Which Past Fighters Would Dominate in Today’s Era?

[Bundana]

Lol I don’t think they were fighting many journeyman during the peak of their careers. Also, let’s not forget that SRR, Greb, Armstrong etc fought in MULTIPLE weight classes (often becoming champions in most) so would’ve been facing strong competition on their path to fighting for or winning world titles (and slightly lesser titles). Therefore, the fact that they were fighting good competition in multiple different weight classes many times a year MAKES them braver, tougher, stronger etc than today’s best fighters.

So you want to continue focusing exclusively on SRR, Greb and Armstrong? I wonder, why that is... could it be because they just happen to be at the very top of most "greatest fighters of all time" lists?

Yes, those guys were undoubtedly brave, tough, strong, etc.! But were the top old-timers, generally speaking, really in a different league to the top fighters today, when it comes to those qualities?

I think someone like Pacquiao exhibited plenty of strength and toughness, when he went through all those divisions - often facing top opponents that were naturally much bigger than himself.

Same with DLH, Whitaker, Inoue and many more, as they were going up in weight.

And how about someone like Usyk - who pretty much cleaned out two divisions, when mostly fighting in his opponents' backyard.

Are all these (and the rest of today's top fighters) just modern sissies, who would be crushed "9 times out of 10" - if put in against real fighters from days gone by?

[Marchegiano]

Bundy always has good posts



Not sure if this would go over any better than any other attempt at category but does anyone know why the shift to gloves is the single categorization in boxing champions?



It is just as ****** comparing Greb to Mayweather as it is Greb to Mendoza or Mendoza to Melankomas.


The ancients having there own category is only my personal success at getting a narrative through fans without them well actuallying every perspective choice to death. That was easy, no one knew enough to challenge anything I said. ****, y'all still don't.


But if you are familiar then jesus christ you're going to argue for comparisons that require more fantasy than fact to even get them in any sort of ring together or make their achievements actually comparable





**** all no one wants to admit there is **** all nothing special about their champion or champions and those jabronis are simply products of their time.






**** all no one talks about how ****ing impossible Greb's career is by the 40s let alone now but don't let that stop you from pointing out Marciano's a CW today.



You guys absolutely know the HW title was a racist propaganda piece but that's not a good reason to be suspect of the entire era's results period.


You guys absolutely know the only time Spain, Italy, and Germany are major players in HW boxing is when fascism is popular in Europe but don't let that stop you from questioning if Joshua could have done well.




**** man, the ****in 90s had 3 belts but it's totes easy to compare to the four belts era. Lennox, the man who invented unterbelts nearly a decade after his last fight, totes knows what it's like to deal with the unterbelt situation.



Besides all that, the **** you guys call sources only flies because its been accepted forever. Damn near daily I remind Bronson Nat Fliescher is not a good source. Pausanias is a quality source. If ol Pau was given the respect his fiction wiriting counterpart is given then youse jamooks would have the ancients on top because there feats are unbelieveable.


Does anyone here believe Theo went 1200-0?

Mel was unpointed against in over a hundred contests?

It isn't the source that's weak for these, it is the belief any man can, could, ever that is hard to gain.

Think about that for a while. You compare ****** things to compare while using fiction to fill the gaps because followership is a direct reflection of leadership. Someone before you was highly regarded for doing the same exact sort of nonsense. Hmm.

[HisExcellency]

So you want to continue focusing exclusively on SRR, Greb and Armstrong? I wonder, why that is... could it be because they just happen to be at the very top of most "greatest fighters of all time" lists?

Yes, those guys were undoubtedly brave, tough, strong, etc.! But were the top old-timers, generally speaking, really in a different league to the top fighters today, when it comes to those qualities?

I think someone like Pacquiao exhibited plenty of strength and toughness, when he went through all those divisions - often facing top opponents that were naturally much bigger than himself.

Same with DLH, Whitaker, Inoue and many more, as they were going up in weight.

And how about someone like Usyk - who pretty much cleaned out two divisions, when mostly fighting in his opponents' backyard.

Are all these (and the rest of today's top fighters) just modern sissies, who would be crushed "9 times out of 10" - if put in against real fighters from days gone by?

You SPECIFICALLY asked me about the best fighters of the last century vs the best fighters of the current century so of course I’m going to talk about SRR, Greb, Armstrong etc just like you’re entitled to talk about Pacquiao, Duran & Mayweather who are ALSO considered to be amongst the greatest fighters of ALL time. Anyhow, there’s plenty of other great fighters from the last century who also fought hundreds of times in different weight classes too that I haven’t mentioned (Langford, Leonard etc).

Is Armstrong more talented than Pacquiao? Is Greb more talented than Mayweather? Maybe yes maybe no. Nobody KNOWS for certain but let’s assume they’re equivalent talents, the fact that the fighters from the last century fought far more frequently, worked harder and took bigger risks leads me to believe that if they were ever to square off, the old-timers would win 9/10 simply because they’re more battle-hardened (like an experienced solider) and HUNGRIER. It’s as simple as that.

Anyhow, let’s agree to disagree on this one!

[QueensburyRules]

So you want to continue focusing exclusively on SRR, Greb and Armstrong? I wonder, why that is... could it be because they just happen to be at the very top of most "greatest fighters of all time" lists?

Yes, those guys were undoubtedly brave, tough, strong, etc.! But were the top old-timers, generally speaking, really in a different league to the top fighters today, when it comes to those qualities?

I think someone like Pacquiao exhibited plenty of strength and toughness, when he went through all those divisions - often facing top opponents that were naturally much bigger than himself.

Same with DLH, Whitaker, Inoue and many more, as they were going up in weight.

And how about someone like Usyk - who pretty much cleaned out two divisions, when mostly fighting in his opponents' backyard.

Are all these (and the rest of today's top fighters) just modern sissies, who would be crushed "9 times out of 10" - if put in against real fighters from days gone by?

- - Take a guy like Ryan Garcia with bukos natural talent, young and good looking before suddenly covering himself with tats and meltdowns galore not to mention recent drug usage.

But really, that's often the story of high pressure sports aka drunken, bloated golfer John Daly and too many Football/Baseball/Basketball players to keep up with.

[Bundana]

You SPECIFICALLY asked me about the best fighters of the last century vs the best fighters of the current century so of course I’m going to talk about SRR, Greb, Armstrong etc just like you’re entitled to talk about Pacquiao, Duran & Mayweather who are ALSO considered to be amongst the greatest fighters of ALL time. Anyhow, there’s plenty of other great fighters from the last century who also fought hundreds of times in different weight classes too that I haven’t mentioned (Langford, Leonard etc).

Is Armstrong more talented than Pacquiao? Is Greb more talented than Mayweather? Maybe yes maybe no. Nobody KNOWS for certain but let’s assume they’re equivalent talents, the fact that the fighters from the last century fought far more frequently, worked harder and took bigger risks leads me to believe that if they were ever to square off, the old-timers would win 9/10 simply because they’re more battle-hardened (like an experienced solider) and HUNGRIER. It’s as simple as that.

Anyhow, let’s agree to disagree on this one!

Surely you will recognize, that the experience of fighters like Usyk, Loma, Bivol, Beterbiev, Golovkin, etc... isn't limited to their often only 20-25 pro fights. Yes, yes, I know... amateur boxing isn't the same as pro boxing. But how can we ignore the fact, that these boxers had very long amateur careers - with hundreds of fights, and training more or less year round for many years, before making the transition to the pro ranks... which of course enabled them to advance their pro careers much faster than the old-timers. Does anyone believe, prime Loma would have been as successful as soon as he was, without his extensive amateur career?

Contrary to what you may think, I hold the old-timers in high regard! I have said many times (here and elsewhere), that I feel boxing had become more or less "modern" (for lack of a better word) by the end of the 30s (Louis, Armstrong) and early 40s (Pep, SRR). I can't point to any great/specific advancement in skills over the last 80 years, that would make me think, that today's boxers are superior to the old-timers.

But that doesn't mean, that I believe boxing has devolved and turned to **** over the last many decades. There are very fine fighters today, just like in the old days - IMO!

[HisExcellency]

Surely you will recognize, that the experience of fighters like Usyk, Loma, Bivol, Beterbiev, Golovkin, etc... isn't limited to their often only 20-25 pro fights. Yes, yes, I know... amateur boxing isn't the same as pro boxing. But how can we ignore the fact, that these boxers had very long amateur careers - with hundreds of fights, and training more or less year round for many years, before making the transition to the pro ranks... which of course enabled them to advance their pro careers much faster than the old-timers. Does anyone believe, prime Loma would have been as successful as soon as he was, without his extensive amateur career?

Contrary to what you may think, I hold the old-timers in high regard! I have said many times (here and elsewhere), that I feel boxing had become more or less "modern" (for lack of a better word) by the end of the 30s (Louis, Armstrong) and early 40s (Pep, SRR). I can't point to any great/specific advancement in skills over the last 80 years, that would make me think, that today's boxers are superior to the old-timers.

But that doesn't mean, that I believe boxing has devolved and turned to **** over the last many decades. There are very fine fighters today, just like in the old days - IMO!

I wasn't going to respond as I think I already made my point but it's simply LAUGHABLE to compare 3 round amateur fights with the headgear on to potentially 15 round pro fights!

[Bundana]

I wasn't going to respond as I think I already made my point but it's simply LAUGHABLE to compare 3 round amateur fights with the headgear on to potentially 15 round pro fights!

I'm not comparing amateur bouts to pro fights... all I'm saying, is that those fighters learned enough during a long amateur career, to make quick progess in the pro ranks. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Mr Mitts]

Organ and piano are not the same, just like amateur and pro boxing. Being a great organ player does not make you a great pianist. In fact, you probably are not. Amateur eastern fighters for all those years are at least on a keyboard, learning what to do as boxers. If you are a great organist you are at least a pretty damned good pianist. These eastern amateurs have been on the keyboard longer.

[Willie Pep 229]

I usually go with the old guys over the young guys because I'm old.

I also don't think that three round amateur boxing compares with prize fighting.

BUT . . .

I think this 'new way,' of having an extended amateur career, followed by a shorter professional career, is better for the fighters.

With this 'new' way fighters are given a chance to hone their skills to perfection without their bodies taking a beating and breaking down.

By the time these new type guys like the Lomas or Usyks reach the pro ranks they are well seasoned fighters but not yet ring worn.

I like this 'new' way it gives us seasoned fighters without destroying the man as much.

I have always argued that football players benefit from years of minor league experience (pee-wee, high school, college), before they become professionals.

When they first appeared (the eastern Europeans) with their extended amatuer records I "poo pooed" them. Now I am thinking maybe it is the better way to go (for the fighter).

[Mr Mitts]

I usually go with the old guys over the young guys because I'm old.

I also don't think that three round amateur boxing compares with prize fighting.

BUT . . .

I think this 'new way,' of having an extended amateur career, followed by a shorter professional career, is better for the fighters.

With this 'new' way fighters are given a chance to hone their skills to perfection without their bodies taking a beating and breaking down.

By the time these new type guys like the Lomas or Usyks reach the pro ranks they are well seasoned fighters but not yet ring worn.

I like this 'new' way it gives us seasoned fighters without destroying the man as much.

I have always argued that football players benefit from years of minor league experience (pee-wee, high school, college), before they become professionals.

When they first appeared (the eastern Europeans) with their extended amatuer records I "poo pooed" them. Now I am thinking maybe it is the better way to go (for the fighter).

Oh, doesn't compare. No points of similarity. They don't get any boxing experience from an amateur fight. Just none at all. You made a dumb statement which I do not let pass without comment. I already explained how they are similar and different using metaphors.