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!!!

HumanWindmill wrote: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.

Without knowing Tunney then I wouldn't even begin to question that but mine was a more general view point that today's science and biological understanding would surely make a difference if we are simply comparing old fighters as they were then, with today's fighters as they are now.

To take the natural talent of obviously great old fighters and apply today's techniques, changes the game, which is why it would be foolish of someone with my lack of knowledge of older fighters to pump out some horride line like "Lennox would always beat X, Y and Z".

He's gained from his experience but that experience is in a 46 year old body, say he fought 60 times against the same opposition but by the time he was 27 then would you agree he'd be a better fighter?