Who are the "best ever" in every division?

[jamesmcdonnell]

If you took Jesse Owens, and put him in modern running spikes, gave him performance enhancing drugs and other nutritional supplements, and put him on a modern running track, he would be running well under 10.0

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein ... anguage=en

Great talk, in some ways confirms what I say, and in others says the contrary, which is that the specialisation of the bodies for sport means athletes are getting better.

However, I still contend, fighting is not like other sports, in that sheer athleticism doesn't win fights. Technique and the will to win are huge factors, along with many others.

[cfang]

I've done this looking at the weight guys fought at. So in my list we're talking who is the best when fighting at the weight not how many fights they had at that weight or how many championships etc. So the cruiser division wasnt around in marciano's day but he was at his best at 185. Same with Greb who could make 158 easy enough but was brilliant at 165 too. If we go with guys who fought at that specific division, then change Rocky to Evander, Greb to Calzaghe and lt middle to tommy hearns

Heavyweight - Ali
Cruiserweight - Rocky Marciano
Light Heavyweight - Ezzard Charles
Super Middleweight - Harry Greb
Middleweight - Harry Greb
Light Middleweight - Sugar Ray Robinson
Welterweight - Sugar Ray Robinson
Light Welterweight - Thomas Hearns
Lightweight - Roberto Duran
Super featherweight - Floyd Mayweather Jr
Featherweight - Alexis Arguello
Super Bantamweight -Wilfredo Gomez
Bantamweight - Edre Jofre
Super Flyweight -Khasoi Galaxy
Flyweight - Jimmy Wilde

[cfang]

I've done this looking at the weight guys fought at. So in my list we're talking who is the best when fighting at the weight not how many fights they had at that weight or how many championships etc. So the cruiser division wasnt around in marciano's day but he was at his best at 185. Same with Greb who could make 158 easy enough but was brilliant at 165 too. If we go with guys who fought at that specific division, then change Rocky to Evander, Greb to Calzaghe and lt middle to tommy hearns

Heavyweight - Ali
Cruiserweight - Rocky Marciano
Light Heavyweight - Ezzard Charles
Super Middleweight - Harry Greb
Middleweight - Harry Greb
Light Middleweight - Sugar Ray Robinson
Welterweight - Sugar Ray Robinson
Light Welterweight - JC Chavez
Lightweight - Roberto Duran
Super featherweight - Floyd Mayweather Jr
Featherweight - Alexis Arguello
Super Bantamweight -Wilfredo Gomez
Bantamweight - Edre Jofre
Super Flyweight -Khasoi Galaxy
Flyweight - Jimmy Wilde

Oops had tommy in the wrong place

[davie]

Too many posts to quote, while I'll give that athletes are bigger and more athletic as a whole, the actual skill level has never been lower. many top 10 fighters today would have never achieved journeyman status 30 or 40 years ago. Nothing hones skills like fights against top opposition and today's guys just don't do it enough. People think Wlad was skilled, LMAO.

And making a list while this is subjective, whom you think would win a fight is an absurd rating methodology. We're all wrong on a weekly basis. It's resume based unless it's a coin flip. One more point on todays bigger and better athletes. Henry Armstrong could give Broner 30 pounds and he'd beat the poo out of him in every round.

this is how I took it.

p4p lists of fighters active right now, I go with current ability over record/resume.
any ATG type thread I tend to lean towards resume.
Comparing records from different eras is hard enough and subjective. but trying to go on ability alone, on these discussions is imposible, especially when you possibly haven't watched many of them fight

[cfang]

Too many posts to quote, while I'll give that athletes are bigger and more athletic as a whole, the actual skill level has never been lower. many top 10 fighters today would have never achieved journeyman status 30 or 40 years ago. Nothing hones skills like fights against top opposition and today's guys just don't do it enough. People think Wlad was skilled, LMAO.

And making a list while this is subjective, whom you think would win a fight is an absurd rating methodology. We're all wrong on a weekly basis. It's resume based unless it's a coin flip. One more point on todays bigger and better athletes. Henry Armstrong could give Broner 30 pounds and he'd beat the poo out of him in every round.

this is how I took it.

p4p lists of fighters active right now, I go with current ability over record/resume.
any ATG type thread I tend to lean towards resume.
Comparing records from different eras is hard enough and subjective. but trying to go on ability alone, on these discussions is imposible, especially when you possibly haven't watched many of them fight

I'm not sure this is true. There's no film of Greb but that doesn't meant he wasn't if not the then one of the greatest boxers of all time. His record proves it and there's lots of film of the guys he beat. If film of him did exist we'd see exactly what we'd expect - A fast, swarming fighter who never lets up and is all over his opponent 3 mins a round. Does it make any difference that film doesn't exist? Just cos we've not seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's all subjective of course but there are facts to go on and we can compare fighters from different eras. Who knows though, maybe today's guys are much stronger or yesterday's were tougher or better. Either way, it's fun to debate :-)

[Tuan_Jim]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Too many posts to quote, while I'll give that athletes are bigger and more athletic as a whole, the actual skill level has never been lower. many top 10 fighters today would have never achieved journeyman status 30 or 40 years ago. Nothing hones skills like fights against top opposition and today's guys just don't do it enough. People think Wlad was skilled, LMAO.

And making a list while this is subjective, whom you think would win a fight is an absurd rating methodology. We're all wrong on a weekly basis. It's resume based unless it's a coin flip. One more point on todays bigger and better athletes. Henry Armstrong could give Broner 30 pounds and he'd beat the poo out of him in every round.

this is how I took it.

p4p lists of fighters active right now, I go with current ability over record/resume.
any ATG type thread I tend to lean towards resume.
Comparing records from different eras is hard enough and subjective. but trying to go on ability alone, on these discussions is imposible, especially when you possibly haven't watched many of them fight

I'm not sure this is true. There's no film of Greb but that doesn't meant he wasn't if not the then one of the greatest boxers of all time. His record proves it and there's lots of film of the guys he beat. If film of him did exist we'd see exactly what we'd expect - A fast, swarming fighter who never lets up and is all over his opponent 3 mins a round. Does it make any difference that film doesn't exist? Just cos we've not seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's all subjective of course but there are facts to go on and we can compare fighters from different eras. Who knows though, maybe today's guys are much stronger or yesterday's were tougher or better. Either way, it's fun to debate :-)

Ummm, you didn't refute anything either of us said. Lol

[AngryGoon38]

Hw- Holmes/Ali(Tie),Wlad Klischko,Lennox Lewis,Joe Louis,Vitali Klischko,Holyfield,Foreman,Liston,Bowe,Mike Tyson
Cw- Holyfield,Marciano,Tunney,Dempsey,Joe Louis
LHW- Ezzard Charles,Michael Spinks,Archie Moore,Billy Conn,RJJ
Smw-RJJ,Calzahge,Ward,Eubank,Benn
MW- Monzon,SRR,Cerdan,BHop,Greb
JMW- Hearns,Norris,Trinadad,SRL,Benitez
WW- SRR,SRL,Trinadad,Mosley,Hearns
JWW- J.C Chavez,M. Paquiou,F. Mayweather jr, Nicolino Locche,Pernell Whittaker
LW- Duran,Benny Leonard,Henry Armstrong,Oscar DeLaHoya,J.C Chavez
JLW- Floyd Mayweather Jr, Alexis Arguello,Azumah Nelson,Ernesto Marcel,Arturo Gatti
FW- Salvador Sanchez,Sandy Saddler,Willie Pep,Marco Antonio Barrera,Naseem Hamed
JFW- Wilfredo Gomez,Barrera,McKinney,Junior Jones,Wayne McCullah
BW-Carlos Zarate,Junior Jones,Tapia,
JBW-Johnny Tapia
FlyWeight- Miguel Canto,Danny Romero,Jimmy Wyld

[davie]

this is how I took it.

p4p lists of fighters active right now, I go with current ability over record/resume.
any ATG type thread I tend to lean towards resume.
Comparing records from different eras is hard enough and subjective. but trying to go on ability alone, on these discussions is imposible, especially when you possibly haven't watched many of them fight

I'm not sure this is true. There's no film of Greb but that doesn't meant he wasn't if not the then one of the greatest boxers of all time. His record proves it and there's lots of film of the guys he beat. If film of him did exist we'd see exactly what we'd expect - A fast, swarming fighter who never lets up and is all over his opponent 3 mins a round. Does it make any difference that film doesn't exist? Just cos we've not seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's all subjective of course but there are facts to go on and we can compare fighters from different eras. Who knows though, maybe today's guys are much stronger or yesterday's were tougher or better. Either way, it's fun to debate :-)

Ummm, you didn't refute anything either of us said. Lol

[Davidreed]

h-lewis
c-gomez
l-jones jr
s-jones jr
m-jones jr
s-robinson
w-leonard
s-pacquiao
l-pacquiao
s-pacquiao
f-?
s-rigondeaux
b-jofre
s-galaxy
f-gonzales
l-?
m-Lopez

Surely this belongs in Boxers of the Past? Oh well, I'll bite...

HW - Ali
CW - Holyfield
LHW - Charles
SMW - Jones Jr
MW - First really tough call - Greb has the best resume but hard to say he was best without footage. I'll go with Monzon.
LMW - Robinson (the division didn't exist in his time, but it was his natural weight for much of his career. Otherwise Hearns.
WW - Robinson

My historical knowledge below welterweight is thin, so hard to comment with any confidence there.

M.Ali
Holyfield

[Chepppaaa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMDeXD9K_lg

[jamesmcdonnell]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

Couldn't agree more.

On top of this, the biggest argument against the current crop, is that the talent pool is far smaller, there were way more registered fighters back in the 1920's than there are now, certainly in Europe and North America in any case, therefore it was far harder to get to the top of the pile.

[Ricky_]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

Best post i've read on Boxrec.

[jamesmcdonnell]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

Best post i've read on Boxrec.

Probably the only places left where they are breeding really tough guys like that, are Latin and South America, and South East Asia, but still, modern boxing is pretty soft even if they come up tough in those places.

[SteveO]

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

Very good points indeed. Most modern boxers could not compete like that IMO.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

Very good points indeed. Most modern boxers could not compete like that IMO.

Boxing was indeed a very different sport back then. Many fighters never went anywhere simply because their hands were too brittle, power punchers like Hearns would have never been able to hit with such force with smaller gloves, Hearns had problems with his hands during his career, imagine how many more problems he would have had with smaller gloves.

[ikorolev]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

So, athletes in other sports didn't compete in harder conditions back then ? Why results in those sports are so much better now ?

What if we revert your question and ask: how would men like Smith and Jack Dempsey perform wearing bigger gloves and having shorter fights against modern fighters ?

[Tuan_Jim]

I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

[jamesmcdonnell]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

So, athletes in other sports didn't compete in harder conditions back then ? Why results in those sports are so much better now ?

What if we revert your question and ask: how would men like Smith and Jack Dempsey perform wearing bigger gloves and having shorter fights against modern fighters ?

Well actually no they didn't. Most other sports have actually become far more physically rigorous and specialised. That's due to the monetization of sport, and the much larger talent pool in most sports. Boxing has been going in the other direction for quite some time, in the fact the talent pool is shrinking due to pressure from other major sports. Boxing is now way down the pecking order, and many athletes choose other sports, because they pay far better. Only the elite level fighters are making big money in boxing.

There's a very interesting TED talk which was posted here earlier. Listen to it.

They recently changed the rules for the cycling 1 hour record, so that modern competitors had to use equipment similar to what Eddy Merckx used, and despite all of the supposed advances since 1972, the current record is 10 METRES further than the original record.

With all the modern equipment taken away, that's how much advance was made in over 40 years.

[jamesmcdonnell]

There is no such thing as the "best ever". It is even more imaginary than best p4p.

You can't compare fighters from 70s with current boxers who are bigger and use better PED technologies.

sure you can compare them. they are bigger like you said more athletic and therefore better, simple.

ped wouldnt not make a prime mike tyson out of joe frazier. tyson > frazier

genetics become better over time, thats why elite 100 m sprinter were running 10-11 secondes back in the days and today 9:58

Actually the single biggest factors in the 100 meter sprint are, modern running shoes, composite rubberised tracks, and starting blocks.

Biomechanical experts analysed these factors, and Owens' biomechanical makeup, and concluded that he'd have been one stride behind Bolt with all the other factors being equal.

You reckon Bolt would have run 9.58 on a cinder track with old fashioned shoes, and a hole dug with a trowel in place of starting blocks- wake up mate.

Genetics do not become better over time that is just poppycock, you've literally no idea what you are talking about.

[Chepppaaa]

There is no such thing as the "best ever". It is even more imaginary than best p4p.

You can't compare fighters from 70s with current boxers who are bigger and use better PED technologies.

sure you can compare them. they are bigger like you said more athletic and therefore better, simple.

ped wouldnt not make a prime mike tyson out of joe frazier. tyson > frazier

genetics become better over time, thats why elite 100 m sprinter were running 10-11 secondes back in the days and today 9:58

Actually the single biggest factors in the 100 meter sprint are, modern running shoes, composite rubberised tracks, and starting blocks.

Biomechanical experts analysed these factors, and Owens' biomechanical makeup, and concluded that he'd have been one stride behind Bolt with all the other factors being equal.

You reckon Bolt would have run 9.58 on a cinder track with old fashioned shoes, and a hole dug with a trowel in place of starting blocks- wake up mate.

Genetics do not become better over time that is just poppycock, you've literally no idea what you are talking about.

your stupidity in that department is imense.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agr ... an-height/

people became taller over time
people became stronger and faster over. in every athletic area they became better.
and if you dont mean it like a joke, than you dont know what you are talking about.

[Counter-puncher]

Fury would beat Ali as he is too big for him

Any boxing list on it without may weather is not a real list

fury would beat ali in terms of size etc.

but if we go p4p, meaning same height, same weight, that ali beats fury all the way, cause he is way more athletic, way more fast, way more skilled than fury.

therefore p4p ali > fury

also i dont like comparing heavyweights from today with those from back than, cause most top heavyweights from the past would be more cruiserweights than heavyweights compared to the tall big guys from today.

Then you are talking mythical people. Someone that doesn't exist.

The comment was correct Fury would beat Ali. Size, reach etc.
.

Oh, my god. You....just...you did, didn't you?

I'm surprised tuan Jim didn't publically sh1t a kidney all over this site, and rightly too.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

This old chestnut.

How do genetics become better exactly? Please explain the mechanism? Explain to me how people today are genetically superior, given that in the modern age where we have innumerable drugs and treatments to allow the weak to survive, the human gene pool Is improving? If anything it's the reverse. Go back 100 years and only the genetically blessed survived the numerous childhood illnesses and other physical stresses into adulthood.

I'm with you. Personally I always cringe when in a boxing conversation a man starts reaching for words like genetics or evolution. It's like throwing up a big sign saying: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Gunboat Smith, the old heavyweight of the early 1900s, expressed his disgust in a 1970s interview at how boxers now sparred with big gloves. In his day men boxed and sparred with 6oz gloves, with thick insulation tape that made the fists lethal. You got hit so hard, he said, that you learned very quickly how not to get hit. The modern boxer on the other hand often doesn't get seriously hit until he's already well into his pro career. The modern boxer's development is retarded by the cautious building of an undefeated record, not to mention the shallow talent pool.

Men like Smith and Jack Dempsey boxed in the dust and the altitude of the mountain states, under the searing glare of the midday sun. 15, 20 rounders. I wonder how exactly one of our modern superhuman heavies, like Tyson Fury or Wlad K, would cope in those conditions? With the 6oz gloves flying at them in blizzards? In an age where negative boxers were docked pay? How do Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up? Would he survive boxing 10, 20 times a year against young, fit, violent men of all different shapes and sizes?

I know we were chiefly discussing Robinson and Ali, but I thought I would go further back to illustrate that boxing was once something tougher than taking on handpicked opponents twice a year for one of a hundred belts while a pay-TV channel commentary table tells the rubes at home what they are watching is greatness. To have risen to the top in the eras of a Dempsey, SRR or Ali is to be distinguished from the mortals. Society doesn't create men like this anymore. And modern boxing is too comparatively soft to cultivate them.

So, athletes in other sports didn't compete in harder conditions back then ? Why results in those sports are so much better now ?

What if we revert your question and ask: how would men like Smith and Jack Dempsey perform wearing bigger gloves and having shorter fights against modern fighters ?

Boxing was the biggest sport back then, but yeah, Football players were tougher back then too. People were tougher, they had to be.

[jamesmcdonnell]

sure you can compare them. they are bigger like you said more athletic and therefore better, simple.

ped wouldnt not make a prime mike tyson out of joe frazier. tyson > frazier

genetics become better over time, thats why elite 100 m sprinter were running 10-11 secondes back in the days and today 9:58

Actually the single biggest factors in the 100 meter sprint are, modern running shoes, composite rubberised tracks, and starting blocks.

Biomechanical experts analysed these factors, and Owens' biomechanical makeup, and concluded that he'd have been one stride behind Bolt with all the other factors being equal.

You reckon Bolt would have run 9.58 on a cinder track with old fashioned shoes, and a hole dug with a trowel in place of starting blocks- wake up mate.

Genetics do not become better over time that is just poppycock, you've literally no idea what you are talking about.

your stupidity in that department is imense.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agr ... an-height/

people became taller over time
people became stronger and faster over. in every athletic area they became better.
and if you dont mean it like a joke, than you dont know what you are talking about.

You believe whatever you wish. You're very wide of the mark. People become taller due to better nutrition, not genetics you moron. People are not getting stronger, taller etc because of genetics. That's why the royal family hundreds of years ago threw up people who were way taller than the average man for their time - because they were way better fed.

From looking at the skeleton's of very old home sapiens sapiens from 10's of thousands of years ago, it's obvious that they were far more muscular on average - why's that? It's not genetics, as we share the vast majority of our gene's with them, the fact is, they did way more physical exercise than the average man today, and therefore their bodies adapted.

Boxing is not athletics, and if you can't see the importance of technique over sheer physicality, then you just don't understand what you're seeing.

As I said earlier, most of the improvements in athletic performance are due to the modern tracks and equipment. The rest of it is because the talent pool is bigger, athletes are now professionals who train full time, not because of some genetic shift in human beings.

[Chepppaaa]

Actually the single biggest factors in the 100 meter sprint are, modern running shoes, composite rubberised tracks, and starting blocks.

Biomechanical experts analysed these factors, and Owens' biomechanical makeup, and concluded that he'd have been one stride behind Bolt with all the other factors being equal.

You reckon Bolt would have run 9.58 on a cinder track with old fashioned shoes, and a hole dug with a trowel in place of starting blocks- wake up mate.

Genetics do not become better over time that is just poppycock, you've literally no idea what you are talking about.

your stupidity in that department is imense.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agr ... an-height/

people became taller over time
people became stronger and faster over. in every athletic area they became better.
and if you dont mean it like a joke, than you dont know what you are talking about.

You believe whatever you wish. You're very wide of the mark. People become taller due to better nutrition, not genetics you moron. People are not getting stronger, taller etc because of genetics. That's why the royal family hundreds of years ago threw up people who were way taller than the average man for their time - because they were way better fed.

From looking at the skeleton's of very old home sapiens sapiens from 10's of thousands of years ago, it's obvious that they were far more muscular on average - why's that? It's not genetics, as we share the vast majority of our gene's with them, the fact is, they did way more physical exercise than the average man today, and therefore their bodies adapted.

Boxing is not athletics, and if you can't see the importance of technique over sheer physicality, then you just don't understand what you're seeing.

As I said earlier, most of the improvements in athletic performance are due to the modern tracks and equipment. The rest of it is because the talent pool is bigger, athletes are now professionals who train full time, not because of some genetic shift in human beings.

no, there is a common rule, that the child is mostly taller than his father, around 8-10 cm. so genetics improve, the child becomes taller, stronger than his father, the percentage is on my side. it has something to do with food, but also that the genetics improve.

hahahahaha......prime jones beats everybody p4p and the main reason was his rare atletiscm

muscularity etc is all in the genes, so yes, genes become better over time. human beings become taller, stronger, faster.

boxer back than could also train full time and some were rich and had great training methods, but still they werent as athletic as boxer from today, with some exceptions.

genetics improve over generation. and sure food has to something about it and also training, these are 2 reason why genetics become better over time. back than they didnt have the quality food we have now and also the new training methods, the human beings eat the food, trained the new methods and their gens became better and they prdouced children who became bigger, stronger, faster.