Does the truth about old fighters lie in the middle??

First topic message reminder :

I guess I'm biased towards the modern fighters and I think with good cause as I think Boxing like in other sports move on...get better, more sophisticated, more professional!!!...For me a modern day Mike Tyson wipes out everyone from John L to Louis because watching the old fighters you see how basic they really are...

I believe that because these guys are from the past and from a romantic age they are overrated by some of the folks on here. The past is always better than it is now theory etc.....With no real proof.. people can believe the old scribes who can't appreciate the present....Arcel didn't rate ali etc....Pep won a round without landing a punch cobblers!!!!

However and it is a big one....These guys were greats of their eras which means they had talent and the ability to adapt to the fighters of their time!!!! Which means with the Coaching, nutrition available today they just may have been as good as the greats of this era...Form is temporary..Class is permanent etc etc....

If we are posting matchups from the past ..ie Tyson-Dempsey and who will win... then guys like me will always pick the Tyson's because I'm picking on what I see..however in all probability Tyson would be fighting a different animal in a MODERN D3mpsey...

Think the oldies are Overrated by some and Underrated by guys like me.....

Think the truth lies somewhere in the middle!!!

Wanna know something... We'll never know.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Scott, it's rare for all 8 to be all-time greats simultaneously, but there have been times when quite a few of the divisions have enjoyed that sort of status. Off the top of my head, in 1948, we have Louis, (Lesnevich) Zale, Robinson, Ike Williams, Pep/Saddler, Manuel Ortiz, (Monaghan).

In 1973, we have Foreman, Foster, Monzon, Napoles, Duran, Jofre for the top six of the classical weight divisions.

In 1981, it's Holmes, Spinks, Hagler, Leonard, Arguello, Sanchez, Pintor and Laciar as the best of the champs.

All three of these dates also saw a fair bit of depth below their outstanding champions. I don't think that there can be much doubt that boxing still produces outstanding champions - there are just fewer of them.

2002: Lewis, Jones, Hopkins, De la Hoya, Mayweather, Barrera, Pacquiao, Wongjonkam using the classic 8.

If you use the 8 division system. Still plenty of quality outside that also but because there are more divisions it gets more diluted.

For instance if you merged feather/junior feather the division would include Morales, Marquez, Barrera, Pacquiao, Hamed, Tapia, Vasquez, Larrios

If you merged welter/light middle you have De la Hoya, Mosely, Wright, Vargas, Mayorga, Margarito and potentially Trinidad.

Its a bit thin at middle but LH would have Jones, Calzaghe, Tarver, Griffen, Michaelswecki, Ottke, Johnson, Hill and potentially Toney.

I dont honestly think its any worse than average, and bette than some past eras.

To be fair Manos I would no longer class Lewis, De La Hoya, Barrera or Jones as fighters of this era, 9 years is quite a long time, it's after 2002 that the quality takes a drastic downturn

Imperial Ghosty wrote:To be fair Manos I would no longer class Lewis, De La Hoya, Barrera or Jones as fighters of this era, 9 years is quite a long time, it's after 2002 that the quality takes a drastic downturn

Im not saying this era, but just modern in general. At present there is definately a thinness in overall quality although I think a lack of coverage for some of the better current fighters hasnt really helped their standing.

But I could probably pick out an especially weak year from past eras and use that but it would be an unfair reflection.

My overall point is that the multitude of divisions dilutes the quality overall and I am sure if you retro actively applied the number of divisions we have now many of the original 8 weight class eras then the quality would be diluted aswell.

Think we've beena arguing different points here Manos, the 90's and early 00's was a pretty strong period, the Welterweights had Mosley, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Quartey among others which is pretty damm good.

It does dilute the quality but still don't think the quality is there either, aside from Mayweather, Pacquiao and Hopkins can't say there's anyone I think is genuinely great and that goes back a fair few years, we have fighters still fighting who WERE great but aren't any more, makes it appear stronger than it is.

For now, I have the feeling that today's potential greatness is locked up in the divisions between 118 lbs and 126 lbs. Some absolutely fantastic fighters are there, who, I hope, will prove themselves worthy of their illustrious predecessors.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think we've beena arguing different points here Manos, the 90's and early 00's was a pretty strong period, the Welterweights had Mosley, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Quartey among others which is pretty damm good.

It does dilute the quality but still don't think the quality is there either, aside from Mayweather, Pacquiao and Hopkins can't say there's anyone I think is genuinely great and that goes back a fair few years, we have fighters still fighting who WERE great but aren't any more, makes it appear stronger than it is.

At present, I agree. But my initial response was in relation to the point rowley made about old eras being more competitve with deeper talent pools. It might be true for the current crop, but in the overall old v modern context I wouldnt say less quality is being produced, I just think the extra divisions are diluting it more in comparison with the 8 weight class eras.

Thus in past eras in may look like divisions were choc full of talent compared to modern times but for me the talent has still been there, its just being spread thinner.

I would consider the present to be something of a natural trough in between many top fighters retiring and being past there best, and new talents emerging.

Would say the eras with the strongest talent pool are pre 1990's, in the 80's you had stacked divisions and prior to that you may have had the odd year here or there which was weak but it generally didn't last as long as at current which marks it down. We've had 9 years now of relatively little strength in depth, can't imagine many other eras when the main Welterweight challengers would have been Margarito, Williams, Cotto, Quintana and Collazo.

I dunno, I mean the 60s and 70s I wouldnt say were a million miles ahead for instance.

If in the 70s you take Napoles to be the man until his retirement and then Cuevas/Palomino after as the dual men at the weight then the rest of the competion outside that wasnt all that great.

Similar case in the 60s with Griffith and Curtis Cokes.

I would consider it reasonably comparable with the last 5/6 years if you consider Mayweather/Pacquiao the two dominant men and everything else as the competition.

Manos you probably have a fair point about the number of divisions and number of belts diluting things a bit but I still genuinely feel things are a little weaker consistently than in the past. For me you look at stuff like the fact Hopkins is still the man at 175 at 46 and that Kelly Pavlik can be an undisputed middleweight champion and for me it suggests a fairly weak era.

My worry is with how infrequently fighters fight now and how softly they are matched on their way up the problem looks likely to continue or get worse before it gets better

I must have commented on this subject upward of 100 times, and on every occasion my view has been that great fighters are great fighters, regardless of when they were born. Today's greats such as Pacquiao, Mayweather, Hopkins, etc., belong in the same company as greats of the recent past such as Hagler, Leonard, Jones Jnr., Duran, Jofre etc., and they, in turn, belong with Pep, Robinson, Charles, Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Greb and Gans.

I do believe, however, that great fighters came along more often in days gone by.

Thought you were going to say that..

Glad I didn't disappoint.

You mention the 70's Manos but outside of Welterweight you had a lot of talent, Duran, Dejesus and Buchanan at lightweight for starters which is in itself is far far stronger than today, you had Jofre, Harada, Saldivar, Legra amongst others at the start of the decade with Sanchez and the like at the tail end, you may have had a year or two in the middle when it was weaker but overall it was still stronger than today.

That's not even mentioning two of the most dominant champions of all time in Foster and Monzon, then there's the cherry on top with the strongest era of heavyweight boxing, Welterweight may have been dominated by two Mexicans but elsewhere you had talent.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I guess I'm biased towards the modern fighters and I think with good cause as I think Boxing like in other sports move on...get better, more sophisticated, more professional!!!...For me a modern day Mike Tyson wipes out everyone from John L to Louis because watching the old fighters you see how basic they really are...

I believe that because these guys are from the past and from a romantic age they are overrated by some of the folks on here. The past is always better than it is now theory etc.....With no real proof.. people can believe the old scribes who can't appreciate the present....Arcel didn't rate ali etc....Pep won a round without landing a punch cobblers!!!!

However and it is a big one....These guys were greats of their eras which means they had talent and the ability to adapt to the fighters of their time!!!! Which means with the Coaching, nutrition available today they just may have been as good as the greats of this era...Form is temporary..Class is permanent etc etc....

If we are posting matchups from the past ..ie Tyson-Dempsey and who will win... then guys like me will always pick the Tyson's because I'm picking on what I see..however in all probability Tyson would be fighting a different animal in a MODERN D3mpsey...

Think the oldies are Overrated by some and Underrated by guys like me.....

Think the truth lies somewhere in the middle!!!

Spot on! Great post.

The truth most definitely is in the middle.

I read many people on here with incredible knowledge of past fighters and I tip my hat for following the sport that closely, but then at the same time I always cringe when people rant on about how X from the 1920s would definitely beat Y from 2011 as if it's some sort of boast that only they can revel in....

Very short sighted opinion in my view.

Any sane person realises that you can never truly compare fighters from different eras - however fun the arguments may be.

The key point is how you referenced Dempsey would be a different animal today. Which is so true.

Based on what you see, it seems obvious to me that a modern day fighter would always beat an older generation fighter (of comparable ability of course - although saying that I actually think with progression in sports science that even middle rank fighters from today would beat greats from the past).

I don't know the stats around boxing with regards to punch output when comparing old fighters to today's guys but if it's anything like football then it would just show how the sport has moved on.

An example being the great Holland side of the late 70s, ran about 5k a game (per player), whereas today's players are running at an average of around 10k - 11k. They just wouldn't compete.

With boxing you'd surely have to account for weight training when looking at punching power and body build where fighters will work on neck muscles etc to absorb punches.

Prime case just last weekend, many experts noticed how Haye had much bigger upper body and neck muscles than when he was a cruiser - and although he didn't take a mountain of shots - he took some big right hands from Wlad for a supposedly chinny fighter!

Punch output is much the same as it always has been, Henry Armstrong and Harry Greb (from what i've read admittedly) could out punch any of the current fighters over a 15 round distance.

Based on what you see, it seems obvious to me that a modern day fighter would always beat an older generation fighter (of comparable ability of course - although saying that I actually think with progression in sports science that even middle rank fighters from today would beat greats from the past).
_______________________________________________

With all due respect if what you have watched leads you to believe Kelly Pavlik beats Sugar Ray Robinson at middle weight you have obviously seen something in Pavlik that is beyond my grasp.

Suppose it depends what you call a modern day fighter.....or a golden oldie.

Think he's talking a few years before Robbo...

Even then Truss does someone like Cleverly beat Langford with ease?

rowley wrote:Based on what you see, it seems obvious to me that a modern day fighter would always beat an older generation fighter (of comparable ability of course - although saying that I actually think with progression in sports science that even middle rank fighters from today would beat greats from the past).
_______________________________________________

With all due respect if what you have watched leads you to believe Kelly Pavlik beats Sugar Ray Robinson at middle weight you have obviously seen something in Pavlik that is beyond my grasp.

Well yes, and it wasn't meant to sound like I was making a grand rule that all middle fighters would beat all old greats. Far from it.

More of a general recognition that today's guys would be far superior physically.

TumblingDice wrote:

rowley wrote:Based on what you see, it seems obvious to me that a modern day fighter would always beat an older generation fighter (of comparable ability of course - although saying that I actually think with progression in sports science that even middle rank fighters from today would beat greats from the past).
_______________________________________________

With all due respect if what you have watched leads you to believe Kelly Pavlik beats Sugar Ray Robinson at middle weight you have obviously seen something in Pavlik that is beyond my grasp.

Well yes, and it wasn't meant to sound like I was making a grand rule that all middle fighters would beat all old greats. Far from it.

More of a general recognition that today's guys would be far superior physically.

Oh, the "well yes" remark is in agreement to your view, not to the argument that Pavlik would beat SRR....

No of course not.....

Special fighters are special fighters.......

Just saying Boxing coaching had improved from Dempsey to Robinson...

However all the greats were naturals to a certain extent..

However all greats wouldn't be harmed by great trainers helping them..

Well Robbo won his first world title in 1946 which is 65 years ago, as 40 years before that they had barely started wearing gloves he simply has to be considered an old timer. To be honest this is one of the things I find most frustrating about this whole debate, how flexible people use terms like modern era and old timers, does seem without wanting this to come across as a pop at anyone on here currently that the terms and when the eras start and end shifts to suit whatever argument people are making at a given time.

My god Jeff think i'm going to have to run along before this argument starts again, in boxing physicality is only a small part of the overall picture otherwise how does someone like Pacquiao beat a physically bigger and stronger fighter like Margarito with such ease? The answer is simple he's better and the same can be true across the eras where these apparently huge gains in strength, speed and size just aren't there, slightly different in the heavyweight division but someone like Martinez is after all only a middleweight, he may be quicker than most but I certainly don't think he's as strong as someone like Lamotta for instance. You mentioned punch output but are any of the current heavyweights capable of replicating the thriller in Manilla?

Great little debate going...

Like I stressed earlier, and in agreement with Truss, whilst fully acknowledging that great fighters are indeed just that, great, I believe that the science aspect has improved that much to make it a factor if ever there were some mythical match ups.

Seems to me.....

To me an oldtimer is someone fighting when modern Boxing began....

1880's onwards...Fact Robbo was mainly a forties/fifties guy and stuck in the middle from 1880 -2010....

Kind of seems to me he isn't..

around when modern fighting began ie the same era...

Not me changing the goalposts..

At the end of the day though skill is skill and no amount of conditioning or strength can make up for that

For instance who wins between Ricky Burns and Tony Canzoneri, to me the answer is quite simple but am I to assume that despite being far more skillful and far more talented that improved science for which i've seen little evidence to say it has improved boxing that much now swings it in Burns favour?

Generalisations don't cut it when we are discussing great fighters, since there are too many variables.

Each fighter should be assessed as an individual which, in the case of the so - called ' old time ' fighters, requires familiarity with them and the fighters of their period. There's plenty of film out there, and plenty of reading material, and unless we have sufficient interest to study both we are not in a position to simply dismiss fighters on the back of some vague and unsubstantiated theory.

Gene Tunney retired in 1928. I'd back him to beat any of today's lightheavies.

Every generation learns from the last in Sport as well as other things.....Transport, building, architecture...

whether the talent pool is as good though is always arguable...

But saying Robbo is an oldtimer when Fitz was a 19th century guy is a stretch..

You can generalise by saying with access to good coaching improvements could have been made...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Every generation learns from the last in Sport as well as other things.....Transport, building, architecture...

The best of them do, but raw material counts, also.

By the way, my guess would be that today's council houses won't last as long as the pyramids or the colosseum.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:At the end of the day though skill is skill and no amount of conditioning or strength can make up for that

For instance who wins between Ricky Burns and Tony Canzoneri, to me the answer is quite simple but am I to assume that despite being far more skillful and far more talented that improved science for which i've seen little evidence to say it has improved boxing that much now swings it in Burns favour?

That right there is a question I cannot begin to answer or shed an opinion on as I will openly admit my knowledge of "non modern fighters" is not great so all I know is that Ricky Burns is not too special at top level.

If you guys with the expertise on the older fighters say there is little evidence to suggest science has impacted boxing to a vast degree then I would have to take your lead on that.

Without knowing that myself, it seems to me that science etc would make a sizable impact...

I do see boxers like Fitzsimmons, Corbett or Jeffries in a different light to those who fought merely a few years later like Gans or Langford, the former are very much transitional fighters from the bareknuckle days whereas Gans and Langford are very much gloved boxers. As Windy says Gene Tunney is as skilled and knowledgable as any light heavyweight in history and I also can't imagine many heavyweights having an easy night against Demspey despite his diminutive size.

HumanWindmill wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Every generation learns from the last in Sport as well as other things.....Transport, building, architecture...

The best of them do, but raw material counts, also.

By the way, my guess would be that today's council houses won't last as long as the pyramids or the colosseum.

Brilliant, and nor should they last as long!

Never said that raw materials didn't count..

Amazing how arguments change when people are under the cosh..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You can generalise by saying with access to good coaching improvements could have been made...

Joe Frazier is just one who would disagree, and Ray Arcel, whose career spanned fifty years and more, is another. Pacquiao is an ATG ; so is Henry Armstrong. Have those two square off at anything between feather and welter and you'd have a great fight. Arcel trained both Benny Leonard and Roberto Duran. Even the most experienced and knowledgeable historians have a hard time sorting out which of those two was the better lightweight. Personally, I'd edge it to Duran, ( so you can't accuse me of bias, ) but many disagree with me.

TumblingDice wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Every generation learns from the last in Sport as well as other things.....Transport, building, architecture...

The best of them do, but raw material counts, also.

By the way, my guess would be that today's council houses won't last as long as the pyramids or the colosseum.

Brilliant, and nor should they last as long!

That was a tongue in cheek remark. The rest of what I have said I stand by.

So old fighters wouldn't improve with modern day coaching!!!!

They self-actualised did they..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So old fighters wouldn't improve with modern day coaching!!!!

They self-actualised did they..

Only if modern day coaches are better.

You think Adam Booth is a better coach than Arcel or Chappie Blackburn ?

This idea that boxing coaching has improved greatly is one I think I may have to take issue with, in what areas has it really improved. Does anyone genuinely think Adam Booth or Enzo Calzaghe are better than Ray Arcel or Eddie Futch, personally know which I'd rather have in my corner.

The irony is people always say coaching has improved but D4 once put up Manny's standard routine when in camp and when reading it the reality was there was absolutely nothing in there that an old timer could not have done. On the flipside Adam Pollack goes through the routines of the real old timers in his books on the early heavyweights and there is nothing in there that the modern guys don't do, it is pretty standard stuff such as skipping, sparring, roadwork and bag work, pretty much the staples of a training camp now as it is then.

Must say i've missed this discussion immensely but for once it's good to have it without hearing about how Herbie Hide knocks Jeffries out in 2 rounds

The improved nutrition and science can make a difference if you have exactly the same fighter fighting exactly the same number of fights but you take two different fighters in differing eras where fight activity is far different and it becomes a two edged sword.

Archie Moore was a fabulous fighter and someone who stayed at the top well into his 40's much like Hopkins has but the major difference between the two is their activity something which is quite unique to boxing, Moore fought 219 times compared to Hopkins current 60 fights. Between the two of them it's possible that Hopkins is the stronger, fitter, faster fighter but does he know as much as Moore who's knowledge of the game was almost unparalleled, gets forgotten that it was he who masterminded Foremans return to boxing as an old man.

Think it's a fair generalisation to suggest coaching methods of improved over the years.....

Let's face it modern views on coaching can be amalgamated with the old stuff to produce better fighters......

My argument is the old fighters would be better now with what is available and it's correct to assume that...

The crux of my point is simple.

If somebody studies Tunney extensively and then decides that Hopkins beats him at lightheavy that is an informed view. If somebody who hasn't studied Tunney and prefers to trot out some clichéd and unsubstantiated theory to support the idea that Hopkins beats Tunney and everybody else born before some magical date in history then that is most certainly not an informed view.

Yeah it's definitely a two edged sword as Truss said, older fighters with today's techniques and knowledge would be different animals and coupled with their natural talent would be immense today.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's a fair generalisation to suggest coaching methods of improved over the years.....

Let's face it modern views on coaching can be amalgamated with the old stuff to produce better fighters......

My argument is the old fighters would be better now with what is available and it's correct to assume that...

Agreed on the face of it but imagine if Hopkins knew what he knows now after 60 fights but when he was say 26/27 rather than 46, how much of a difference would that then make to him as a fighter?

TumblingDice wrote:Yeah it's definitely a two edged sword as Truss said, older fighters with today's techniques and knowledge would be different animals and coupled with their natural talent would be immense today.

Personally don't think a fighter like Moore, Britton or Ted Lewis are any more immense today than they were, they'd have far less experience from fighting less albeit in possibly stronger bodies but then would Moore be a light Heavyweight or Lewis a Welterweight?

How many of today's fighters have a better all round technique than Robinson ?

Don't see your point....

If I knew what I knew now at 27 my life might have been different ..

Hoppo has gained in experience as all fighters do and benefit by it..

Nothing to do with coaching..

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's a fair generalisation to suggest coaching methods of improved over the years.....

Let's face it modern views on coaching can be amalgamated with the old stuff to produce better fighters......

My argument is the old fighters would be better now with what is available and it's correct to assume that...

Agreed on the face of it but imagine if Hopkins knew what he knows now after 60 fights but when he was say 26/27 rather than 46, how much of a difference would that then make to him as a fighter?

Bingo Ghosty that is the crux of why I will always tend to give the edge to the old timers, there is no replacement for actual in the ring time, if gym time was of the same value the term ring rust would not exist. If we pick an arbitrary figure and say it takes you sixty fights to become the complete package and to have encountered pretty much everything stands to reason you will be better if you have accumulated this by 26 than 46.