BoxRec

Someone on the 'Current Scene' section was wondering why everyone is so detrimental of modern fighters and so keen to eulogise past boxers.

Got me to wondering why this was - for me it comes down to two reasons

1. They did not fight once a year and declare it a 'good year', a lot of boxers (not just the average-mediocre 'opponent' class doing it to pay the bills) fought over a 100 times, some more than 150.

2. They never talked of 'getting out' or a quick career, they were active over 30 years. True, there was not as much money as there is now, but some of today's purses are an insult to those men, especially to those who died or were injured for a pittance.

Does anyone else have reasons for prefering the past boxers to todays fighters?

Their was better fighters back in the day

Their was no such Thing as "Ducking" Everyone fought everyone Some would start off at FW and move up to WW and still fought the best out their

They fought more often

Better fight's none of that PBF vs Baldomir Garbage

I think fighters today have far more distractions and less reason to focus like a lazer and achieve excellence. So there are less of the "excelellent" version of fighters in general.

However those that do are still as good as the older generations.

They just learnt their craft better, would fight a lot when they were just starting out to give them exposure to as many different styles as possible and just generally get used to fighting (and I'm not just talking about guys from the 50s guys like Tommy Hearns in the 80s too).

As mentioned everyone fought everyone (in most cases) because it was the only way to get to the top.

With regards to people running down modern fighters it does happen but it works the other way too. Some people just have real difficulty accepting the idea that just because a football or basketball player from the 50s wouldn't be competitive now the same is not true for boxing. We hear all about improvements in neutrition and training but how much better shape can Jermaine Taylor be in fighting 2-3 times a year than Ray Robinson fight 10 times and upwards in longer fights, each sport is different.

Not saying older fighter are automatically better just that each sport is different in the way it has developed.

Quite simply, there are a LOT less fighters now. At least in the US. There are very few gyms, a near dead amatuer boxing program, and very few young men even interested in the sport anymore.

The problem with today is:

-Inflation of purses; I think if the purses were smaller than there would be more of an incentive to fight more often

-Organizations; there are just too many of them. I think it was a mistake, and I know boxing needed better regulating, but now we have 18 different weight classes and four different titles; that means there could be as many as 72 different champions. Boxing would be better suited if the weight classes went back to the old days and/or drop the four titles and just have the 'world' title and/or FORCE unification.

-PPV's, HBO, Promoters; there is too much hype and ballyhoo in boxing anymore. Boxing is now a 'secret' that is only open to those who can have HBO/SHOWTIME etc, and most boxing matches are on closed circuit and available to those who can afford to pay in excess of $50 for a PPV.

Now as for the old days, the main difference, and I think Jake LaMotta said it best and he said it to this affect:

'Whether you won or lost, you were still in shape, so you fought the next month or next week or next day, so you wouldnt have to go into the trouble of having to retrain.'

Guys today get themselves prepared for ONE fight and then get so friggin far out of shape afterwards that it takes them a year to get back in their element. It's ridiculous.

In my opinion, ANY guy from the 1970's and prior could beat the guys of today, irregardless the weight classes. The guys today just dont have the grit and are babied too much.

And I agree with John L, there just isnt enough gyms around anymore. I remember reading many times how my home town had numerous boxing matches, amateur and professional alike, and they don't anymore, nor have they for over 40 years or better. The nearest gym that is strictly boxing is 60 miles away.

ANother problem with boxing today is that the media focuses a helluva lot on football, soccer, baseball, basketball etc. and whenever boxing is brought up, its usually some 'dark' story that gives a black eye to the sport, yet the UFC gets HUGE press and people get hurt far more severely in that than they do in boxing.

The UFC is doing what boxing done years ago, having it available to the masses on network tv and on cable. It's accessible, while boxing is not. Bring back the days of USA NIGHT FIGHTS, ABC, NBC etc. And don't have mediocre matches like Friday Night Fights have on---I know there's budget problems but ffs you aint going to get ratings if you have matches that are between two slobs.

Just my two cents.

Victor*KC wrote:Their was better fighters back in the day

Their was no such Thing as "Ducking" Everyone fought everyone Some would start off at FW and move up to WW and still fought the best out their

They fought more often

Better fight's none of that PBF vs Baldomir Garbage

A bad case of Rose-Tinted Glasses syndrome.

If there was no such thing as ducking why did Liston have to wait so long for his shot? Why did Dempsey get to avoid Wills? Why wasn't Bert Gilroy given a chance to prove he was national championship material at 160 in the UK?

The Mayweather - Baldomir fight may have turned out very one-sided but Carlos had earned his shot and although he was a big underdog people were interested to see how Floyd handled a big strong-chinned welter. Dismissing it as garbage seems a tad churlish.

Oh ffs...do we have to keep going back to the Wills thing???

Jesus lol

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Oh ffs...do we have to keep going back to the Wills thing???

Jesus lol

Listen up clown, he said there was NO ducking of fighters. I gave a couple of examples. That's called debating.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:The problem with today is:

-Organizations; there are just too many of them. I think it was a mistake, and I know boxing needed better regulating, but now we have 18 different weight classes and four different titles; that means there could be as many as 72 different champions. Boxing would be better suited if the weight classes went back to the old days and/or drop the four titles and just have the 'world' title and/or FORCE unification.

This is just simplistic and repetitive stating of the obvious, Rupert.

Why not tell us how it could be realistically achieved?

He was talking about the fighters of then vs now @ Decagon.

You can find the interview he done in the RING magazine Volume 1 Classic Interviews edition, was done in 2003.

AND....Wills/Dempsey was scheduled to happen @ Collins. Dempsey had fought black men in his early career and used black guys as sparring partners, so I sincerly think its unlikely that racism, at least on Dempsey's part, would have been a factor that the match never materialised.

As far as a realistic answer to boxing's problems with organizations, I don't see it happening honestly. Boxing in the end will be killed off by its own, because everybody wants to get rich off the fighters. Myself, I'd like to see someone have an 'Undisputed' title belt made, so whenever unification happens, it will stay that way---and then each of the four organizations can have its top guys be there as the top 4 contenders that champion will have to face. So, four fights would be there and ready and no need to argue.

Oh I agree, but to the casual fan its hard to tell who's who anymore. Take for example, Larry Holmes. Everybody knew he was the best out there, even though he never unified the titles. Same case can be made for Lennox Lewis.

But with today, and in some eras, you have some people saying 'Wlad's the champ!' while others say Valuev, or Briggs or Maskaev...there just is no closure, and then there's those who say none are the true champion and that Vitali or Lennox truly is.

There needs to be unification. If anything else, for people to know who is what anymore.

In the past there were more pro fighters fighting. It was also a prestige sport which attracted many of the best athletes. These 2 facts on their own are enough for us to believe that probably the overall standard of fighters was better in the past.

Fighters fought more rated contenders, engaged in more rematches and were not unmarketable once they lost a couple of fights. There were still some fights that should have happened but didn't, but generally fighters were more tested against what was most likely a higher standard of competition.

>>>There have always been multiple champions. Archie Moore and George Godfrey were both recognized as World Heavyweight Champion during their respective careers.<<<

No there hasn't!!! Perhaps you could show us all one...just one primary article that calls George Godrey heavyweight champion...if you can present that I will never bother you again, and I'm sure I must remind you...articles written in the past 20, or 30 years do not count...I'm talking about articles from Godfrey's time! Of for that matter...I would like to see an article that calls Archie Moore heavyweight champion! Moore might have claimed that he was champion, but it was never recognized by anyone but himself...and obviously you!

The multiple champions just formed in the middle 1960s. There are a couple of examples when there are a few people claiming championships, such as the 30s middleweights when there were no middleweight champion, but there has never been multiple champions...that was not a problem until the WBC jumped in the race around 1965 followed by the IBF in 1984 and the WBO in 1988 and then the rest!!!

I didn't say it hasnt happened in other eras, I said 'in some other eras', but used the present day as an example and I used Holmes era as well as an example.

As far as Godfrey, I think he did win a title, other than the 'colored' claim that he had. Was the EBU title? or summin to that affect? I know it was near the end of his career though. But I wouldnt say he was 'the' champion, just a minor champ.

The Mayweather - Baldomir fight may have turned out very one-sided but Carlos had earned his shot and although he was a big underdog people were interested to see how Floyd handled a big strong-chinned welter. Dismissing it as garbage seems a tad churlish

If people were so intrested in watching the fight how come they all started to leave?

there was no such thing as ducking why did Liston have to wait so long for his shot? Why did Dempsey get to avoid Wills? Why wasn't Bert Gilroy given a chance to prove he was national championship material at 160 in the UK?

Your right about that But most fighters fought other great fighters to make good money dlh can fight anyone he wants and still make good money Oh and Their is certainly more ducking now then back in the days

Victor*KC wrote:
The Mayweather - Baldomir fight may have turned out very one-sided but Carlos had earned his shot and although he was a big underdog people were interested to see how Floyd handled a big strong-chinned welter. Dismissing it as garbage seems a tad churlish

If people were so intrested in watching the fight how come they all started to leave?

If there was no such thing as ducking why did Liston have to wait so long for his shot? Why did Dempsey get to avoid Wills? Why wasn't Bert Gilroy given a chance to prove he was national championship material at 160 in the UK?

Your right about that But most fighters fought other great fighters to make good money dlh can fight anyone he wants and still make good money Oh and Their is certainly more ducking now then back in the days

People left AFTER the fight started when it soon became obvious that Mayweather was too good for Baldomir. If it had been obvious to them BEFORE the fight they wouldn't have bought tickets would they, Victor?

There might be more 'ducking' now than in the past but that's not what you originally said. I'm glad to see our debate has made you reconsider your position.

Regarding DLH, who has he ducked? His resume reads like a who's who of the last few years. And don't duck the question. Pun intended.

And finally, please work out how the 'quote' feature as I notice your posts are hard to fekkin decipher what you have said and what the original poster has said. I have tried to make this one a bit clearer with colour but would be better if you did it when you post Get onto boxbuzz as he is here to help us and will give you instructions.

Thanks everyone for giving me lots to read, really enjoyed seeing what people thought. I take on board the point of one poster who said i am comparing one decade versus one century. Certainly I have just caught myself 'reminiscing' about Nigel Benn and Carl Thompson, and surely they cannot be anything other than modern boxers. So there may be a rose tinted element to what I am thinking.

I think a lot of more modern boxers would have translated well back into older generations, and vice versa, but some of them (including some 'champions') would have sunk like a stone.

Ricky Hatton, IMO, would have lost to a 140-147 Sugar Ray, Arturo Gatti would have lost to a 147 Jake La Motta. However, Mike Tyson would have demolished Floyd Patterson IMO (I say this due to the interesting mirror of styles), and I think Evander Holyfield (prime version lol) would have acquitted himself well at nearly any point of the past century.

I posted this topic just before going out last night to watch 'Rocky Balboa', so this might explain the rush of nostalgia.

Thanks again

Reading through newspapers, say, from 1880's-1900's (which I have been doing recently researching some things), you see a lot of examples of one fighter calling out other fighters, with no actual fight taking place in the end. It's just that most people never come across such things, they ain't reading old newspapers, all they know about that time comes from secondary sources that for obvious reasons don't mention such things.

Decagon wrote:

barry wrote:>>>There have always been multiple champions. Archie Moore and George Godfrey were both recognized as World Heavyweight Champion during their respective careers.<<<

No there hasn't!!! Perhaps you could show us all one...just one primary article that calls George Godrey heavyweight champion...if you can present that I will never bother you again, and I'm sure I must remind you...articles written in the past 20, or 30 years do not count...I'm talking about articles from Godfrey's time! Of for that matter...I would like to see an article that calls Archie Moore heavyweight champion! Moore might have claimed that he was champion, but it was never recognized by anyone but himself...and obviously you!

The multiple champions just formed in the middle 1960s. There are a couple of examples when there are a few people claiming championships, such as the 30s middleweights when there were no middleweight champion, but there has never been multiple champions...that was not a problem until the WBC jumped in the race around 1965 followed by the IBF in 1984 and the WBO in 1988 and then the rest!!!

So quick to anger you are, yet so slow to think. Archie Moore was recognized as the World Heavyweight Champion by the Nevada State Athletic Commission after beating Nino Valdes, who had claimed the title. Valdes also claimed the World Heavyweight Championship in 1958, after beating Pat McMurty (or at least planned to), according to a 12/17/58 issue of the Berkshire Eagle.

Here's a poster promoting the Godfrey as the World Heavyweight Champion (he was recognized by the IBU). I assume your French is up to the task:

There have always been multiple santioning bodies but to compare it to mess now is flawed. The mainstream press never talked about "unification" or guys like Moore/Godfrey as "HW champions" b/c besides those running the sanctioning body itself no-one cared . . .

the general idea is that the champion is the guy who beat the man who beat the man...last 30 years there hasn't really been that on a regular basis.

dempseyfire wrote:

Decagon wrote:

barry wrote:>>>There have always been multiple champions. Archie Moore and George Godfrey were both recognized as World Heavyweight Champion during their respective careers.<<<

No there hasn't!!! Perhaps you could show us all one...just one primary article that calls George Godrey heavyweight champion...if you can present that I will never bother you again, and I'm sure I must remind you...articles written in the past 20, or 30 years do not count...I'm talking about articles from Godfrey's time! Of for that matter...I would like to see an article that calls Archie Moore heavyweight champion! Moore might have claimed that he was champion, but it was never recognized by anyone but himself...and obviously you!

The multiple champions just formed in the middle 1960s. There are a couple of examples when there are a few people claiming championships, such as the 30s middleweights when there were no middleweight champion, but there has never been multiple champions...that was not a problem until the WBC jumped in the race around 1965 followed by the IBF in 1984 and the WBO in 1988 and then the rest!!!

So quick to anger you are, yet so slow to think. Archie Moore was recognized as the World Heavyweight Champion by the Nevada State Athletic Commission after beating Nino Valdes, who had claimed the title. Valdes also claimed the World Heavyweight Championship in 1958, after beating Pat McMurty (or at least planned to), according to a 12/17/58 issue of the Berkshire Eagle.

Here's a poster promoting the Godfrey as the World Heavyweight Champion (he was recognized by the IBU). I assume your French is up to the task:

There have always been multiple santioning bodies but to compare it to mess now is flawed. The mainstream press never talked about "unification" or guys like Moore/Godfrey as "HW champions" b/c besides those running the sanctioning body itself no-one cared . . .

I tend to agree.

Nowadays no one can say with any authority who is the heavyweight champion of the world.

Whereas in the old days, apart from a few periods when the Champ retired or was stripped in the case of of Ali, everyone knew who the Champ was and no one, apart from their promoters talked of these bogus 'heavyweight champs' as the real McCoy. In most cases their claims are just a footnote if mentioned at all.

Lee Savold as World heavyweight champ is comparable to the fake Fleetwood Mac which didn't have a single member who'd officially been in the real band.

yet the UFC gets HUGE press and people get hurt far more severely in that than they do in boxing.

That's actually not true. A study done by John Hopkins University based on data provided by the Nevada State Athletic Commission actually showed that MMA fighters are far less likely to have brain injuries than boxers. MMA has a higher rate of joint injuries than boxing, but lower per capita than the NFL, however in terms of the brain injuries, which are the ones that do the nasty damage, they are less likely in MMA than in boxing because of the different nature of the sport.