comparing fighters of old to ones now

there is the big debate about it right now and ive had the debate many times before. i want to give my honest opinion about it so hopefully nobody gets offended (especially since this is a message board on the internet so if you actually get offended then you have a problem).

first off let me say, NOBODY IS UNSTOPPABLE! can everybody agree? hopefully because if you dont agree then i probably cant take anything you say seriously ever again. anything can really happen in any fight especially if its against 2 elite fighters. lets go back to the lewis vs marciano fight. lets say lewis wins. would that change your opinion on those 2 fighters? if lewis KO'd marciano would you say that marciano wasnt as good as you thought? now lets say that marciano wins. would you say that size doesnt matter because obviously a 185 pounder can beat someone who is 260? would you say that obviously fighters of the past are better than the present? im just stating that we will never know the actual outcome of the fight. styles make fights. either person winning that fight wouldnt take away from the fact that what they did during their career was great. lets take sugar ray robinson. if he was somehow put against a fighter like floyd mayweather and mayweather beat him would you say that he isnt the best anymore? (im not saying that mayweather would win at all, im just stating that anything could happen). if that happened i would say that i guess styles make fights and that mayweather just had his number. i wouldnt say that mayweather was a better fighter. so we need to think that just because one fighter is rated higher all time than another does not mean that the lower rated fighter would not win 9 out of 10 fights because of styles.

now onto the topic of old fighters and new fighters. i definitely feel like there is some bias (even though there usually is) when it comes to fighters of old. i feel that some people will always pick an old fighter over a recent one. i will agree that most of the best fighters are older fighters (just look at my p4p list) but that does not mean that i dont give a lot of credit to some new fighters. i feel that sometimes current fighters or even fighters in the past 10 years get hardly any credit for what they have done and how good they are. boxing isnt and will never be like it used to be so stop comparing them as equals. obviously fighters back in the day had over 100 fights. rarely will any fighter (especially an elite fighter) have 100 fights. so if you are comparing in amount of fights then i see why you would rank old fighters higher than todays. but i have to look at peoples skill levels overall. fighters like roy jones, floyd mayweather, manny pac, JMM, shane mosley, de la hoya, hopkins, etc. i think that every one of those fighters could compete in any era. they may not be the MAN in every era but i think that they could be.

i feel like these fighters with a ton of talent who may not have fought every single person you wanted them to fight are underrated now and a lot of people say for example "mayweather would just get destroyed by these lightweights of old like benny leonard or ike williams, or roberto duran, or joe gans, etc. or that roy jones would just get destroyed by charles or moore or foster or marciano, etc." i say that just because these fighters didnt fight every single person you wanted them to doesnt make them less good. they could still compete with most anybody i believe.

some may disagree with me but i feel that there are fighters now that would be good in any era but we are comparing resumes and amount of fights when we just cant. we have to compare with what they are given.

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

That depends on which side I am arguing with you that day.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

That depends on which side I am arguing with you that day.

LOL, me too

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

That depends on which side I am arguing with you that day.

LOL, me too

LOL yeah we havent had a good argument lately. I am bored as hell with arguing with Wolf all he does is resort to name calling. At least with you I learn something and have to think.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

That depends on which side I am arguing with you that day.

LOL, me too

LOL yeah we havent had a good argument lately. I am bored as hell with arguing with Wolf all he does is resort to name calling. At least with you I learn something and have to think.

For me these kinds of places are only about two things, learning and/or laughing. Preferably both. Badgering, berating etc? Life is too short.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

That depends on which side I am arguing with you that day.

LOL, me too

LOL yeah we havent had a good argument lately. I am bored as hell with arguing with Wolf all he does is resort to name calling. At least with you I learn something and have to think.

For me these kinds of places are only about two things, learning and/or laughing. Preferably both. Badgering, berating etc? Life is too short.

Or your just really bored at work. LOL

powerpuncher there are tons of flaws in your post..ill agree today thewre are several fighters that are excellent and yes would compete at a respectable level in any era..some eras yes champ..delahoya for example..excellent fighter..lost every big time fight..could he beat robinson..nope not in 10 tries.mickey walker..please.leonard or hearns.nope.gaviln ..yes 1 out of 2 fights.basilio.yes1 out of 3 fights.napoles..1 out of 2.mclarlin.nope. floyd..mickey walker.nope he wont last 7 rounds.robinson.never.hearns nope.leonard nope.basilio maybe 1 out of 3...marciano today is a cruizer maybe..weigh in 30 hours before the fight perhaps with the knowledge nutritionalist dehydration youi have a LH..marciano 184 jones 185 weigh in fight day..thats 100 percent accurate.rocky kills him 3 out of 3 fights ditto moore .and charles in his heyday..yep styles make fights but they dont make a winner..
again if a fighter like gavilin who fought 50 tough excellent fights or greb with 80 ditto robinson if you doint think that counts well think again..
in comparing eras most folks who fAVOR TODAYS leave out one important element..they put a fighter of today with advanced knowledsge of nurtition the benefits of weight traing which was taboo exersise machines and vitamins etc and put them in the 1920 era WITH THOSE BENEFITS BUT DO NOT WANT TO GIVE A 1920 FIGHTER those benefits when they fight in 2010..or the reverse.put todays fighters born in that era..how good would they be..are todays figthers geared for a rugged fighting schudle for 10 yeaRS DISPITE ALL THIS GREAT STUFF OF MODERN MEDICINE AND EXERSISE..NOPE.. there candy asses..who backs out of a fight who avoids several guys.the modern fighter...
give jack johnson the benefit of living today..would he be 6 ft 1 205 lbs or would he be 6-3 n half 225..give him 100 years of studing different stuff and styles.he kicked lewis ass 7 days a week..hed kick any crizers ass today without thoses benefits..
a guy who fights 41 fights and avoids top in prime competion yes is inferior to a guy who fought 175 or 202 times often and against 50 top guys over a 15 year career is superior..to argue other wise is well foolish.mastering everything in the ring vs mastering one or 2 maybe if your great 3 things today does not add up to better...can they compete..of course..be the best of the best in other eras..nooooo way.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

.....excellent..judgement indeed.intelligent knowledgeable judgement not bias..good post.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

ive heard this argument from you 100 times before marb and im not disagreeing that old time fighters had better fighters but im saying that there are obviously fighters that could be the man back in those days (be undefeated? probably not), and we have evidence that they are good. lets use mayweather as an example. he is obviously a good fighter and has never lost. so you really cant say well he lost to all of these fighters so obviously he isnt as good as another fighter. so technically you are being bias from your definition because there are fighters today that have had great careers and havent shown too many weaknesses but you still claim that they would get KO'd by an old time fighter. i know that you have said that ezzard charles would KO a prime jones. what basis do you have on that? that way past jones' prime he was KO'd? even though he was rarely hit before that. thats why you have to look at fighters and see for yourself. obviously you think that charles is an impressive fighter but what evidence do you really have that he would beat jones?

every fighter has struggled in their career with certain fighters but that doesnt make them any less of a boxer. i feel like there are fighters today that could be the champion 50 years ago.

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

ive heard this argument from you 100 times before marb and im not disagreeing that old time fighters had better fighters but im saying that there are obviously fighters that could be the man back in those days (be undefeated? probably not), and we have evidence that they are good. lets use mayweather as an example. he is obviously a good fighter and has never lost. so you really cant say well he lost to all of these fighters so obviously he isnt as good as another fighter. so technically you are being bias from your definition because there are fighters today that have had great careers and havent shown too many weaknesses but you still claim that they would get KO'd by an old time fighter. i know that you have said that ezzard charles would KO a prime jones. what basis do you have on that? that way past jones' prime he was KO'd? even though he was rarely hit before that. thats why you have to look at fighters and see for yourself. obviously you think that charles is an impressive fighter but what evidence do you really have that he would beat jones? every fighter has struggled in their career with certain fighters but that doesnt make them any less of a boxer. i feel like there are fighters today that could be the champion 50 years ago.

Mayweather's failing is the obvious holes in his resume. Chris John is ubeaten, you think that means something? Plus it's pretty clear that Floyd was beaten by JL Castillo which gives us something for comparison purposes. Otherwise by your logic an unbeaten fighter never ever loses, right?

The reason I think Ezzard Charles KO's Roy Jones is threefold. Charles hung in there with Marciano for 15 rounds so it is unlikely Jones could get him out of there. Second, Jones' chin has to be viewed as no better than decent and Charles KO'd heavyweights regularly. Third and I think most importantly Jones had exploitable (and Montell Griffin of all people exploited them) technical flaws. Jones craft, especially with regard to his feet was (to be nice) inconsistent. Charles was impeccable. Do you contest any of those three points?

Is there any other sport where you'd favor the guy who knew LESS about what he was doing? How good a wide receiver do you think Usain Bolt would be? He's taller, longer and faster than Randy Moss after all. Now who do you want on your team? The taller, longer, faster guy? Or the guy who's not quite as tall, not quite as fast, not quite as long but who is an impeccable route-runner and defense reader? Same thing with pitchers. Who is likely to be better? The guy with the 100 mph fastball with OK control and a subpar slider or the guy with an 88mph fastball, a good slider and a good change-up who can put the ball where he wants and understands how to set up a hitter?


Let's take some fighters today and see if you really think they could be THE MAN champions.

Wlad-50 years ago if Wlad could have gotten a fight with Floyd Patterson he might well win. But he better not get in the ring with contenders like Liston or Ingo.

Manny-Ya gotta adjust for same day weigh-ins so the question becomes could Manny beat middleweight champ Paul Pender or could he make 147 the day of the fight (I think he could). If he can make 147 he has to beat Benny Kid Paret. Paret was also a smallish welter and while a fine fighter, was never a great one. I think Manny wins this. Floyd beats Paret as well.

Juan Manuel Marquez-He probably could make 135 the day of the fight. Could he beat Old Bones Joe Brown? Another older fighter Brown is a BIG puncher and a good craftsman. He has a chance to hurt Marquez. I think this is a pick-em.

Pongsaklek Wonjonkjam-He's a bantam back in the day and that means he's fighting Eder Jofre. Wonjongkam is a fine fighter. But he isn't anywhere near Jofre's class in terms of competition faced or craft.

I don't think anyone else today is even worth talking about. But look at what we just discovered. 1960 was also a real down time in the sport. Out of those four divisions only one ATG was then champion. If we tried the same exercise for 1930, 1940, 1950 or 1970, 1980 or 1990 the results would be ugly.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

ive heard this argument from you 100 times before marb and im not disagreeing that old time fighters had better fighters but im saying that there are obviously fighters that could be the man back in those days (be undefeated? probably not), and we have evidence that they are good. lets use mayweather as an example. he is obviously a good fighter and has never lost. so you really cant say well he lost to all of these fighters so obviously he isnt as good as another fighter. so technically you are being bias from your definition because there are fighters today that have had great careers and havent shown too many weaknesses but you still claim that they would get KO'd by an old time fighter. i know that you have said that ezzard charles would KO a prime jones. what basis do you have on that? that way past jones' prime he was KO'd? even though he was rarely hit before that. thats why you have to look at fighters and see for yourself. obviously you think that charles is an impressive fighter but what evidence do you really have that he would beat jones? every fighter has struggled in their career with certain fighters but that doesnt make them any less of a boxer. i feel like there are fighters today that could be the champion 50 years ago.

Mayweather's failing is the obvious holes in his resume. Chris John is ubeaten, you think that means something? Plus it's pretty clear that Floyd was beaten by JL Castillo which gives us something for comparison purposes. Otherwise by your logic an unbeaten fighter never ever loses, right?

The reason I think Ezzard Charles KO's Roy Jones is threefold. Charles hung in there with Marciano for 15 rounds so it is unlikely Jones could get him out of there. Second, Jones' chin has to be viewed as no better than decent and Charles KO'd heavyweights regularly. Third and I think most importantly Jones had exploitable (and Montell Griffin of all people exploited them) technical flaws. Jones craft, especially with regard to his feet was (to be nice) inconsistent. Charles was impeccable. Do you contest any of those three points?

Is there any other sport where you'd favor the guy who knew LESS about what he was doing? How good a wide receiver do you think Usain Bolt would be? He's taller, longer and faster than Randy Moss after all. Now who do you want on your team? The taller, longer, faster guy? Or the guy who's not quite as tall, not quite as fast, not quite as long but who is an impeccable route-runner and defense reader? Same thing with pitchers. Who is likely to be better? The guy with the 100 mph fastball with OK control and a subpar slider or the guy with an 88mph fastball, a good slider and a good change-up who can put the ball where he wants and understands how to set up a hitter?


Let's take some fighters today and see if you really think they could be THE MAN champions.

Wlad-50 years ago if Wlad could have gotten a fight with Floyd Patterson he might well win. But he better not get in the ring with contenders like Liston or Ingo.

Manny-Ya gotta adjust for same day weigh-ins so the question becomes could Manny beat middleweight champ Paul Pender or could he make 147 the day of the fight (I think he could). If he can make 147 he has to beat Benny Kid Paret. Paret was also a smallish welter and while a fine fighter, was never a great one. I think Manny wins this. Floyd beats Paret as well.

Juan Manuel Marquez-He probably could make 135 the day of the fight. Could he beat Old Bones Joe Brown? Another older fighter Brown is a BIG puncher and a good craftsman. He has a chance to hurt Marquez. I think this is a pick-em.

Pongsaklek Wonjonkjam-He's a bantam back in the day and that means he's fighting Eder Jofre. Wonjongkam is a fine fighter. But he isn't anywhere near Jofre's class in terms of competition faced or craft.

I don't think anyone else today is even worth talking about. But look at what we just discovered. 1960 was also a real down time in the sport. Out of those four divisions only one ATG was then champion. If we tried the same exercise for 1930, 1940, 1950 or 1970, 1980 or 1990 the results would be ugly.

i somewhat agree with you. first of all, every fighter has had problems with someone so mayweather having problems with castillo and jones having problems with griffin arent that big of a deal especially because both of them avenged that loss.

im not necessarily disagreeing that charles would beat jones but i wouldnt at all say a guarantee. i was more making a point. but to play the devil's advocate against those points. first, jones and marciano have totally different styles. jones' punches are fast and accurate and although not as hard as marciano's, his speed and accuracy can help him land a lot more with big shots. second, im not saying that jones' chin is great but im saying that he was never KO'd until after his prime and was rarely hit before that and i think he was only knocked down once. so if charles was landing on jones could he KO him? yes. but it wasnt easy to land on a prime jones. third, just because jones struggled with one person during his prime doesnt mean that charles would automatically have his number. thats like saying that ali struggled with norton so obviously a better boxer/puncher like louis would beat him because norton exploited his flaws. griffin and charles have totally different styles.

boo ya!

To me the biggest advantage today's fighters have over old-time guys is that they have the opportunity to learn from the past and adapt new innovations or techniques to their style. That's why comparing across eras is kind of impossible, because who's to say what a guy like Jack Johnson could have done if he had a modern film room or a trainer who had watched all the 20th Century greats?

The only other factor is size, and that really only impacts heavyweights (which is why the Marciano vs. Lewis fight is so hard to take seriously; they really aren't in the same weight class).

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

That depends on which side I am arguing with you that day.

LOL, me too

LOL yeah we havent had a good argument lately. I am bored as hell with arguing with Wolf all he does is resort to name calling. At least with you I learn something and have to think.

you forgot Wolf likes to pound his chest and brag about punching someone in his front yard.

Fighting more often and working on your craft does have to count for something. There are some talented boxers today but they fight a couple of times a year (with a couple of 8-10 week camps). Even 3 fights with 3 8 week camps and you are talking about having half a year off.

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

ive heard this argument from you 100 times before marb and im not disagreeing that old time fighters had better fighters but im saying that there are obviously fighters that could be the man back in those days (be undefeated? probably not), and we have evidence that they are good. lets use mayweather as an example. he is obviously a good fighter and has never lost. so you really cant say well he lost to all of these fighters so obviously he isnt as good as another fighter. so technically you are being bias from your definition because there are fighters today that have had great careers and havent shown too many weaknesses but you still claim that they would get KO'd by an old time fighter. i know that you have said that ezzard charles would KO a prime jones. what basis do you have on that? that way past jones' prime he was KO'd? even though he was rarely hit before that. thats why you have to look at fighters and see for yourself. obviously you think that charles is an impressive fighter but what evidence do you really have that he would beat jones? every fighter has struggled in their career with certain fighters but that doesnt make them any less of a boxer. i feel like there are fighters today that could be the champion 50 years ago.

Mayweather's failing is the obvious holes in his resume. Chris John is ubeaten, you think that means something? Plus it's pretty clear that Floyd was beaten by JL Castillo which gives us something for comparison purposes. Otherwise by your logic an unbeaten fighter never ever loses, right?

The reason I think Ezzard Charles KO's Roy Jones is threefold. Charles hung in there with Marciano for 15 rounds so it is unlikely Jones could get him out of there. Second, Jones' chin has to be viewed as no better than decent and Charles KO'd heavyweights regularly. Third and I think most importantly Jones had exploitable (and Montell Griffin of all people exploited them) technical flaws. Jones craft, especially with regard to his feet was (to be nice) inconsistent. Charles was impeccable. Do you contest any of those three points?

Is there any other sport where you'd favor the guy who knew LESS about what he was doing? How good a wide receiver do you think Usain Bolt would be? He's taller, longer and faster than Randy Moss after all. Now who do you want on your team? The taller, longer, faster guy? Or the guy who's not quite as tall, not quite as fast, not quite as long but who is an impeccable route-runner and defense reader? Same thing with pitchers. Who is likely to be better? The guy with the 100 mph fastball with OK control and a subpar slider or the guy with an 88mph fastball, a good slider and a good change-up who can put the ball where he wants and understands how to set up a hitter?


Let's take some fighters today and see if you really think they could be THE MAN champions.

Wlad-50 years ago if Wlad could have gotten a fight with Floyd Patterson he might well win. But he better not get in the ring with contenders like Liston or Ingo.

Manny-Ya gotta adjust for same day weigh-ins so the question becomes could Manny beat middleweight champ Paul Pender or could he make 147 the day of the fight (I think he could). If he can make 147 he has to beat Benny Kid Paret. Paret was also a smallish welter and while a fine fighter, was never a great one. I think Manny wins this. Floyd beats Paret as well.

Juan Manuel Marquez-He probably could make 135 the day of the fight. Could he beat Old Bones Joe Brown? Another older fighter Brown is a BIG puncher and a good craftsman. He has a chance to hurt Marquez. I think this is a pick-em.

Pongsaklek Wonjonkjam-He's a bantam back in the day and that means he's fighting Eder Jofre. Wonjongkam is a fine fighter. But he isn't anywhere near Jofre's class in terms of competition faced or craft.

I don't think anyone else today is even worth talking about. But look at what we just discovered. 1960 was also a real down time in the sport. Out of those four divisions only one ATG was then champion. If we tried the same exercise for 1930, 1940, 1950 or 1970, 1980 or 1990 the results would be ugly.

i somewhat agree with you. first of all, every fighter has had problems with someone so mayweather having problems with castillo and jones having problems with griffin arent that big of a deal especially because both of them avenged that loss.

im not necessarily disagreeing that charles would beat jones but i wouldnt at all say a guarantee. i was more making a point. but to play the devil's advocate against those points. first, jones and marciano have totally different styles. jones' punches are fast and accurate and although not as hard as marciano's, his speed and accuracy can help him land a lot more with big shots. second, im not saying that jones' chin is great but im saying that he was never KO'd until after his prime and was rarely hit before that and i think he was only knocked down once. so if charles was landing on jones could he KO him? yes. but it wasnt easy to land on a prime jones. third, just because jones struggled with one person during his prime doesnt mean that charles would automatically have his number. thats like saying that ali struggled with norton so obviously a better boxer/puncher like louis would beat him because norton exploited his flaws. griffin and charles have totally different styles.

boo ya!

Chins are chins. Until a guy gets the crap kicked out of him over and over again they don't get better or worse with age. If an ordinary guy like Montell with a great trainer like Futch can exploit Jones technical deficiencies what do you think an extraordinary fighter and athlete with a great trainer like Arcel does to him? It wouldn't have been pretty.

Tobe06 wrote:

To me the biggest advantage today's fighters have over old-time guys is that they have the opportunity to learn from the past and adapt new innovations or techniques to their style. That's why comparing across eras is kind of impossible, because who's to say what a guy like Jack Johnson could have done if he had a modern film room or a trainer who had watched all the 20th Century greats?

The only other factor is size, and that really only impacts heavyweights (which is why the Marciano vs. Lewis fight is so hard to take seriously; they really aren't in the same weight class).

Except why do you think that is happening? In what boxing gyms exactly? Where are these extraordinary trainers who are doing this?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe06 wrote:

To me the biggest advantage today's fighters have over old-time guys is that they have the opportunity to learn from the past and adapt new innovations or techniques to their style. That's why comparing across eras is kind of impossible, because who's to say what a guy like Jack Johnson could have done if he had a modern film room or a trainer who had watched all the 20th Century greats?

The only other factor is size, and that really only impacts heavyweights (which is why the Marciano vs. Lewis fight is so hard to take seriously; they really aren't in the same weight class).

Except why do you think that is happening? In what boxing gyms exactly? Where are these extraordinary trainers who are doing this?

I suppose it isn't happening as much as it should be, but the potential is there for it to happen. So when we make these hypothetical cross-era fantasy match-ups the potential for the modern fighter to know about the older one could come into play.

Tyson does come to mind as a guy who was taught about the history of the game and developed his style based on taking what he could from past champs.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The logic completely falls apart when you say at one place "boxing isn't and will never be like it was so stop comparing them as equals" and then "skill levels overall."

It's as if you are arguing that the old time level of activity and experience was somehow independent of the skill level necessary to fight, survive and win that often, and then admitting it isn't.

Unless you believe boxing is the one human activity where one gets better by doing it less? The argument is contradictory.

You are also mistaking the concept of bias and the concept of judgement. Bias is a conviction BEFORE data is examined. Judgement is a poin t of view AFTER data is considered.

For example, when one party claims an outcome would have happened that never happened in history, and another claims an outcome similar or the same as what happened several times in the past? Where exactly does the bias really lie? With the guy whose view aligns with the data or the guy whose view aligns with none?

ive heard this argument from you 100 times before marb and im not disagreeing that old time fighters had better fighters but im saying that there are obviously fighters that could be the man back in those days (be undefeated? probably not), and we have evidence that they are good. lets use mayweather as an example. he is obviously a good fighter and has never lost. so you really cant say well he lost to all of these fighters so obviously he isnt as good as another fighter. so technically you are being bias from your definition because there are fighters today that have had great careers and havent shown too many weaknesses but you still claim that they would get KO'd by an old time fighter. i know that you have said that ezzard charles would KO a prime jones. what basis do you have on that? that way past jones' prime he was KO'd? even though he was rarely hit before that. thats why you have to look at fighters and see for yourself. obviously you think that charles is an impressive fighter but what evidence do you really have that he would beat jones? every fighter has struggled in their career with certain fighters but that doesnt make them any less of a boxer. i feel like there are fighters today that could be the champion 50 years ago.

Mayweather's failing is the obvious holes in his resume. Chris John is ubeaten, you think that means something? Plus it's pretty clear that Floyd was beaten by JL Castillo which gives us something for comparison purposes. Otherwise by your logic an unbeaten fighter never ever loses, right?

The reason I think Ezzard Charles KO's Roy Jones is threefold. Charles hung in there with Marciano for 15 rounds so it is unlikely Jones could get him out of there. Second, Jones' chin has to be viewed as no better than decent and Charles KO'd heavyweights regularly. Third and I think most importantly Jones had exploitable (and Montell Griffin of all people exploited them) technical flaws. Jones craft, especially with regard to his feet was (to be nice) inconsistent. Charles was impeccable. Do you contest any of those three points?

Is there any other sport where you'd favor the guy who knew LESS about what he was doing? How good a wide receiver do you think Usain Bolt would be? He's taller, longer and faster than Randy Moss after all. Now who do you want on your team? The taller, longer, faster guy? Or the guy who's not quite as tall, not quite as fast, not quite as long but who is an impeccable route-runner and defense reader? Same thing with pitchers. Who is likely to be better? The guy with the 100 mph fastball with OK control and a subpar slider or the guy with an 88mph fastball, a good slider and a good change-up who can put the ball where he wants and understands how to set up a hitter?


Let's take some fighters today and see if you really think they could be THE MAN champions.

Wlad-50 years ago if Wlad could have gotten a fight with Floyd Patterson he might well win. But he better not get in the ring with contenders like Liston or Ingo.

Manny-Ya gotta adjust for same day weigh-ins so the question becomes could Manny beat middleweight champ Paul Pender or could he make 147 the day of the fight (I think he could). If he can make 147 he has to beat Benny Kid Paret. Paret was also a smallish welter and while a fine fighter, was never a great one. I think Manny wins this. Floyd beats Paret as well.

Juan Manuel Marquez-He probably could make 135 the day of the fight. Could he beat Old Bones Joe Brown? Another older fighter Brown is a BIG puncher and a good craftsman. He has a chance to hurt Marquez. I think this is a pick-em.

Pongsaklek Wonjonkjam-He's a bantam back in the day and that means he's fighting Eder Jofre. Wonjongkam is a fine fighter. But he isn't anywhere near Jofre's class in terms of competition faced or craft.

I don't think anyone else today is even worth talking about. But look at what we just discovered. 1960 was also a real down time in the sport. Out of those four divisions only one ATG was then champion. If we tried the same exercise for 1930, 1940, 1950 or 1970, 1980 or 1990 the results would be ugly.

i somewhat agree with you. first of all, every fighter has had problems with someone so mayweather having problems with castillo and jones having problems with griffin arent that big of a deal especially because both of them avenged that loss.

im not necessarily disagreeing that charles would beat jones but i wouldnt at all say a guarantee. i was more making a point. but to play the devil's advocate against those points. first, jones and marciano have totally different styles. jones' punches are fast and accurate and although not as hard as marciano's, his speed and accuracy can help him land a lot more with big shots. second, im not saying that jones' chin is great but im saying that he was never KO'd until after his prime and was rarely hit before that and i think he was only knocked down once. so if charles was landing on jones could he KO him? yes. but it wasnt easy to land on a prime jones. third, just because jones struggled with one person during his prime doesnt mean that charles would automatically have his number. thats like saying that ali struggled with norton so obviously a better boxer/puncher like louis would beat him because norton exploited his flaws. griffin and charles have totally different styles.

boo ya!

Chins are chins. Until a guy gets the crap kicked out of him over and over again they don't get better or worse with age. If an ordinary guy like Montell with a great trainer like Futch can exploit Jones technical deficiencies what do you think an extraordinary fighter and athlete with a great trainer like Arcel does to him? It wouldn't have been pretty.

i cant necessarily disagree with you because arcel could have made a great game plan and again, with 2 elite fighters, anything could happen.

I agree that boxing is crappy now, and that the sport was 100 times better in the past, but I can also see how people would be sick of the constant bitching and crying about that reality.

Stop beating the dead horse.

I'll hop back on this debate...it's been a while and I might have some new ideas.

First...to repeat, I don't like comparing eras. I don't think it should be done because they are all different.

With that said...

I think the modern athlete is significantly better today than in the past. This comes from a better understanding of the body, exercise, nutrition, lifestyle, popularity in certain sports, etc. This goes p4p as well.

Boxing is unique because its popularity has gone down. Whereas boxers used to be the best athletes in the world, now they are the leftovers. Also, knowledge and execution of the craft has gone down, but opportunities to dissect boxers have gone up (seeing a fight in HD or in multiple viewings paints a clearer picture that a written report or radio broadcast or grainy video). Furthermore, the best athlete does not always make the best boxer. A skilled fighter can handle a stronger or a faster one with ease. So the case can easily be made that older fighters would still be modern fighters, and that older fighters were relatively much better (they did more with fewer resources).

However, boxing has evolved. The pace of many fights is faster, the explosiveness, strength (not necessarily punching power) and speed is greater. There are obvious exceptions to this, but watching an old vs. a new fight shows differences. Not in a the older fighters had such better technique way, but in a these are clearly two different eras way. The strategies, execution of punches, movements and body mechanics of the boxers are noticeably different. If you broke the fighters down into stick figures, someone who knows the sport would likely be able to say what era the fight was in.

Let's look at Tyson and Dempsey. Two memorable fighters. Both had mean temperaments.

Action





Still





To me, they just don't look the same. They may do things similarly, but they are physically very different. When people make the argument "fighter x" from the past would kill today's guys because he hits so much harder, or is so much tougher, or fights so much smarter it doesn't carry weight. The video evidence from the two eras shows that the pace of the fights and athleticism of the fighters appears to be growing over time. So a strong argument needs to be made to win that point. On the flip side the older footage shows more strategy, more technique, and just a completely different style.

Because there are so many unknown variables, I don't think there is any right answer to who would beat who from what era. You can compare styles, relative success, make speculations...but there are not definitive answers. It's an opinion. Maybe a highly educated one, but not something that can be proven.

gumby i dont agree with some of what you said but this is a exceptionaly well done post with some thought.

yes gumby, good post. like dmar, i dont agree with it all but i definitely agree with some of it.

Great post gumby.
I agree with most of what you were saying and I have said some of it before when arguing with marble or dmar. But to me its a case by case basis isnt it?

Gumby wrote:

I'll hop back on this debate...it's been a while and I might have some new ideas.

First...to repeat, I don't like comparing eras. I don't think it should be done because they are all different.

With that said...

I think the modern athlete is significantly better today than in the past. This comes from a better understanding of the body, exercise, nutrition, lifestyle, popularity in certain sports, etc. This goes p4p as well.

Boxing is unique because its popularity has gone down. Whereas boxers used to be the best athletes in the world, now they are the leftovers. Also, knowledge and execution of the craft has gone down, but opportunities to dissect boxers have gone up (seeing a fight in HD or in multiple viewings paints a clearer picture that a written report or radio broadcast or grainy video). Furthermore, the best athlete does not always make the best boxer. A skilled fighter can handle a stronger or a faster one with ease. So the case can easily be made that older fighters would still be modern fighters, and that older fighters were relatively much better (they did more with fewer resources).

However, boxing has evolved. The pace of many fights is faster, the explosiveness, strength (not necessarily punching power) and speed is greater. There are obvious exceptions to this, but watching an old vs. a new fight shows differences. Not in a the older fighters had such better technique way, but in a these are clearly two different eras way. The strategies, execution of punches, movements and body mechanics of the boxers are noticeably different. If you broke the fighters down into stick figures, someone who knows the sport would likely be able to say what era the fight was in.

Let's look at Tyson and Dempsey. Two memorable fighters. Both had mean temperaments.

Action





Still





To me, they just don't look the same. They may do things similarly, but they are physically very different. When people make the argument "fighter x" from the past would kill today's guys because he hits so much harder, or is so much tougher, or fights so much smarter it doesn't carry weight. The video evidence from the two eras shows that the pace of the fights and athleticism of the fighters appears to be growing over time. So a strong argument needs to be made to win that point. On the flip side the older footage shows more strategy, more technique, and just a completely different style.

Because there are so many unknown variables, I don't think there is any right answer to who would beat who from what era. You can compare styles, relative success, make speculations...but there are not definitive answers. It's an opinion. Maybe a highly educated one, but not something that can be proven.

1. You pictorial evidence is with HEAVYWEIGHTS. You really want to argue the current era is anything other than dismal?

Try a pictorial comparison of middleweights.

Then http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/81476501/Sports-Illustrated

Now http://theboxingcorner.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/boxing-video-of-the-week/

See a real difference there? If anything the guys from the 1950's are MORE physically impressive, not less.

2. Explosiveness is higher now? REALLY? See any great fighters getting one-punched the way Hearns did Duran or Marciano did Walcott or Robinson did Fulmer or Foreman did Moorer lately? Why do you think trainers like Atlas and Steward ask over and over again where the punchers in the sport have gone? Now I have a suspicion that part of the probelm is technical. Many figthers today don't know HOW to punch explosively. Go watch Ike Williams and see the leverage he gets and how his toes are grinding into the mat when he throws. The watch the flatfooted punching of guys today. Are Andre Berto, Tim Bradley and Andre Ward really just not explosive guys or don't they know correct punching technique?

3. I think one thing you aren't considering is how things ought to be weighted. By that I mean on a relative basis how important is craft verses talent verses toughness? Without granting that fighters today are more talented, I'd argue innate talent is the least important of the three and craft is the most. Look at any other sport. Who wins in baseball? The guy who can throw 100 and has no other out pitch or Greg Maddux? Who was the better receiver? World class sprinter Skeets Nehemiah or Jerry Rice?