You neglected to mention one small point:The Great John L wrote: Lennox Lewis is a good example of a large, skilled HW with great accomplishments. He would have held his own with anyone in history, and beaten all but a few.
his glass chin.
Bonavena
Worth repeating.The Great John L wrote:My entire point was, and always has been that in general the fighters can’t be as good if there are only a fraction of the number of participants that there were in prior generations. For example, the main reason why talent is improving in games/sports such as golf is that there are a LOT more people playing it. If Woods, Lefty and Vijay never had a chance to play golf, then the talent in golf would not be as good as what we now see.DaveV17 wrote: The sport might not be popular, but the fighters are still good.
Imagine if guys like Louis, Pepp, Robinson and Armstrong had never taken up boxing because there were no boxing gyms. That’s the situation we have now in many cities that used to have boxing gyms just around the corner. The few remaining fighters might have gotten better training, but the best guys would have never even tried the sport.
And I still wonder about the whole concept that they are better trained now. Are we watching the same fights? Is there ANY current HW who can fight at a decent pace for more than 5 rounds? In general the training methods may be better, but athletes still need desire and discipline, and I don’t think our western societies do a good job of instilling these virtues in our young people.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Yes his chin and also his concentration were shortcomings. But he was infintely more skilled than any of the current crop of "giant" HWs we're saddled with now...granberry wrote:You neglected to mention one small point:The Great John L wrote: Lennox Lewis is a good example of a large, skilled HW with great accomplishments. He would have held his own with anyone in history, and beaten all but a few.
his glass chin.
This has to be true. The more people participating the better chances of there being average, good and great ones among the also-rans... It's simple probability...The Great John L wrote:
My entire point was, and always has been that in general the fighters can’t be as good if there are only a fraction of the number of participants that there were in prior generations. For example, the main reason why talent is improving in games/sports such as golf is that there are a LOT more people playing it. If Woods, Lefty and Vijay never had a chance to play golf, then the talent in golf would not be as good as what we now see.
Imagine if guys like Louis, Pepp, Robinson and Armstrong had never taken up boxing because there were no boxing gyms. That’s the situation we have now in many cities that used to have boxing gyms just around the corner. The few remaining fighters might have gotten better training, but the best guys would have never even tried the sport.
In general the training methods may be better, but athletes still need desire and discipline, and I don’t think our western societies do a good job of instilling these virtues in our young people.
Of course the greatest of fighters could come in any era but it's most likely, and most open to evidence, in an era where there are many participants.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
There were more fighters in the 70’s and earlier. With the advent of computers and the internet, it’s a bit easier to track these things now than it was in earlier eras. If you try researching earlier fighters you’d learn how difficult it was prior to current technology.DaveV17 wrote:John L. and Ezzard,
According to Boxing Rec. there are about 1,800 Heavyweights and Cruiserweights that are active today. All of them would have been heavyweights before there was a cruiserweight class. I can remember when The Ring used to rate all of the fighters each year from Champions, to contenders to A,B,C,and D level fighters. I don't believe they ever had 1800 heavyweights rated (not even close). So maybe there is more participation today?
If so, according to your argument, heavyweights today are better than in years past because there are more of them?
Boxing was actually taught in my gym class in the early 70’s here in NE Ohio. Some of the guys in my class were even referred to a neighborhood boxing gym and one even went on to some success in the pro ranks. Do you think there’s any chance of that happening today? In fact, there are hardly any boxing gyms left, let alone any boxing programs in gym classes.
Colleges had boxing teams well up into the 1950's.The Great John L wrote:
There were more fighters in the 70’s and earlier. With the advent of computers and the internet, it’s a bit easier to track these things now than it was in earlier eras. If you try researching earlier fighters you’d learn how difficult it was prior to current technology.
Boxing was actually taught in my gym class in the early 70’s here in NE Ohio. Some of the guys in my class were even referred to a neighborhood boxing gym and one even went on to some success in the pro ranks. Do you think there’s any chance of that happening today? In fact, there are hardly any boxing gyms left, let alone any boxing programs in gym classes.
As a kid I was introduced to boxing (with gloves on) in school gym class.
I thought it was sissified.
Until about 1960, the US Golden Glove national championships were big news. They were featured on movie theater newsreels.
During the world wars and afterwards the US armed forces boxing championships were followed nationally.
In the past boxing had a much greater following.
The glitz TV, ABC, Sports Illustrated comglomerate presented a far inferior level of so called boxing and killed it.