 2000 and in most cases it's obvious which would win.