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

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.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

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.

Ok, Eder Jofre? Who today post 2000 is the obvious winner against him? I haven't the time to list all, but I am not claiming anything is obvious. LP and Bradley and Khan are top dogs at JWW. I don't think any are obvious winners against the best LWW men from the 1960s.

Oh, Luis Rodriguez, Paret and Griffith at WW. Who is an obvious winner at WW today and from the last 12 years?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

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.

In other words skills that are not there!!

he was an aggressive brawler who relied on stranght and heart, i'd say he lacked quality in all skill techniques in Boxing, Footwork, Punching technique, he hardly had a jab-his defense was poor, the video i posted showed a brash fiighter that if you diod not know him you could believe he was just thrown into the ring from the crowd!!

titan18

I understand what people are saying when they say there's an improvement, imo, there is quite clearly one in all sports, but if you're comparing across different generations, the elite like Ali,Frazier etc would be even better than they were then.

It's the same as when someone mentioned Jesse Owens, sure he might not beat Bolt, but if brought up in the same time, imo, he'd be just as elite as he was when he raced.

walshb

You are fixated on Rocky.;) I could name several less than skilled men today and from recent years too. Rocky was but one champ from the 50s. I happen to rate Rocky very high. I am not alone, just as you are not alone in not rating him.

walshb

titan18 wrote: »

I understand what people are saying when they say there's an improvement, imo, there is quite clearly one in all sports, but if you're comparing across different generations, the elite like Ali,Frazier etc would be even better than they were then.

It's the same as when someone mentioned Jesse Owens, sure he might not beat Bolt, but if brought up in the same time, imo, he'd be just as elite as he was when he raced.

I too agree that across most, if not all sports we have had improvement. The point is that in some sports it's not at all easy to show this, prove it or argue it. It's very much open to discussion. And boxing stands out as probably the most difficult sport to debate and prove the premise. Yes, I see an improvement from 100 years ago, but no, I cannot see it from 40-50 years ago. Not saying it's not there, but how can someone argue it is there with certainty and confidence?

RiseToTheTop

Go away with yer progression. The techniques of boxing aren't completely different from yesteryear. Jab, right hook, left hook, uppercut.

Look at what Wladimir Klitschko does: Jab, Jab, Jab, Jab, Jab, Jab, Jab, Jab, right cross. How is that so different from previous heavyweight champions? How is that so REVOLUTIONARY????

I also don't get any of this technically superior stuff. Regards sprinting, that is clear to measure, and you can measure times from the past. Eh, boxing? How can you measure if a fighter would beat another fighter? This fans bias plays a big time part.

All this "advancement is better" jibe is just some excuse for some close minded people who can't ever see the current poor crop losing to anyone else before them. Boxing is about fighting, there is a set amount that forms the basics that can't be completely turned around. With sprinting, people have always sprinted, it's just that the food has made them quicker, but that is all.

titan18

walshb wrote: »

I too agree that across most, if not all sports we have had improvement. The point is that in some sports it's not at all easy to show this, prove it or argue it. It's very much open to discussion. And boxing stands out as probably the most difficult sport to debate and prove the premise. Yes, I see an improvement from 100 years ago, but no, I cannot see it from 40-50 years ago. Not saying it's not there, but how can someone argue it is there with certainty and confidence?

I just think there has to be an improvement when you take into account that there would be better medical, nutritional and training advice available now than there was 50 years ago. It might not be huge, and imo there's less talent in the current boxing era due to a large amount of money and interest involved with other sports now. The NFL would probably take a large amount of potential US boxers away from the sport imo, and now with the rise of UFC etc, it's another area that athletes with the potential to box can go into.

So, whilst current boxers might not be more talented than the elites of different generations, they have several advantages over them

walshb

titan18 wrote: »

I just think there has to be an improvement when you take into account that there would be better medical, nutritional and training advice available now than there was 50 years ago. It might not be huge, and imo there's less talent in the current boxing era due to a large amount of money and interest involved with other sports now. The NFL would probably take a large amount of potential US boxers away from the sport imo, and now with the rise of UFC etc, it's another area that athletes with the potential to box can go into.

So, whilst current boxers might not be more talented than the elites of different generations, they have several advantages over them

But how much better is the nutrition and medicine? Boxing is still a lot to do with old fashioned training, plus, inactivity today is argued as making todays men less efficient.

nerd69

tyson with cus damato as trainer can compete with most other trainers he gets hammered

megadodge

Walshb, just to clear up any misunderstanding, I was speaking in general, not necessarily you in my earlier post. I just mentioned you and Hawkins as a kind of tongue-in-cheek remark, as I know I've mentioned the arrogant pr!ck before to you.