Why do the boxers of the past refuse to admit they'd get smoked in this generation?

[goose 5]

Have any of you guys ever read "The Arc of boxing: The rise and decline of the sweet science" ? This is a great thread and it brought that book to mind.

[RScarf1]

Have any of you guys ever read "The Arc of boxing: The rise and decline of the sweet science" ? This is a great thread and it brought that book to mind.

I never read it. I actually never heard of it before. I'm looking at the comments on Amazon. One of the arguments of the book is that less people are becoming boxers. Because more people were participating in boxing, there was more talent. That is how it is in any sport. Less athletes in a sport means less talent. You can more easily notice this in women's boxing, especially the heavyweight division. BoxRec can only rate 18 active female heavyweights and the talent in that division is by far the worst in women's boxing.

Another argument the book makes is that boxers in the past fought more often and therefore were better boxers. Elite boxers today fight only once or twice a year. More fights means more experience and the boxers get to face a variety of fighting styles. The book makes a point that boxers such as Joe Louis and Archie Moore defeated boxers who were considered "giants" back then. These boxers were 6'5" or taller which would still be considered tall today, so shorter boxers were capable of beating taller boxers if they were the superior boxer.

[pugilisticspecialist]

The men's 100 meter record is 9.58 seconds by Usain Bolt. That was achieved in 2009. Why has that record not been broken in over a decade?




Because they haven't yet figured out a way how to make the tracks and shoes any faster.

Jesse Owens running on cinder tracks and with basic shoes is about as good it gets for humans.

Andre de grasse couldn't beat Jesse Owens time when using Old track and spikes

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6CKtpBX0Xi

De Grasse is only the 39th best 100m sprinter of all-time, and that video was uploaded more than 5 years before he ran his PB. Also, he'd never ran in those conditions before, Owens had years of practice.

Calvin Smith's PB of 9.93 was a world record that stood until August 1987, but today it makes him only the 65th best of all-time.
If he'd ran that time in the 2004 Olympic final, he'd have finished 5th!

[gilgamesh]

I don't think there's anyone that ever lived that wouldn't take a loss somewhere in there if you squared him off with all of the other best that ever lived.

[pugilisticspecialist]

Have any of you guys ever read "The Arc of boxing: The rise and decline of the sweet science" ? This is a great thread and it brought that book to mind.

I never read it. I actually never heard of it before. I'm looking at the comments on Amazon. One of the arguments of the book is that less people are becoming boxers. Because more people were participating in boxing, there was more talent. That is how it is in any sport. Less athletes in a sport means less talent. You can more easily notice this in women's boxing, especially the heavyweight division. BoxRec can only rate 18 active female heavyweights and the talent in that division is by far the worst in women's boxing.

Another argument the book makes is that boxers in the past fought more often and therefore were better boxers. Elite boxers today fight only once or twice a year. More fights means more experience and the boxers get to face a variety of fighting styles. The book makes a point that boxers such as Joe Louis and Archie Moore defeated boxers who were considered "giants" back then. These boxers were 6'5" or taller which would still be considered tall today, so shorter boxers were capable of beating taller boxers if they were the superior boxer.

Less than 2 ½ years after the The Thrilla in Manila, Leon Spinks beat a 36 year old Ali to become lineal champion in his 8th pro fight. In the very next year, Spinks was stopped in the first round by Gerrie Coetzee.

Number of pro bouts (modern guys in blue):
81 - Foreman
75 - Holmes
70 - Walcott
69 - Wlad
69 - Louis
67 - Dempsey
61 - Ali
54 - Liston
53 - Valuev
49 - Marciano
47 - Vitali
40 - Povetkin
37 - Frazier
28 - Johansson

[Thomastearns]

The men's 100 meter record is 9.58 seconds by Usain Bolt. That was achieved in 2009. Why has that record not been broken in over a decade?




Because they haven't yet figured out a way how to make the tracks and shoes any faster.

Jesse Owens running on cinder tracks and with basic shoes is about as good it gets for humans.

Andre de grasse couldn't beat Jesse Owens time when using Old track and spikes

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6CKtpBX0Xi

Thanks for the link.

It makes you wonder what the times would be for the Olympic final if it was set in those conditions.

Have any of you guys ever read "The Arc of boxing: The rise and decline of the sweet science" ? This is a great thread and it brought that book to mind.

I never read it. I actually never heard of it before. I'm looking at the comments on Amazon. One of the arguments of the book is that less people are becoming boxers. Because more people were participating in boxing, there was more talent. That is how it is in any sport. Less athletes in a sport means less talent. You can more easily notice this in women's boxing, especially the heavyweight division. BoxRec can only rate 18 active female heavyweights and the talent in that division is by far the worst in women's boxing.

Another argument the book makes is that boxers in the past fought more often and therefore were better boxers. Elite boxers today fight only once or twice a year. More fights means more experience and the boxers get to face a variety of fighting styles. The book makes a point that boxers such as Joe Louis and Archie Moore defeated boxers who were considered "giants" back then. These boxers were 6'5" or taller which would still be considered tall today, so shorter boxers were capable of beating taller boxers if they were the superior boxer.

The social conditions that once drove boxing, particularly in the US and the UK no longer exist.

Boxing isn't usually anyone's first choice of a sport.

Especially nowadays when so many alternatives exist.

The only way that things could change is if there was more money in it.

Ask the likes of Jake Paul who have the advantages of taking dramatic short cuts to the eventual pot of gold.

[RScarf1]

Less than 2 ½ years after the The Thrilla in Manila, Leon Spinks beat a 36 year old Ali to become lineal champion in his 8th pro fight. In the very next year, Spinks was stopped in the first round by Gerrie Coetzee.

Yes, it is unusual for someone with only 8 pro fights to win a heavyweight title. Ali did not train as hard as he should have against Spinks, but Ali was able to win the immediate rematch. Also, the WBC stripped Spinks of their title for not fighting top contender Ken Norton. Norton was named the WBC champion before fighting for it. Norton lost the title by split decision to Larry Holmes. Spinks went the easier route to becoming a champion. He never would have won it if he had to face either Holmes or Norton. Most of the top boxers pound for pound today have at least 28 pro fights. Usyk has 19 pro fights, but he had 110 amateur fights.

[IKSRTFO]

Mainly the ex heavyweights. It's a known fact that athletes get better with every generation and that the boxers of today dwarf the boxers of the past. It'd be man against boys. Yet the boxers of the past refuse to admit that they would't be able to cut it in today's generation.

By comparison, today's boxers give the oldies a pat on the head, throw them a bone and say "I'd have lost to them" to show respect, when deep down, they know they would win.

The only boxers of the past who could compete with today's generation is Lewis and Vitali--those vs Fury or Usyk would be a toss up. Mike Tyson would beat boxers who don't have a defence like Joshua, Whyte and Wilder, but would come up short against Fury.

Outside of Fury, Usyk, and a few others, most of the heavyweights today don't have the stamina to compete with the heavyweights of the past. Most of these heavyweights wouldn't handle 15 rounds well.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Less than 2 ½ years after the The Thrilla in Manila, Leon Spinks beat a 36 year old Ali to become lineal champion in his 8th pro fight. In the very next year, Spinks was stopped in the first round by Gerrie Coetzee.

Yes, it is unusual for someone with only 8 pro fights to win a heavyweight title. Ali did not train as hard as he should have against Spinks, but Ali was able to win the immediate rematch. Also, the WBC stripped Spinks of their title for not fighting top contender Ken Norton. Norton was named the WBC champion before fighting for it. Norton lost the title by split decision to Larry Holmes. Spinks went the easier route to becoming a champion. He never would have won it if he had to face either Holmes or Norton. Most of the top boxers pound for pound today have at least 28 pro fights. Usyk has 19 pro fights, but he had 110 amateur fights.

- So, you disparage novice Leon taking a dream come true offer by Ali?

?

I'll get back over Norton/Holmes, but I'll let you tell us who Olympic LH gold medalist Clay fought in his 9th and 10th fight, but I can assure you it weren't the often touted #1 heavy in boxing history. I can also assure you that Olympic LH gold medalist Leon likely didn't have a dollar to his name after the bilking celebrations of his first and only title, so should Ali have waited until Norton or Holmes separated Leon from the title for a more difficult challenge?

Obviously the OP is significantly handicapped by his youth, yet gets the usual suspects here arguing over whether the old guys could last 12rds vs the new guys or whether the new guys would faint in their jockstraps having a fight to the finish when genetically mankind is 99.999999999% identical over the last 100+ years.

Norton lost by one point against Holmes after 855 points were awarded, a 0.0017% margin with no lucrative rematch over an otherwise wonderfully disputed fight. In baseball terms, it'd be like a team winning 0.0017 runs over zer0 of their competitors with the fans scratching noggins trying to figure how the Sam Hill did they come up with that?

And Norton was the first modern "snail mail" champ when his title eliminator vs Young was upgraded to champion with folks still moaning today over Haney's ridiculous WBC email belt. At any rate, you could look this up too, Holmes record vs champions holding a title won in the ring is 0-6, 0 KOs. Leon in his moment whooped the #1 historical heavyweight, so some respect modification is needed on your part in my view.

Lewis was the next snail mail WBC champ when he was similarly upgraded, and his record against champs holding a title won in the ring is 3-2-1 with 2 wins against the two journeymen champs who one punched him to Bolivia. Lewis never defended his unified belts, stripped of all but the WBC and then retiring a week before that strippage.

Dunno about you, but the touted hvy champs cited seem a bit light in their loafers then, and don't even get me started on a certain blubberized Brit who seems all the rage in spite never defending his unified titles and ducking the riches of the Great Unified Champ AJ to fight two other AJ duckers in his last 3 fights for loose change. You could look up his years the Ring Champ and defense record, or just snicker like moi...

[RScarf1]

Less than 2 ½ years after the The Thrilla in Manila, Leon Spinks beat a 36 year old Ali to become lineal champion in his 8th pro fight. In the very next year, Spinks was stopped in the first round by Gerrie Coetzee.

Yes, it is unusual for someone with only 8 pro fights to win a heavyweight title. Ali did not train as hard as he should have against Spinks, but Ali was able to win the immediate rematch. Also, the WBC stripped Spinks of their title for not fighting top contender Ken Norton. Norton was named the WBC champion before fighting for it. Norton lost the title by split decision to Larry Holmes. Spinks went the easier route to becoming a champion. He never would have won it if he had to face either Holmes or Norton. Most of the top boxers pound for pound today have at least 28 pro fights. Usyk has 19 pro fights, but he had 110 amateur fights.

- So, you disparage novice Leon taking a dream come true offer by Ali?

I'll get back over Norton/Holmes, but I'll let you tell us who Olympic LH gold medalist Clay fought in his 9th and 10th fight, but I can assure you it weren't the often touted #1 heavy in boxing history. I can also assure you that Olympic LH gold medalist Leon likely didn't have a dollar to his name after the bilking celebrations of his first and only title, so should Ali have waited until Norton or Holmes separated Leon from the title for a more difficult challenge?

Obviously the OP is significantly handicapped by his youth, yet gets the usual suspects here arguing over whether the old guys could last 12rds vs the new guys or whether the new guys would faint in their jockstraps having a fight to the finish when genetically mankind is 99.999999999% identical over the last 100+ years.

Norton lost by one point against Holmes after 855 points were awarded, a 0.0017% margin with no lucrative rematch over an otherwise wonderfully disputed fight. In baseball terms, it'd be like a team winning 0.0017 runs over zer0 of their competitors with the fans scratching noggins trying to figure how the Sam Hill did they come up with that?

And Norton was the first modern "snail mail" champ when his title eliminator vs Young was upgraded to champion with folks still moaning today over Haney's ridiculous WBC email belt. At any rate, you could look this up too, Holmes record vs champions holding a title won in the ring is 0-6, 0 KOs. Leon in his moment whooped the #1 historical heavyweight, so some respect modification is needed on your part in my view.

Lewis was the next snail mail WBC champ when he was similarly upgraded, and his record against champs holding a title won in the ring is 3-2-1 with 2 wins against the two journeymen champs who one punched him to Bolivia. Lewis never defended his unified belts, stripped of all but the WBC and then retiring a week before that strippage.

Dunno about you, but the touted hvy champs cited seem a bit light in their loafers then, and don't even get me started on a certain blubberized Brit who seems all the rage in spite never defending his unified titles and ducking the riches of the Great Unified Champ AJ to fight two other AJ duckers in his last 3 fights for loose change. You could look up his years the Ring Champ and defense record, or just snicker like moi...

I guess I should have stated "had the easier route" instead of "went the easier route." I am not disparaging Spinks for accepting the fight with Ali. The WBC stripped Leon Spinks of the title because he had the rematch against Ali and not against No. 1 contender Ken Norton. I didn't criticize him for that or even mention it. I am stating the obvious and that is Holmes and Norton were the two best heavyweights at the time. I agree that Norton should have been given an immediate rematch. He had a very close fight against a prime Holmes when he was not in his prime. I am surprised that you would mention Holmes' 6 losses when they were all when he was past his prime starting with his two close decision losses against Michael Spinks. Does his 6 losses in his career mean that he wasn't a good world champion? Regarding Lewis' 2 losses and a draw, he won the rematches for all 3 of them.

[caldo2025]

Todays greats like luis ortiz, andy ruiz, michael hunter, and joe joyce would wreck garbage fighter like holyfield and larry holmes. The endurance level of andy ruiz is just too much, the devastating power of michael hunter, the speed of joyce and the willingness to fight all comers like ortiz doesnt compare to pedestrian fivhters of the past

Is OP one of EO’s accounts or something.

EO is indisposed at the moment so I’ve been asked to reply in his stead:

-please show me proof of me doing anything wrong in the history of message board boxing postings. Please go back through my 26 years of posts and spend at least 100-150 hours of research before replying back with anything that may hurt the accuracy of anything I’ve posted. No, I don’t hate GGG even though he’s ducked people since kindergarten and I have provided proof in previous post archives of which will cost you another 100 hours research to find. Also, I’m neutral and just observer even though I’ve dyed my hair red and given myself freckles with a Sharpie in honor of Canelo and his greatness. Though I’m neutral to all boxing thoughts. You can clearly see that if you spend 75 hours more researching my posts.

EO will be back in a bit he says. He apologizes for not being available guys.

[Counter-puncher]

I always liked your style, caldo

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- So, you disparage novice Leon taking a dream come true offer by Ali?

I'll get back over Norton/Holmes, but I'll let you tell us who Olympic LH gold medalist Clay fought in his 9th and 10th fight, but I can assure you it weren't the often touted #1 heavy in boxing history. I can also assure you that Olympic LH gold medalist Leon likely didn't have a dollar to his name after the bilking celebrations of his first and only title, so should Ali have waited until Norton or Holmes separated Leon from the title for a more difficult challenge?

Obviously the OP is significantly handicapped by his youth, yet gets the usual suspects here arguing over whether the old guys could last 12rds vs the new guys or whether the new guys would faint in their jockstraps having a fight to the finish when genetically mankind is 99.999999999% identical over the last 100+ years.

Norton lost by one point against Holmes after 855 points were awarded, a 0.0017% margin with no lucrative rematch over an otherwise wonderfully disputed fight. In baseball terms, it'd be like a team winning 0.0017 runs over zer0 of their competitors with the fans scratching noggins trying to figure how the Sam Hill did they come up with that?

And Norton was the first modern "snail mail" champ when his title eliminator vs Young was upgraded to champion with folks still moaning today over Haney's ridiculous WBC email belt. At any rate, you could look this up too, Holmes record vs champions holding a title won in the ring is 0-6, 0 KOs. Leon in his moment whooped the #1 historical heavyweight, so some respect modification is needed on your part in my view.

Lewis was the next snail mail WBC champ when he was similarly upgraded, and his record against champs holding a title won in the ring is 3-2-1 with 2 wins against the two journeymen champs who one punched him to Bolivia. Lewis never defended his unified belts, stripped of all but the WBC and then retiring a week before that strippage.

Dunno about you, but the touted hvy champs cited seem a bit light in their loafers then, and don't even get me started on a certain blubberized Brit who seems all the rage in spite never defending his unified titles and ducking the riches of the Great Unified Champ AJ to fight two other AJ duckers in his last 3 fights for loose change. You could look up his years the Ring Champ and defense record, or just snicker like moi...

I guess I should have stated "had the easier route" instead of "went the easier route." I am not disparaging Spinks for accepting the fight with Ali. The WBC stripped Leon Spinks of the title because he had the rematch against Ali and not against No. 1 contender Ken Norton. I didn't criticize him for that or even mention it. I am stating the obvious and that is Holmes and Norton were the two best heavyweights at the time. I agree that Norton should have been given an immediate rematch. He had a very close fight against a prime Holmes when he was not in his prime. I am surprised that you would mention Holmes' 6 losses when they were all when he was past his prime starting with his two close decision losses against Michael Spinks. Does his 6 losses in his career mean that he wasn't a good world champion? Regarding Lewis' 2 losses and a draw, he won the rematches for all 3 of them.

- I did give Lewis credit for the criteria of records vs fellow champs. Now as to Lar, we could say Norton was made champ by WBC so that would count, but that makes Holmes 1-6, 0 KOs if we wish to go the daming with faint praises route.

Holmes fought in the modern splintered multi title era, even assisting in creating more titles by ducking his mandatory, Page for the nascent IBF. Meanwhile, back at the pass where the outlaws meet to split the booty, Holmes secured his Ring belt by dint of having beat journeyman Weaver who later beat the guy, Tate, who traveled to South Africa to beat Coetzee for the WBA belt. Holmes had conveniently played the civil rights boycott card to avoid a career purse vs Coetzee for the WBA who had cracked Leon harder, and most importantly first. Lar went in for sloppy seconds as Leon became the poster boy for how much boxing had slipped during Ali's 2nd run.

I compare that to the current Ring Champ who's record of defenses is exceedingly meager vs the two guys who ducked career purses vs AJ as did Fury, all several times though Whyte at least fought AJ when they was fringe contenders.

I mention these things because I noticed you were hot and heavy in modern rankings of late, and yes, after coming up with near perfection ratings, Boxrec decided to soil hard won perfection with their "future predictions" majic card that has made an unholy mess of of their ratings, perhaps now the worst in all of boxing.

[coneye]

Think you can only relate this too the heavyweights ,, and if you sit and think about it , With the exception of Fury i can;t see any present heavyweight beating Tyson and he was'nt the best watched Tyson demolish Bruno the other day ,, can't see AJ lasting any longer or doing any better , Who presently would stand up to a in prime Foreman ,

What about Hollyfied at cruiser against Usyk at cruiser , think Hollyfield versus Bellow at cruiser ,,, think the reason is simple they were better rougher tuffer , and i'll go on a limb here and say FITTER in the past

Pet hate i've got nowadays is the amount who gas after 6-7 rnds , have my own theory on that and its all down to TOO many cooks sticking there nose in the soup this specelist that specelist , this team member that team member , all sticking there nose in ,, what happenned to the good old fashioned trainer who knew how to prepare there fighter to do the full rnds hard

[coneye]

Well today i'm sat there and my son sends me a clip of a fight , a few years ago , just a couple of rnds , and he says jeez dad you see this one in the day ,, I'd forgot it what a cracker remeber in the day being on the edge of the seat ,, just getting older brain farts and all that . anyway it was Bowe ----Hollyfield

Watch it and then tell me WHO ... what present day heavyweight could still be doing rnd 10 at the rate they were , because i tell you i can't think of ONE

dO YOU STILL GET FIGHTS HAS GOOD HAS THAT YES YOU DO , BUT REMEMBER THEY ARE HEAVYWEIGHTS

[Enlightened-One]

Mainly the ex heavyweights. It's a known fact that athletes get better with every generation and that the boxers of today dwarf the boxers of the past. It'd be man against boys. Yet the boxers of the past refuse to admit that they would't be able to cut it in today's generation.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Mainly the ex heavyweights. It's a known fact that athletes get better with every generation and that the boxers of today dwarf the boxers of the past. It'd be man against boys. Yet the boxers of the past refuse to admit that they would't be able to cut it in today's generation.

Tbh. He’s the ONLY one I’ve ever heard.

Ali always said Tyson could beat him.