BoxRec

keithmoonhangover wrote:I'd pick Armstong, but like you, I wouldn't bet my house on it. Come to think of it I wouldn't bet some one else's house on it.... well, maybe Irene's.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

I never get tired of pushing your buttons like the play-thing you are, Darling.

Have you challenged anyone to a street fight for criticising Ali lately? D

Giancarlo wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

I never get tired of pushing your buttons like the play-thing you are, Darling.

Have you challenged anyone to a street fight for criticising Ali lately? D

Why, are you up for it this time?

Bring a couple of mates to carry you home.

Oh, hang on, you don't have any mates do you.

OK, bring your folks. Oh, hang on, you hate your mother so that is probably out too.

I know, bring a couple of those knuckle draggers you work with on your menial "security" job.

JDC wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

JDC wrote:Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

I agree, there is a point of saturation. We aren't anywhere near it, but the potential to regress with a lower interest in the sport will always exist. The potential to be better should always exist as the knowledge base grows (on many more factors than just skill set). The jab is more prevalent today, imo. It's not a case of skill-set improving, rather the execution of these skills as a result of an increased knowledge base. The trappings of modern society have an impact on lots of fighters, but I believe that a guy of strong mental state could do much better now than he would have done in his own era.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether condition has improved boxing, but I'll respect your right to disagree. Potential is the key. The ''crème de la crop'' will always maximise such potential, as best they can. However, the opponents of such fighters often suffer from a defeatist mentality today, and don't push said fighter as hard as he may have been in another era. Increased purses result in decreased desire. The notion of a ''pay day'' now supersedes the honour. Lewis said he'd come out of retirement for $50mil a few years ago, Jefferies came out of retirement for honour.

I see both sides of the argument. There or so many factors at play that I cannot compare eras in the way most do.

BoxBuzz wrote:Armstrong has a fantastic resume. I would bet on Duran. It's odd that I sort of appreciate all the junk being thrown at Elmer's door, and yet side with him as to the final outcome. Elmer has spent a fair amount of time being critical of Duran a while back, just to come back and tell everyone Roberto would somehow prevail over his own #1 pick of all time.

I'm not sure I understand his reasoning. For me, I think Duran's reflexes are a hair faster, and he is a shake truer to the fundamentals....and I'll give him just a hair of a nod on ring intelligence. I think Roberto would somehow exploit the VERY few weaknesses that he would encounter quite well. I do believe he would make progress during any "shoe gazing" moments Armstrong engaged in. His "instinct" for blood is about 1/2 a notch higher IMO as well.

I'm not asking anyone else to walk my way. But my money would be on Roberto......and I wouldn't bet the house on it.

BoxBuzz wrote:Well that would be only in the Bizarro World for sure.

As far as the "other" conversation that is taking place here goes....

Every sport evolves....to imagine that this is an oasis of paralysis is a bit novel. However with that said, about the only difference I honestly see in my lifetime is at the fat end of the spectrum.

Perhaps the world is not as hungry as it once was, thus not producing as many individuals willing to take what must be taken in this sport, in order to bring home the bacon. Also, we are not letting the participants take the chances they were once allowed to take to prove their mettle. And as I have said before, as kind hearted as such protective actions may be, I honestly think it's wrong minded.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There are still plenty of excellent fighters, but they are spread out over 17 divisions, with 150 titles and a loss means they suck.