BoxRec

It's hard to argue against Robinson, Greb, Charles, Armstrong or Langford IMO, all great fighters

If boxers in the early part of 1900's are better than boxers of today then the sport has not moved on one iota. All the talk of these figures from the early years have no resemblance on boxers of today. Mike Tyson for one would have destroyed most of the yesteryear heavy's without much problem. Call me insane but I just dont go down the route of comparing the 1900's with the standard today. Lennox lewis would have dispatched most too. Simply different era. Boxers of today are possible far stronger and hit a lot harder, its common sense its also called evolution.

Two different things here. Greater and better. The thread is about greatest fighters which is fairly easy to work out looking at what they did in their careers.

Better is a whole different argument and one that it is impossible to know either way only guess. Greater however can be more easily measured.

An example would be say Jack Johnson . Is he greater than Shannon Briggs? Well yes. Nobody could argue otherwise. Would Johnson have beaten Briggs. Well I think so but don't really know. Maybe Briggs punches so hard guys from Johnson era just crumble. Who knows?

mimmy123 wrote:If boxers in the early part of 1900's are better than boxers of today then the sport has not moved on one iota. All the talk of these figures from the early years have no resemblance on boxers of today. Mike Tyson for one would have destroyed most of the yesteryear heavy's without much problem. Call me insane but I just dont go down the route of comparing the 1900's with the standard today. Lennox lewis would have dispatched most too. Simply different era. Boxers of today are possible far stronger and hit a lot harder, its common sense its also called evolution.

I agree it seems it's only boxing that many claim that athletes of 100 years ago are better than today's sportsmen , no ones thinks sir Stanley Matthews was better than messi

We'll see if Messi is still playing top level at 50 like Matthews. Or if Messi could dribble with one of those heavy leather case balls and clogs for boots :-) Hehe No I know what you mean. People compare in all sports. The better argument is a tough one for the old sports peeps when considering how much faster olympians are these days. Then again, there's other things to consider. How many people participate for one. I read somewhere there were as many gyms in new york in the 30s as are in the whole us now. Quality does go up the more people do a sport.

Evolution does not have an effect over a mere century. It's training and nutrition that's advanced in that short span of time not humans themselves.

Let's be honest, how many soldiers today could go into pitched battle with sword and shield wearing mail or plate armour? Archers would struggle to draw an ancient longbow never mind effectively fight with it.

cfang wrote:We'll see if Messi is still playing top level at 50 like Matthews. Or if Messi could dribble with one of those heavy leather case balls and clogs for boots :-) Hehe No I know what you mean. People compare in all sports. The better argument is a tough one for the old sports peeps when considering how much faster olympians are these days. Then again, there's other things to consider. How many people participate for one. I read somewhere there were as many gyms in new york in the 30s as are in the whole us now. Quality does go up the more people do a sport.

Messi will not be playing at 50 years old as he will not need to he can retire at 30 odd and live a luxurious lifestyle. Matthews on the other hand was mostl likely getting 2bob per game and was almost likely playing to pay off his mortgage and save a little for his retirement. This also applies to the fighters of 100 plus bouts back in the blacka nd white days, they didnt fight on and on because they enjoyed it, they did it to keep their currnet lifestyle going.

Tomasino wrote:Evolution does not have an effect over a mere century. It's training and nutrition that's advanced in that short span of time not humans themselves.

Let's be honest, how many soldiers today could go into pitched battle with sword and shield wearing mail or plate armour? Archers would struggle to draw an ancient longbow never mind effectively fight with it.

Those soldiers had to do it. That was the technology of those days, I bet at the end of the night, the ones that came home alive where effing shattered and needed a bloody goods night sleep. Technology has moved on in all walks of life it has made man life a lot longer, become fitter in some cases and stopped many many people of dieing of simple illness whch are not around today due to simple antibiotic drugs.

Improvements in training and nutrition doesn't make someone a better fighter. Many of the old timers fought because they had too where as too many top fighters today are millionaires and don't have to fight tooth and nail to support their families. Its hard to pit heavyweights against old timers as they are huge today and sheer size does play a part.

Always hate to hear about training "improvements". Why is everything that is done today better than a long time ago?
We all know that there are exercise fads coming out all of the time. Some have merit, some don't.
Also, some exercise are more efficient that years; i.e. it won't take some as long to get the same results as the "old fashioned" way. However, if an old timer put in the time, he would get the results doing something the "old fashioned" way.

mimmy123 wrote:

Tomasino wrote:Evolution does not have an effect over a mere century. It's training and nutrition that's advanced in that short span of time not humans themselves.

Let's be honest, how many soldiers today could go into pitched battle with sword and shield wearing mail or plate armour? Archers would struggle to draw an ancient longbow never mind effectively fight with it.

Those soldiers had to do it. That was the technology of those days, I bet at the end of the night, the ones that came home alive where effing shattered and needed a bloody goods night sleep. Technology has moved on in all walks of life it has made man life a lot longer, become fitter in some cases and stopped many many people of dieing of simple illness whch are not around today due to simple antibiotic drugs.

So what's evolution got to do with it?

Going off topic slightly but you could argue as a race our evolution is going backwards. The computer age means we are less and less required to be physically active, most things are done at a touch of a button or involves a machine or computer of some sort. Faster, easy and more convenient yes but making us lazy, probably. How long will it be before the ability to read and write becomes a forgotten art? As it is I rarely have to write anything anymore, it's mostly done on keyboards (real and virtual). Schools are even dumbing down and allowing "text" speak in exams, I even read the other day punctuation is now thought by some experts as being pointless. Give it 50 years and pens and pencils won't exist and kids will type everything in emojis and slang, great isn't it!!!

Someone mentioned the military, todays troops in the British Army have had all the entry requirements made easier, the physical tests can now be completed in trainers where they used to have to wear boots. Two reasons for this, one they can't recruit like they used to and warfare has changed so soldiers are unlikely to march for hours on end carrying their kit. Air strikes take care of most attacks. But who would cope better in WW2 or a tough environment where they couldn't really on backup, the old timers thats who.

Also add in fast foods and GM modified foods and peoples diets are generally poor. Medical advancements mean people live longer and illnesses can be cured or controlled better than ever but in relation to boxing ability it has zero effect in my opinion. People are getting bigger which means heavyweights are now monsters compared to their counterparts, but better fighters? No I don't think so. Where heavyweights today have the edge is sheer size which can effectively mean they could steamroll someone 4-5 stone lighter than them.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Always hate to hear about training "improvements". Why is everything that is done today better than a long time ago?
We all know that there are exercise fads coming out all of the time. Some have merit, some don't.
Also, some exercise are more efficient that years; i.e. it won't take some as long to get the same results as the "old fashioned" way. However, if an old timer put in the time, he would get the results doing something the "old fashioned" way.

We do have a better understanding of the human body and drugs and nutrition also play a part but evolution doesn't.

I agree with that, but only to a certain extent. What is good and bad for you constantly changes.
Diet soda is now worse than regular. Carbs are bad, a while back they were good. Are eggs good for you this week or bad?
Use energy drinks, don't use energy drinks, yes use energy drinks etc.

As for excercise-Sit ups a perfect example. It worked for decades, now it doesn't anymore? I'm sure there other things would work faster, but that doesn't mean that an old way doesn't work.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I agree with that, but only to a certain extent. What is good and bad for you constantly changes.
Diet soda is now worse than regular. Carbs are bad, a while back they were good. Are eggs good for you this week or bad?
Use energy drinks, don't use energy drinks, yes use energy drinks etc.

As for excercise-Sit ups a perfect example. It worked for decades, now it doesn't anymore? I'm sure there other things would work faster, but that doesn't mean that an old way doesn't work.

I agree, I don't think for a second that guys like Greb, Charles, Armstrong etc wouldn't mop up today's fighters. Take Archie Moore chewing food and not swallowing for example...today he'd know that isn't nutritionally sound and would have other more proven methods to make weight. Or J L Sullivan having to drink beer and broth during training because the water wasn't clean enough...

It's probably only drugs that are the major factor that modern fighters have over the old timers...

We can never know how good he really was but Jack Broughton must have been some machine.

I think that there where more boxers in the past so only the very best got to fight for world titles most of the time, so you can guarantee that world title holders where usually the absolute best of their division not like today! Where anyone with good management and some ability can get world honours. I also think styles have changed so much in the last hundred years that it is hard to compare really? The likes of the odd few like Mayweather's, Hopkins and the Toney's of this world know how to box that old style which is very effective and still works today but the style of John L Sullivan wouldn't IMO.

Rexob wrote:I think that there where more boxers in the past so only the very best got to fight for world titles most of the time, so you can guarantee that world title holders where usually the absolute best of their division not like today! Where anyone with good management and some ability can get world honours. I also think styles have changed so much in the last hundred years that it is hard to compare really? The likes of the odd few like Mayweather's, Hopkins and the Toney's of this world know how to box that old style which is very effective and still works today but the style of John L Sullivan wouldn't IMO.

Not in today's boxing but he must have been a hardy bastard for sure. I wasn't giving John L as an example of a great who could compete today, more an example of crazy old school nutritional methods. Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles etc are more than slick enough to Compete with today's fighters IMO. Joe Louis would tear through this mess we call the heavyweights too.

Sullivan is a hard case. However, anyone that can punch hard and throws a lot of punches is dangerous. And looking at modern heavyweights...

Ambling Alp II wrote:Sullivan is a hard case. However, anyone that can punch hard and throws a lot of punches is dangerous. And looking at modern heavyweights...

I mean I'd bet him to beat most of them bar Wlad but I'd not be close to certain on that with his shaky chin. John L did seem to have some pretty tough training camps...

Someone put a great article on here a while back about an interview john L gave with a lady reporter when he was still fighting. It mentioned a couple of details that were interesting. The lady said he had small, quite soft hands and didn't really look like a fighter at first glance. He talked about his training and how he looked after himself and i recall it being pretty impressive.

I think all the great fighters of the past trained well really and as hard as today. In some cases harder. It's easy for peeps to think of JLS of some fat, drunk swinging wildly but that's not the case. In his prime he must have been incredible and I'd take him to beat Wlad....without gloves lol

As we're on the topic again of greatest lb for lb. I've been reading Adam Pollack's book on jeffries this week and makes me think, what stops Bob Fitzimmons being up there with Greb, Langford and SRR? He was a middle fighting way out of his weight class, won undisputed titles at 3 weights and with today's divisions that would have been 5! Also a lot of his toughest fights and best wins were against bigger men and probably most importantly, younger too. He was in his mid/late 30s fighting corbett, jeffries, sharkey etc. He was prob unbeatable in his prime as a middle. He even was equally successful with gloves and without.

Let's be honest, is he not rated as highly as other boxers from history because of the way he looked? His image of a bald guy with those skinny legs doesn't fit when compared to say Langford's squat looking power or Grebs 1920's dapperness or SRR's supercool dancer image too.

L.A. kidd wrote:this topic has been talked about ad nausem, but, I have to get my two cents in. I have to go with billy conn, who started off as a welterweight, and wound up fighting heavyweights like joe Louis.

I don't think sugar ray was the greatest lb for lb because he was a failure as a light heavyweight.

what do you guys think?

i think i interpret the meaning
of "lb for lb" very, very differently.

cfang wrote:As we're on the topic again of greatest lb for lb. I've been reading Adam Pollack's book on jeffries this week and makes me think, what stops Bob Fitzimmons being up there with Greb, Langford and SRR? He was a middle fighting way out of his weight class, won undisputed titles at 3 weights and with today's divisions that would have been 5! Also a lot of his toughest fights and best wins were against bigger men and probably most importantly, younger too. He was in his mid/late 30s fighting corbett, jeffries, sharkey etc. He was prob unbeatable in his prime as a middle. He even was equally successful with gloves and without.

Let's be honest, is he not rated as highly as other boxers from history because of the way he looked? His image of a bald guy with those skinny legs doesn't fit when compared to say Langford's squat looking power or Grebs 1920's dapperness or SRR's supercool dancer image too.

I have also ranked the great Bob Fitzsimmons as one of the top best 15 fighters ever. I got him ranked about the 12th slot position. Considering what he did in boxing, like you explained it above, is remarkable. A true all time great.

Why is the Pound for Pound concept so difficult for people to understand? When measuring P4P greatness, it has NOTHING to do with moving to heavier weight classes or lighter weight classes. The concept is to consider if everyone was the same weight, to the pound, who would be the best? SRR P4P greatness has NOTHING to do with the lack of success he had moving up to light heavy.

Right this minute GGG is the best pound for pound fighter. No one is more effective or feared in any weight class. He knocks everyone out. He doesn't have to fight at heavyweight for a fight to demonstrate this.