comparing fighters of old to ones now

to me and its eveident by watching fighters over the years the soo called skill level has decreased plenty not increased..i saw a clip of robinson hitting a guy 5 times as he was falling down going backwards.thats handspeed.or the movement intelligent movement and footwork of willie pep speed while still controling the center of the ring..the art of angles or feighting that joe walcott a charles a harold johnson did....fighters that were well crafted and mastered punching power leverage defense angles combinations -where are the great combination punchers today-footwork cutting the ring off instinct and anticipation slipping and or blocking of punches and other factors..its called skill and tons of fighters of the past had ALL thoses elements mastered.today there are rare if any....explosive huh..at 185 whos more exspolsive then a marciano or a dempsey..at 160 a robinson and im talking fight night weight not BS 30 hours before.rolling with a punch a standard thing for years by a majortiy of fighters littlery is almost non existent today...weigh in the day of the fight please.147 is 147 160 is 160 126 is 126 not 12 to 19 pounds more..add to the list real finishing skills..joe louis marciano robinson type of finishing skills.it not only yes takes skill to do all the above it takes talent..lots of it and hard work to master all thoses things which a ton of fighters did in the past and a rare rare few today have..shortcuts galor a rush to fame avoidence by many of equal competion a reduction of places of learning called boxing gyms and a reduction of master professers called trainers..sound familar..miraculousy that adds up to better..hmmmm.

dmar I think it's hard for those who haven't buried themselves in the sport to get over the "But every measurable sport is better, so why would boxing be worse" starting point. It is thoroughly understandable.

But it's also hard to hold that point of view and then logically argue that fewer fighters fighting fewer fights leads to enhanced esults.

thats why i do say for the most part the greatest fighters are older because i do agree that fighters like robinson, pep, ali, and tons of others arent at all matched in certain aspects of their fighting style. im saying that there are some fighters (not a ton necessarily) that would fare against fighters of old. but yes, most of the greatest fighters are older.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

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

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

Heavys right now aside from from the Klits are dirt. No argument from me. Tyson & Dempsey was just a drastic example of the evolution of physique.

As for the pictorial...Dick Tiger & Ruben Carter are freaks of their generation. They're the equivalent of Jeff Lacy with skill. And even then Tiger looks pretty top heavy.

Carter looks great in any era:



Still, I'd wager highly that Taylor's body fat is lower:





They have much different body types, but Taylor looks leaner and like he's carrying less fat. Pavlik is deceptive looking. He fights better than he looks. There are always guys like that in the sport. But this whole part of the post isn't that important...looks are just for show.[/quote]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

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?

Fighters are getting ktfo'd all the time (https://ninjasplace.forumotion.net/boxing-f2/2010-ko-s-t9683.htm). There's plenty of explosiveness and top guys with KOs. In every era. Most of the big punchers in the sport right now do not have the technical skills to beat better boxers. When I think of explosion, I think speed and power. It's hard to measure power on video, but speed can be done.



In this video, I see a correlation between speed and era. It gets faster over time. I'd put Dempsey and Louis as the fastest, but they don't look like they're carrying the same weight. Does this account for every fighter? Of course not. It's just a generalization that I've come to believe because my eyes are telling me that the modern fighters are moving faster. And if someone is moving faster and has the same mass as someone else, I'll assume that they're more explosive.

We know that timing and placement are just as if not more important than power or speed. For example, I think Foreman's KO on Moorer had more to do with great timing and wearing Moorer down than just his monstrous power. And there are plenty of other variables that make great fighters. So we can't go and make a prediction on things like that. But I still think fighters have looked more explosive over time.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

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?

I'd argue that we really have no idea how things ought to be weighted. We just have opinions. Some expert, some amateur. Yes traditional craft is important, but look at Vitali. He's very unorthodox. Does that mean that his talent is so great it overcame his poor craft? That he crafted his style around his talent? That he's talented and crafty in untraditional ways? And it's even harder to weigh things because everything looks different over time. Unless there comes a guy with completely old school fundamentals who just starts killing people, it's hard to say they're definitively better. Because for all of the negatives with boxers today, I tend to think that some things have gotten better. The argument that everything has gotten worse doesn't seem realistic.

In baseball, the guy who can throw 100 and Greg Maddux can win. Aroldis Chapman came in and people had no idea what to do with him. Will players figure him out over time? Sure. But in one game, for one night he can be un-hittable. And under the right circumstances he can develop more pitches and learn more about the game. Jerry Rice is very fast. And he did everything else right. I don't even know who Skeets is so I'm assuming he was only fast. I think that's an unfair comparison unless you are saying modern boxers do almost nothing right. If that's your argument it's a tough sell because everything looks different.

I think the better comparison is who is better Rice or Moss? Sayers or Bush? Brown or Peterson? Jordan or Kobe? Gervin/Baylor or Durant? Russell or KG? Williams or Mo Vaughn? etc. I think you're undervaluing the level of skill in the sport right now, especially since it can't really be measured the same way it was in the past because things are different. At the same time, guys in the past had flaws. I don't read old papers that say: "everything he did was technically perfect. The same as his opponent. It's hard to imagine that either guy lost". Marciano is still considered to have been an unsophisticated fighter by some experts today. Not to mention during his reign. Ali is a guy who we've noted had flaws. Yet somehow these things never factor into how they'd fare against different eras because "they were so much better"? We're not talking about ATGs and bums off the street who can punch or have speed.

All I've ever said is that it's a discussion, not a fact. That goes on both sides.

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!

Just so you know, Jones was stopped 8 times in the amateurs and given several eight counts (most notably three in his loss to Frankie Liles). His chin was always a little on the brittle side, he just made sure NOT to fight guys that could reach it.

One point that I didn't see mentioned so far is the amount of governing bodies now as compared to before. There are so many fighters today that have titles & belts that would not back in the day. If these same fighters were in the same type of game as eras before, they would have been lining up, fighting ALL of the contenders until they earned their title shot. (Mob ties aside of course). This would create a totally different situation which would then call for these guys to act completely different. There would be no ducking, no side stepping, no dumping belts just to fight someone that suits your style better. If a Champ moves up in weight, he'd have to fight at least two top ranked fighters in the next division before he got a title shot. Things like this would make it a different game for them. They'd be forced to face guys they may not want to fight. Maybe some would not be undefeated. maybe some would not be moving up in class so much.....get the picture?

Jack Johnson -- Greatest Heavyweight of All-Time.

Just IMO.