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

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 08 Jul 2011, 9:34 am

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!!!

by Super D Boon Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:23 pm

If you are biased towards the modern day fighters then the much maligned K brothers deserve a great deal more respect than they get from you and on this forum in general.

Too many people on here have guys like Vitali losing to Dempsey, Johnson, Louis, Marciano! Vitali/Wlad would probably crush them into squashed apricots! - those guys were way too small! Can anyone REALLY see Marciano really beating a Klitschko?

In fact I'd say both Klitschkos could thoeritically beat any of the greats of the recent past too, including Ali, Holmes, Tyson, they're just that much bigger and stronger I find it hard to see how Holmes for example at 6ft 3ins and 220 lbs could beat someone like Wlad at 6ft 7 and 250lbs even though he's technically a better boxer. If Holmes could lose to a 205lb midget in Spinks there's no chance!

The greats of the past are looked upon more favourably cos of all the fights they had millions of fights and guys like Marciano and Ali are rightly regarded more highly than the Ks in terms of history but I doubt those guys could beat the behemoths of today. Just not big enough.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:35 pm

Super D Boon wrote:If you are biased towards the modern day fighters then the much maligned K brothers deserve a great deal more respect than they get from you and on this forum in general.

Too many people on here have guys like Vitali losing to Dempsey, Johnson, Louis, Marciano! Vitali/Wlad would probably crush them into squashed apricots! - those guys were way too small! Can anyone REALLY see Marciano really beating a Klitschko?

In fact I'd say both Klitschkos could thoeritically beat any of the greats of the recent past too, including Ali, Holmes, Tyson, they're just that much bigger and stronger I find it hard to see how Holmes for example at 6ft 3ins and 220 lbs could beat someone like Wlad at 6ft 7 and 250lbs even though he's technically a better boxer. If Holmes could lose to a 205lb midget in Spinks there's no chance!

The greats of the past are looked upon more favourably cos of all the fights they had millions of fights and guys like Marciano and Ali are rightly regarded more highly than the Ks in terms of history but I doubt those guys could beat the behemoths of today. Just not big enough.

Willard was bigger and stronger then Dempsey, it didn't help him much.

by Rowley Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:39 pm

Does make you wonder how Tyson ever won a fight.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:41 pm

I was wondering why Tye "Big Sky" Fields hasn't unified the division yet.

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:43 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Willard was bigger and stronger then Dempsey, it didn't help him much.

Also useless.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:45 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Willard was bigger and stronger then Dempsey, it didn't help him much.
Also useless.

I quite rate Dempsey actually.

by **Union Cane** Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:46 pm

If it was just down to size then surely Valuev would have won a world title.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 08 Jul 2011, 1:48 pm

Union Cane wrote:If it was just down to size then surely Valuev would have won a world title.

He did Union. He was WBA champion before Haye took it.........oh I get it, you were joking.

Very droll.

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 2:36 pm

Theres no issue with the size situation at heavyweight for me. It counts massively. The fact that there are weight classes indicates that size matters a great deal.

In past eras it was not uncommon at all for lightheavys to go up and challenge for the heavyweight title. Now its extremelly rare and will continue to be so long as there 6'7, 250 pound guys holding titles.

I dont honestly think theres a chance guys like Charles, Tunney, Moore, Fitzsimmons etc would bother even having a crack if they were around today unless it were to do a Jones and merely target a weak strap.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 2:48 pm

Not sure Manos, i'm very much of the opinion that Charles, Tunney, Moore and Fitzsimmons would be a darn sight better than most of the current crop regardless of their size

by BALTIMORA Fri 08 Jul 2011, 2:55 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure Manos, i'm very much of the opinion that Charles, Tunney, Moore and Fitzsimmons would be a darn sight better than most of the current crop regardless of their size

They'd be more skilful, but there relatively diminutive statures would count against them. Much as I'm not awed by Wlad, he's certainly way above Willard.

by ChelskiFanski Fri 08 Jul 2011, 2:57 pm

"I think Boxing like in other sports move on...get better, more sophisticated, more professional"

----------

What about the old-time sports that used to be more popular? Do you think the great wrestlers of ancient Greece and Rome would get whooped by today's Olympians?

I guess the argument goes that boxing used to be more popular and so boxers used to be better at the fundamentals. Hard to imagine an old-timer fighting in a HW title fight and being as inept at slipping the jab as Haye was.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm

They would probably come up short against the brothers but would stand a chance against the rest of the rubbish out there. Although less stylistic fighters like Marciano or Dempsey would stand a very good chance despite size disadvantages.

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:03 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure Manos, i'm very much of the opinion that Charles, Tunney, Moore and Fitzsimmons would be a darn sight better than most of the current crop regardless of their size

They are better technically, but I think they are just too small. Granted if you take 4 seperate belts and some of the dross that have held them then they could pick up a belt probably against a Ruiz or Maskaev type guy. But if we are talking recognized champion at the weight the last decade has basicaly been Wlad, Vitali and Lewis. All of these guys I just think are a bridge too far size wise for the more natural lighthavyweight style past heavyweight champions.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:08 pm

BALTIMORA wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure Manos, i'm very much of the opinion that Charles, Tunney, Moore and Fitzsimmons would be a darn sight better than most of the current crop regardless of their size

They'd be more skilful, but there relatively diminutive statures would count against them. Much as I'm not awed by Wlad, he's certainly way above Willard.

Balti, if that is even aimed at me, I do agree about Willard. I was just been facetious really. It was more the inference from Boon that the Klitschko's would beat everyone just because they were "bigger and stronger" without making reference to their skills.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:09 pm

They wouldn't stand a chance against Lewis or Vitali but Wlad is a whole different story

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:10 pm

ChelskiFanski wrote:"I think Boxing like in other sports move on...get better, more sophisticated, more professional"

----------

What about the old-time sports that used to be more popular? Do you think the great wrestlers of ancient Greece and Rome would get whooped by today's Olympians?

I guess the argument goes that boxing used to be more popular and so boxers used to be better at the fundamentals. Hard to imagine an old-timer fighting in a HW title fight and being as inept at slipping the jab as Haye was.

Really? Haye was actually very good at slipping the jab, main problem being that he didn't counter it whatsoever...

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:11 pm

rowley wrote:As someone often, probably fairly accused of favouring the old timers should perhaps clear up a myth often held in that folk such as myself don't think any modern fighter is any good. This is simply not the case have always maintained the true cream such as Manny and Floyd are competitive in any era, because as many have rightly said talent is talent and tends to flourish irrespective of era or environment.

However where I do feel the older era has a strength over the modern is in the depth of the talent pool. To run with the Manny and Floyd example they are decent fighters but who below 17 does anyone give even a 30% chance against them? Now is that because they are supermen or because the fighters below them in the rankings are a pretty weak bunch, for me it is the latter. Should add don't particularly feel this is the fighters fault. For me modern fighters do not fight often enough and on the way up are matched much too easily to really learn their trade. In my opinion all the gym work in the world is no substitute for actual in the ring work with a decent or well schooled opponent.

Would also add that whilst it is true that many of us may overrate old timers the same is true of many with modern fighters and Azania's statement that Jeffries would not last two rounds with Herbie Hide is as daft a comment as has ever been made on the sport on this or any other forum.

I think the problem with talent pool is more to do with the number of belts and divisions on offer more than lack of depth. If you went back to just 8 weight classes then each division would strengthen in depth considerably overall.

With Pacquiao and Mayweather I think its just a case of two guys better than everyone else but this has happened in boxing throughout history.

by fearlessBamber Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:12 pm

manos de piedra wrote:Theres no issue with the size situation at heavyweight for me. It counts massively. The fact that there are weight classes indicates that size matters a great deal.

In past eras it was not uncommon at all for lightheavys to go up and challenge for the heavyweight title. Now its extremelly rare and will continue to be so long as there 6'7, 250 pound guys holding titles.

I dont honestly think theres a chance guys like Charles, Tunney, Moore, Fitzsimmons etc would bother even having a crack if they were around today unless it were to do a Jones and merely target a weak strap.

I think this is very short sighted. The last dominant heavies prior to Lewis and the Klitchkos were small - Tyson 5'11'' and 218, Holyfield 208 and Holmes 208 when they won the title.

Lewis was at his best at around 230 lbs.

Now we have a couple of rather awkward giants ruling over a pond in my auntie's garden and suddenly if you're not a giant you don't cut it.

Weight matters up to a point, but you only have to look at basketball, cricket, tennis etc and see that there is a point that it no longer provides an advantage.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:17 pm

Do think the depth is quite poor as well in fairness

If we look at the original 8 divisions the depth really isn't there, champions like Martinez and Marquez are very good but they're a level or two below that of the true greats in their division, with the exception of Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao it's a trend throughout the divisions

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:19 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Theres no issue with the size situation at heavyweight for me. It counts massively. The fact that there are weight classes indicates that size matters a great deal.

In past eras it was not uncommon at all for lightheavys to go up and challenge for the heavyweight title. Now its extremelly rare and will continue to be so long as there 6'7, 250 pound guys holding titles.

I dont honestly think theres a chance guys like Charles, Tunney, Moore, Fitzsimmons etc would bother even having a crack if they were around today unless it were to do a Jones and merely target a weak strap.

I think this is very short sighted. The last dominant heavies prior to Lewis and the Klitchkos were small - Tyson 5'11'' and 218, Holyfield 208 and Holmes 208 when they won the title.

Lewis was at his best at around 230 lbs.

Now we have a couple of rather awkward giants ruling over a pond in my auntie's garden and suddenly if you're not a giant you don't cut it.

Weight matters up to a point, but you only have to look at basketball, cricket, tennis etc and see that there is a point that it no longer provides an advantage.

Tyson, Holmes and Holyfield are only "small" compared to the hge heavyweights. In almost any other era they would be "big". Heck even Haye would be a big heavyweight in relation to guys like Tunney, Charles, Fitzsimmons, Marciano, Patterson, Corbett, Moore, Ingemarsson and Dempsey

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:20 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do think the depth is quite poor as well in fairness

If we look at the original 8 divisions the depth really isn't there, champions like Martinez and Marquez are very good but they're a level or two below that of the true greats in their division, with the exception of Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao it's a trend throughout the divisions

ATG's are from all of history though, I bet it's a rare time for there to be 8 ATG's as champions in the same year.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:23 pm

You would be very surprised Scott, the strength in depth of the lightweight through to Light heavyweight division has normally been quite big

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do think the depth is quite poor as well in fairness

If we look at the original 8 divisions the depth really isn't there, champions like Martinez and Marquez are very good but they're a level or two below that of the true greats in their division, with the exception of Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao it's a trend throughout the divisions

Perhaps right now, but not traditionally if we take modern to be anywhere after the 80s. About ten years ago we had a p4p list including the likes of Hopkins, Jones, Mosely, Wright, De la Hoya, Trinidad, MAB, Morales and so on which was strong. If you had reverted back to 8 divisions then there would be some seriously competitve ones going.

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm

In general I agree with you, but I think most years you pick you'd have 2 or 3 that weren't really that great.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 3:30 pm

That's a good list of fighters but it's not a great one but im not seeing where this competitiveness would be

Hopkins was untouchable at middleweight as was Jones at Light Heavyweight to a degree with only DM being of a particularly high standard

Welterweight and Featherweight would and did produce some great match ups but aside from that I just don't see the depth

by Super D Boon Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:00 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure Manos, i'm very much of the opinion that Charles, Tunney, Moore and Fitzsimmons would be a darn sight better than most of the current crop regardless of their size

They'd be more skilful, but there relatively diminutive statures would count against them. Much as I'm not awed by Wlad, he's certainly way above Willard.

Balti, if that is even aimed at me, I do agree about Willard. I was just been facetious really. It was more the inference from Boon that the Klitschko's would beat everyone just because they were "bigger and stronger" without making reference to their skills.

I did reference the "skills" aspect in that I beleived Holmes was more skilled than either Klitschko. I also said the Ks "could" not "would" beat the greats of more recent times. But if you refer to boxers getting better coaching, nutrition, training etc as an improvement of standards in the lower weight classes then you have to make a case for the increasing size of the heavyweights of today as being an "improvement" in standards as well.

I really for example can't see Michael Spinks getting anywhere near Wlad. Just an opinion.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:02 pm

Strange opinion considering Spinks got near Holmes who was a far better heavyweight than Wlad also with a far better jab

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:21 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That's a good list of fighters but it's not a great one but im not seeing where this competitiveness would be

Hopkins was untouchable at middleweight as was Jones at Light Heavyweight to a degree with only DM being of a particularly high standard

Welterweight and Featherweight would and did produce some great match ups but aside from that I just don't see the depth

Yeah but you are seldom if ever going to have an era where all 8 divisions are stacked with quality and also highly competitive. I think you have to draw a distinction between whats great and whats competitve. SMW is currently very competitive but not neccessarily great. Welterweight is great with two ATGs in it but its not that competitive.

by Super D Boon Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:23 pm

Ghosty - Holmes was a far better heavyweight in hitorical terms and always will be but as for having a "far" better jab that's debateable considering no-one has barely got past Wlad's jab since 2005.

Just what exactly could Spinks (who scraped past Holmes in two doubtful decisions) do to Wlad that would get him the win?

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:25 pm

Holmes has the best jab in the heavy division period....

Managed to keep genuine talent like Shavers, Norton, Smith and Witherspoon away with it...

Not slobs like Vlad..

Also outjabbed taller guys like Cooney and Bonecrusher..

by fearlessBamber Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:30 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holmes has the best jab in the heavy division period....

Managed to keep genuine talent like Shavers, Norton, Smith and Witherspoon away with it...

Not slobs like Vlad..

Also outjabbed taller guys like Cooney and Bonecrusher..

Naah - Holmes was far too small.

Wlad has 40 lbs on him - it's like a light heavyweight against a lightweight. Too big and athletic and plus he has modern nutrition. Holmes never fought in 3d. He was Poopie.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:31 pm

Wlads jab isn't on the same planet as Holmes', i'll say it again but his jab gets lauded because he keeps dismal opposition away with it

If Spinks is capable of being competitive against Holmes then he has every chance against an inferior boxer

Manos not sure what you mean but Welterweight at the moment isn't great, it has two great fighters in the division but below them no one comes near them, at light heavyweight you have Hopkins and thats it, middleweight is a shambles with a good but not great champion.

by BALTIMORA Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:31 pm

Tino, it wasn't aimed at you specifically, I was just using Willard as a size comparison.

by manos de piedra Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:36 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Wlads jab isn't on the same planet as Holmes', i'll say it again but his jab gets lauded because he keeps dismal opposition away with it

If Spinks is capable of being competitive against Holmes then he has every chance against an inferior boxer

Manos not sure what you mean but Welterweight at the moment isn't great, it has two great fighters in the division but below them no one comes near them, at light heavyweight you have Hopkins and thats it, middleweight is a shambles with a good but not great champion.

I mean great as in it houses two "great" fighters. As a result its not that competitve as the pair of them have pretty much wiped out all credible challengers at the weight. A few years ago it was considered the most competitve division by a stretch when it was filled with Quintana, Williams, Margarito, Clottey, Cotto, Mayweather, Cintron, Mosely, Collazo etc all in it in a short period. Now theres hardly anyone left in it.

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:36 pm

You talk as if it was prime Holmes vs Spinks, he was 36.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:39 pm

Past his prime Holmes is still far better than Wlad though Scott

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:40 pm

Maybe, they haven't fought. But when you are talking about fighting guys from the lower weight divisions, youthful speed is relevant.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:41 pm

Well done thats the whole point of a fantasy match up, bravo

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:43 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well done thats the whole point of a fantasy match up, bravo

Interesting and well researched post. Would read again.

by **Union Cane** Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:45 pm

Children...

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:47 pm

look union haven't you got anything better to do..than post one word remarks on threads...

Ever thought of contributing....

PS..He's so clever he'll write a one word response like my young Son Rob would......to this post.

by Rowley Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:47 pm

Is always a little misleading to take this debate down the heavyweight route as there is the size variable that makes it tricky to give any kind of answer on. However for all the developments in the sport and sport in general a welter is still 147 a middle still 160 and so on and so comparisons across the eras can be made. For me if indeed there have been developments in training techniques, nutrition and the like their impact is at best negligilbe and for me is more than cancelled out by the lack of frequency with which modern fighters fight and the lack of ambition in their matchmaking on their way up.

For me there is no substitute for experience in anything and fighting so infrequnetly you are simply not going to get this no matter what you are doing in the gym. Use this example a lot but look at Hopkins, he is 46 and is the best light heavy in the world. Obviously he looks after himself and trains like a demon but a lot of his success is down to experience he has gained across his fights. Now for me it is a question of how good would Hopkins be if he had gained this level of experience at 26 rather than 46, because physically we are all better at 26 than 46.

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:48 pm

rowley wrote:Is always a little misleading to take this debate down the heavyweight route as there is the size variable that makes it tricky to give any kind of answer on. However for all the developments in the sport and sport in general a welter is still 147 a middle still 160 and so on and so comparisons across the eras can be made.

Even then, the day before weigh ins allow a fighter to put back on a lot more weight, sometimes close to 20lbs by fight night. You get freak Welters like Mike Jones at a built looking 6ft.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:53 pm

The fact he's had to drain to make weight would take it out of him no matter how much he weighs though on the night.....

You are messing up your body and metabolism..

by **Union Cane** Fri 08 Jul 2011, 4:56 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:look union haven't you got anything better to do..than post one word remarks on threads...

Ever thought of contributing....

PS..He's so clever he'll write a one word response like my young Son Rob would......to this post.

You're quite right my lover...

I should contribute, just as you do...

I should spout the same old rubbish...

Over and over again...

Love you Truss...

heart

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 5:00 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The fact he's had to drain to make weight would take it out of him no matter how much he weighs though on the night.....

You are messing up your body and metabolism..

They are very calculated over when and how they lose the weight though.

Obviously there are right and wrong ways, and tradeoffs like anything.

by captain carrantuohil Fri 08 Jul 2011, 5:02 pm

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.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 08 Jul 2011, 5:02 pm

Some have to use diuretics to make the weight....

Dangerous stuff that.....

by Scottrf Fri 08 Jul 2011, 5:06 pm

Or to flush the drugs out of their system...

Captain - I didn't say it couldn't or hadn't happened; just that I think the modern era gets derided too much sometimes. It's not like there has never been weak champions, or unsavoury politics in the history of the sport. It happens in cycles.

by Sponsored content