Boxing Forum - Boxing Discussion Forums banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Heres a theory that i'm sure will attract a lot of opinions. I see a lot of threads asking the question 'With Both Fighters At There Peak, Who Would Win'. I also sense that a lot of members have a rather romantic notion that the 'old time' fighters were better. I disagree! As in many sports, modern participants are fitter, better conditioned, more tactically aware etc etc. For example, the 100 metre sprint record keeps being broken(and always will) Modern footballers(soccer players) are on a higher level than years gone by, Golf, Tennis etc etc, records are constantly being broken. Now, this is only my opinion, but i will say that in boxing a modern great would beat a former great everytime! Nothing to do with natural abilty, more to do with conditioning and awareness etc. All opinions welcome..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,174 Posts
Heres a theory that i'm sure will attract a lot of opinions. I see a lot of threads asking the question 'With Both Fighters At There Peak, Who Would Win'. I also sense that a lot of members have a rather romantic notion that the 'old time' fighters were better. I disagree! As in many sports, modern participants are fitter, better conditioned, more tactically aware etc etc. For example, the 100 metre sprint record keeps being broken(and always will) Modern footballers(soccer players) are on a higher level than years gone by, Golf, Tennis etc etc, records are constantly being broken. Now, this is only my opinion, but i will say that in boxing a modern great would beat a former great everytime! Nothing to do with natural abilty, more to do with conditioning and awareness etc. All opinions welcome..
I absolutely agree 100%. I've debated this numerous times with the history guys. Boxing, just like all other sports has evolved and it is very apparent. Over time guys pick up new strategies, tactics, training methods etc. I strongly believe in this and agree with you dude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
I think of this a whole lot in terms of hockey and the all-time great dynasties when I compare them to modern day powerhouses and I think the same holds true for boxing. I agree with your statements. I don't doubt that old school fighters, or teams, might have been more hardened and tougher than current day ones that were coddled and carefully brought along under much better conditions, but in the skills department, current day fighters have a huge leg up.
 

·
Team Mayweather
Joined
·
24,365 Posts
Heres a theory that i'm sure will attract a lot of opinions. I see a lot of threads asking the question 'With Both Fighters At There Peak, Who Would Win'. I also sense that a lot of members have a rather romantic notion that the 'old time' fighters were better. I disagree! As in many sports, modern participants are fitter, better conditioned, more tactically aware etc etc. For example, the 100 metre sprint record keeps being broken(and always will) Modern footballers(soccer players) are on a higher level than years gone by, Golf, Tennis etc etc, records are constantly being broken. Now, this is only my opinion, but i will say that in boxing a modern great would beat a former great everytime! Nothing to do with natural abilty, more to do with conditioning and awareness etc. All opinions welcome..
I agree word for word. Excellent post. I dont take anything away from the old time fighters, but todays fighters are just as good if not better strictly because of the way things are today. People are faster and stronger naturally. You said it best, A modern great, would easily be a former great. I know I stress this enough but had it been Roy Jones in SRR shoes and SRR in roys position. People would be saying. SRR is no Roy Jones.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,820 Posts
I agree but it's not fair to compare old timers with today's fighters because they invented most of the stuff we see and at the time it was revolutionary. So there's no point in comparing them IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
G

·
on the flipside. i argue that old time fighters were hungrier and put more into their success in all sports. there wasnt the money in sport that there is today and some literally fought to put food on their tables, they had more to lose. where today most semi succesful sportsmen dont ever have to work again once they retire, they have made their money. also the know they getting a fortune whether the win or lose.

I not sure if i put what i wanted to say into the right words. basically training and all i agree with however, todays sportsmen are spoilt to a degree and dont have the same hunger, appitite and will to succeed as their predessors.imo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
i agree and disagree. old fighters use to fight 100 people in their career and most likely have a job as a doorman or something. they may not have beaten superior athletes or been superior athletes, but you have to always judge a sportsman by it's era.

for example a lot of them were pioneers. this has allowed others to use their techniques or improve on it.

secondly i also feel that a modern day fighter would not have been able to fight 100+ fights. this doesn't go to all but goes to most. if roy jones or mayweather fought every 2 months then i feel even if it was against bums then they would not be seen as the way they are now. infact if they trained for 12 weeks etc like they do these days continuously for their fights every 3 months they would burn out.

yes modern day fighters are better conditioned etc and have the use to video tapes and nutritionists and trainers and so and so to train better. would they be as good if they fought in the era of the oldies? i don't think so.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
25,672 Posts
Sports evolve. Not always though.

Just look at the past HW's compared to todays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
I think it is hard to say with boxers. Because no matter what, styles do make fights and there is always someone with a style to beat yours out there somewhere. Az far as other sports go. I say the old tymers win. Take baseball for example. They are saying Bonds might be the best hitter ever, but there are many factors in that. One being steroids. I still say Ruth was way better, not only did he have just as good a stats batting, but he was also a 20 game winner in pitching. Same can go for other major sports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
i agree and disagree. old fighters use to fight 100 people in their career and most likely have a job as a doorman or something. they may not have beaten superior athletes or been superior athletes, but you have to always judge a sportsman by it's era.

for example a lot of them were pioneers. this has allowed others to use their techniques or improve on it.

secondly i also feel that a modern day fighter would not have been able to fight 100+ fights. this doesn't go to all but goes to most. if roy jones or mayweather fought every 2 months then i feel even if it was against bums then they would not be seen as the way they are now. infact if they trained for 12 weeks etc like they do these days continuously for their fights every 3 months they would burn out.

yes modern day fighters are better conditioned etc and have the use to video tapes and nutritionists and trainers and so and so to train better. would they be as good if they fought in the era of the oldies? i don't think so.

Thanks for the reply but i think you missed my point, regardless of who pioneered techniques etc, a modern great fighter in my opinion would be too fit, too skillfull, too knowledgable for an old great fighter with inferior fitness and training techniques.:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
Thanks for the reply but i think you missed my point, regardless of who pioneered techniques etc, a modern great fighter in my opinion would be too fit, too skillfull, too knowledgable for an old great fighter with inferior fitness and training techniques.:)
that is true, if we somehow transported a prime fighter from now the the past, the current guy would win. hands down.

BUT what i am trying to get at is, if a prize fighter from today was born 100 years ago, would he be the same? i doubt it. this is just the way i think. i try my best to think as logical as possible. i personally feel to keep the high performance that a fighter of todays world, they need to have a rest after the grueling schedule of training. if they did not train as much as todays world and had fights every 2 months then it may mess there whole body up. who knows

in 100 years from now, there may be a thing where testosterone can be injected into the womb when a lady is pregnant and that may help a fighter be better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,820 Posts
Thanks for the reply but i think you missed my point, regardless of who pioneered techniques etc, a modern great fighter in my opinion would be too fit, too skillfull, too knowledgable for an old great fighter with inferior fitness and training techniques.:)
He would be knowledgeable by watching and learning from the old great fighter so he wouldn't really be superior. Is Floyd Mayweather better than George Benton? Yeah. Would he be that good if Benton hadn't invented the shoulder roll? Nope.
that is true, if we somehow transported a prime fighter from now the the past, the current guy would win. hands down.

BUT what i am trying to get at is, if a prize fighter from today was born 100 years ago, would he be the same? i doubt it. this is just the way i think. i try my best to think as logical as possible. i personally feel to keep the high performance that a fighter of todays world, they need to have a rest after the grueling schedule of training. if they did not train as much as todays world and had fights every 2 months then it may mess there whole body up. who knows

in 100 years from now, there may be a thing where testosterone can be injected into the womb when a lady is pregnant and that may help a fighter be better.
I see your point but WTF? lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,174 Posts
I think it is hard to say with boxers. Because no matter what, styles do make fights and there is always someone with a style to beat yours out there somewhere. Az far as other sports go. I say the old tymers win. Take baseball for example. They are saying Bonds might be the best hitter ever, but there are many factors in that. One being steroids. I still say Ruth was way better, not only did he have just as good a stats batting, but he was also a 20 game winner in pitching. Same can go for other major sports.
No. Manny Ramirez is a better batter than both Ruth and Bonds.
He would be knowledgeable by watching and learning from the old great fighter so he wouldn't really be superior. Is Floyd Mayweather better than George Benton? Yeah. Would he be that good if Benton hadn't invented the shoulder roll? Nope.


I see your point but WTF? lol
:laugh:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,993 Posts
I agree and disagree. I dont think a fighter today can go 15 and fight as many fights as they did. The pioneers would go 20-50 rounds, today fighers are done after a few wars, back then they were probably use to it. The fluctuation of weight inbetween fights has alot to do with some of this in some cases.

I see Carlos Monzon who is regarded as one of the best middleweights ever, and I see someone that would get beat by Hopkins, Hagler, Taylor, Pavlik. So I do agree in some cases not all though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Fighters Of Today Have Alot More Natural Skill, In Better Shape, They Are Better Tuned Weapons, But There Is One Thing That The Old Timers Have That The Fighters Of Today Just Don't Have And Thats Heart And The Will To Be The Best At What They Love, Remember Fighter Of The Old Would Fight ABOUT 5 Times Or More In A Year, Also Take On The Best To Be The Best,imagine What Boxing Would Be Like Today If Fighters Took On The Best Possible Fighters And Fought 4-5 Times A Year, The Sport We Love So Much Would Be Full Of Life Again.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top