Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

A question posed by Champion97. I've seen a fair share of questions regarding past greats vs. current champions posed on a forum, but in the pattern of a specific case with two specific historical and modern fighters in the question. That's a pretty common forum topic for sure. But who wins... generally? Are training styles and athletes of today inherently better prepared and more likely to win?

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats.. who wins? FOT, easily

I believe that there are very few world champions in the old days that would stand a chance against a world champion around today, I also strongly believe that nearly no world champion living in this decade would stand a chance against a fighter living in the year 2055, or even less, in 2095, and I think these fighters would have virtually no chance against the best boxers in the year 2160, Floyd Mayweather has been up there, battling for the top spot with Manny Pacquiao for years, and he has proved how he is likely to be the best on the planet as he nullified Pacquiao in May of this year, he says he is the best on the planet, fair enough, he says he is the best that has ever lived, far from ridiculous, he says there will never be a boxer as good as him, that is laughable, I do think he is something special, and it will take numerous decades for a better boxer to come along, but he couldn't beat a single world champion who lives in the year 3000, in my strong opinion, or 2500 for that matter, I think he would stand little chance against a world champion living in the year 2200, in my opinion.

I have so many reasons why I believe this,

1. Diets, diets are a very crucial thing in life, some people don't like it, but the fact is you have to face it sooner or later, I know that new facts come along all the time, doctors, dietitians, personal trainers and many other people working in health related fields learn new things all the time period and therefore they know that things are improving in their profession, as this happens new and much improved advice can be given out and people's diets are improving, average people and athletes, helping them to be healthier and it can have an impact on someone's personal fitness in a very good way, my dad was born in 1958, when he was a young lad, his diet was very bad, real lack of vitamins, minerals etc, and he was fed a high amount of all the nutrients that people aren't supposed to have much of, my grandparents had no idea there was a problem with this and why would they?, everyone else ate this way, they even thought smoking was healthy at one point, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that people (all kinds of people) know far more now about health and nutrition, a trainer for any sport, defiantly a boxing trainer now could tell you far more than a boxing trainer 50 years ago. In conclusion this shows that a hard working athlete in 1965 could not possibly be getting as good nutrition and quantities of nutrition as a very hard working athlete in 2015, this makes an undeniable difference to health and fitness, and nobody can say that this doesn't give fighters of today a defiant advantage, if this point wasn't valid then why would boxers monitor their diets?, I also have two other points branching from my diet theory, one is height the other is lifespans, these just back my theory up, my granddad was 5'3.5 and was average height, I'm 5'6.5 and known as a short kid, I bet you if you look at your family tree you will see your ancestors dying younger as the tree goes back further, at the same time you will have hope that your children and grand children will live longer than you, and I'm sure they will, this shows that people are continuing to get healthier.

2. Technicality comparison, technical skills in boxing are not always something you can see in the gym, sometimes you have to prove you have technical skills by showing that you have them whilst in the ring with your opponent, when I see a fight that occurred in the 1960s (take the thrilla in manilla for example), I see two well conditioned, strong, fast, fit athletes, (athletes who use their physical attributes) trying to be the more hurtful fighter, trying to kill them in a sense, trying to use all the attributes they can, physically, it looks like a battle of who has more heart, they both have so much heart and this makes it great, but this is it, when I watch a top level fight in 2015, I see two guys trying to nullify each other, pouring, feinting, thinking about finding the range, thinking about when and how to fire their bullets, comparing inside fighting to outside fighting, thinking tactically, trying to execute a studied, complex and practised game plan, I see fighters looking for countering opportunities often, sometimes leading off, maybe trying to split the guard, find a gap or opening, or possibly just smother and break the rhythm of their opponent, whatever the tactics are, a boxer in this day and age always thinks before he does, and has far more tools, and seems to have a plan B most of the time, not something I saw often in fighters of old, another thing I notice is that a few decades ago I would see a southpaw boxer or an orthodox stance boxer, but not both, now stance switching is a much more common thing, in the old days I see decent footwork from some fighters, (like Ali) but I don't see them showing anywhere near as accurate lateral movement as fighters today, the way boxers change direction is something special, they make it look easy, I have watched so many old fights and never have I got the impression that they have worked on timing punches or have studied the style of their opponents, but I see this now, Mayweather is a class act, Ward is a class act, Crawford is a class act, these are 3 undefeated examples, these three fighters are all so intelligent in the ring, they can knock their opponent out just like fighters of old could and can have great fights, if their knockout comes, it comes, and they can achieve it, in explosive fashion, they can cause damage just as champions of old could, there is nothing that the fighters their weight and level 50 years ago could do but they couldn't do, but what makes them different are the facts that they can defend in different ways, the way these fighters block, angle their body, pivert, and move their head, it is exceptional and not something you would see in 1970, why do you think connect percentages have gotten so much lower over the years? because boxers are becoming far more defensively skilled, I think this is fantastic for the sport, yes, fighters aren't necessarily getting more active, and yes, you could argue that people might lose interest because today's fights contain less punches, but I think this makes real fans appreciate the punches more, I think the sport of boxing will continue to thrive and rise, Mayweather is something special, partly because of his unique and almost inhumanly skilled looking shoulder roll, but I bet you in the year 2115 the shoulder roll will be nothing special, it will always be difficult and impressive, but there will be so many more world class fighters that can do it, these points are most of the reason why I think that technical skills in the ring have improved a huge amount.

3. Training method variety, training for a boxing fight is something you see more of nowadays than a few decades ago because a lot of it shown on magazine shows such as all access for showtime fights and 24/7 for HBO fights, when I watch clips of past fighters training for boxing fights I see a guy running to the gym early in the morning, I see a guy killing the punch bags, I think when Ali and Frazier were training to fight each other Ali would have spent a lot of time making speed bags look slow and Frazier would have spent more time chopping away at the heavy bags, I see the boxers of old doing press up, sit ups, pull ups, using the medicine ball, and many other ways of training, but since then the list of exercises has grown, massively, if you watch the likes of Mayweather and Pacquiao training you see much more fruitfull and complex training methods, the way they use modern equipment, the way they use new found knowledge of where the right muscles are for the right exercise, this is how they know for how long and how they should put their research into practise, nowadays fighters train in ways they can find the target of their opponent in unexpected ways, working on different angles etc. Anybody who knows boxing would agree that there many training methods that are very clever and people should stop to think that actually fighters now can use training methods from the past, but new training methods are being discovered as time goes on and obviously a fighter who lived a few decades ago couldn't look into the future. I have noticed that boxers use equipment in ways nobody ever thought to us enough it 50 years ago, for example I have seen Tyson Fury, strengthening up for his Chisora rematch by pushing a tractor up a hill, I have seen Shawn Porter training with a small ball hanging from a piece of elastic, hanging from his head, as a method for the benefit of his hand speed, and I have heard he trains with a blindfold around his head. I have seen Manny Pacquiao use various unusual techniques, like picking up that ball and dropping it in a circuit, and those unusual abdominal exercises, in my opinion, unusual techniques are almost always good techniques, I would also like to point out how much better and more skilled trainers are now than 50 years ago, the way they make padwork team work rather than just holding them up for boxers to punch, and I'm not even sure how long body protecting gear for trainers to wear has even been around, and having this tool is great practise for the body punching skills of a boxer. This comment would be the longest ever posted on this website if I mentioned every single example I could think of.

4. General knowledge of the sport, I have watched many great fights that happened decades ago, and I have also watched many ringside interviews, or an interview somewhere else with input from analysts from decades ago, and in my mind, none of their opinions even compare to the opinions of somebody who analyses fights in this day and age, like Barry Jones, Steve Bunce, Paulie Malignaggi, Bernard Hopkins, Richie Woodall, Al Bernstein, these are six examples of very knowledgeable boxing analysts, the majority of them are former boxers, a couple have fought recently, but I have seen all six of these guys and many others give far better assessments than any analysts a few decades ago, when I watch a fight in this century I see the commentators analysing exactly what is going on inside the ring, talking about keys to victory between rounds, talking about how the fighters have used their best attributes in the previous round, and also talking about exactly what they need to to either put right their errors, or keep up the good work, for example, on showtime, if say for example Floyd Mayweather fought Amir Khan, and they have just boxed with similar quality for the first 3 minutes of the fight, then I can imagine Paulie Malignaggi, Steve Farhood and Al Bernstein giving a detailed, well thought out, and knowledgeable analysis of what was going on in the ring, saying something like "Floyd Mayweather used his defence a lot in that round, he was successful when decided to let his hands go, but his work rate was very low, Amir Khan did a nice job of being active in that round, and at the same time he controlled the range, it is true he probably didn't time his shots quite as well as Mayweather and not all those shots were landing, but some were landing, I think both these guys have good game plans here, and both boxers used their lateral movement around the ring, will be interesting to see how this fight unravels', If Muhammad Ali had fought Rocky Marciano, and we had just seen one tight round, then I'm convinced we would hear nothing more intelligent than 'this should be a great battle, all the fans really been looking forward to this one, pretty even stuff so far, young clay so confident, Marciano so composed, carrying so much experience', and if they heard the wisdom of analysts living in 2015, they probably wouldn't be sure what they meant. I have established the fact that commentary was nowhere near as good in those days, and also that no pundit 50 years ago understood anywhere near as much as pundits nowadays, sure they would have known so much about the history of the sport, but about the actual science of the sport inside of the ring, they don't even figure on the scale. If commentators, who many were boxers themselves once upon a time both then and now, have learned a lot over the years, then surely trainers and boxers have also learned more, it may seem like reason 2 and reason 4 are the same point that is being worded differently, but I can explain why they are not the same thing, in my second reason I was explaining how much more technical the sport is now than it was back then in that defence, patience, timing etc has really improved, and does relate to this fourth reason I'm explaining, but this is all about overall ring smarts, yes analysts knowing more doesn't the really affect the fighters in the ring, but what you have to understand is that if analysts know so much more, then so do trainers, and this means they can teach their fighters so much more, they can teach them what their real strengths are, they can work around their weaknesses. It isn't so easy to know where to start in terms of examples, but watching fighters like Muhammad Ali, Rocky Marciano, and Joe Louis, I just get the sense that they had gotten as fast, strong, fit, and motivated as possible, but when I watch Floyd Mayweather, Andre Ward, Terence Crawford, or another great fighter of today training I get the sense that they are wroked on being smart, nullifying their opponent, they know what their strengths are, and they know what mistakes not to make.

5. Standards rising, I have noticed how much harder it is to get fights in the sport of boxing nowadays, which means you have to be at a higher level and ability to fight in 2015 than you did in the year 1960, and therefore the boxing standards have risen. I have been boxing for nearly five years now, I have been forced to take long chunks of time out of the sport for various reasons, but I have still been improving, and I know I could box rings around a kid my weight who has fought many times in a year before 1950, if I ever do fight I will need a license, which will not be easy, it isn't very easy for anyone, it was very easy in the old days, I have seen movies about Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali, I have seen them start out their boxing careers, and it seemed so much more simple that it would be nowadays, it was just walk in, get shown the basics, of course train very hard physically, get a fight, maybe win, maybe lose, based on you wanting it more, therefore being faster, stronger and fitter than your opponent, and winning, nowadays there is so much more to it, you are not allowed to fight until you have a license, and you don't get a license unless you're fitness is brilliant, and so is your defence, you need to know how to defend yourselves, at the level a boxer was 60 years ago when they were allowed to fight for the first time, if a boxer asked for a fight at that level in 2015, then I guarantee they would be laughed at. This point goes all the way from this level all the way up to world title level, I would never deny that Joe Louis looked dominant against the likes of Max Schmeling, Ezzard Charles etc, but why?, that is a question I have asked myself many times I feel I have found the answer, because although it may look as if he put on more brutal performances against his opponents, and held whatever belts for longer than world champions in the twenty first century, the reason he looked that dominant was because of who he was fighting, if you have two boxers in front of hundreds of screaming fans, one of them is stronger than the other, is a naturally hard puncher, is naturally fast, is in good shape, and they destroy not only this opponent but many, many others in a generation with poor diet, not very much technicality, low standards then this does not put them in the same league as a world champion who has all the previously mentioned attributes, is in an era with good nutrition, and has worked on and executed a very intelligent game plan which is the best way for them to nullify their opponent, if I absorb the comparison in my mind of Wilder and Louis, there is no comparison, the way they and their opponents are standing, what their trainers tell them, it is just a different world, not only this, but it is far, far better today than in those days, the reason Louis nearly always won, and looked dominant in holding whatever title for however long, but this is because he was in the ring with another guy living in a generation with low standards, poor nutrition, and not very much knowledge of technicality in the sport of boxing, when I watch and old fight, I don't see any interest in timing punches, I see little interest in defence, I see a lack of lateral movement, it just looked like the ring was a big bucket of blood for a brutal, savage sport, a game where both guys are trying desperately to knock each other out and the crowd love story it, but that is all I see. I know that standards are rising, rules are getting more strict, therefore every boxer needs to be better now to get their first fight confirmed than 50 years ago, and a boxer will need be better to get their first fight in the year 2065 than now, I'm almost certain of that, I think new rules will come along in the future, I think fitness tests will be tougher, I think the rule 'protect yourself at all times' will be stronger. So in conclusion, what reason 5 is really saying is that people should look less at titles and who won or held what title and for how long, and more at individual fights and exactly what the two fighters were doing in the ring, because someone has to fight for the world title, and if an absolutely incredible fighter doesn't exist, and a good fighter is the best on the planet, then this good fighter will win the world title, it doesn't mean they compare to someone winning the world title in a competitive division, and people should look at how many great fighters a boxer beats, for every title a boxer can fight for, I'm confident you have to be better to fight for it now than in the previous century, I would like to point out that the world population is rapidly increasing, the sport is expanding, there are more boxers nowadays, and more options, and I think for all these reasons that the standards have massively risen in the sport of boxing in the last few decades.

I think people feel like the most entertaining fights of all time are fights like 'the rumble in the jungle' and 'the thrilla in manilla', and therefore because Ali was one of the most exciting fighters ever, people will not only assume but then insist that he is the best ever boxer, and they won't put much thinking on it, I will agree that it is fair to say boxing isn't as exciting now, (although I don't agree), and in a casual fan's mind, this makes the old days of boxing the the days with the more exciting fighters, but just because a boxer has a more brutal fight does not make them a better fighter, it is a fact that Floyd Mayweather Jr is one of the best, if not the best on the planet, and yet he is far from a crowd pleaser, anything but, and I'm sure people would agree that an entertaining, world level, 'give it everything' welterweight that loses many fights at world level would stand only a punchers chance against him.

I'm going to give some FOT vs FOO predictions, using the 10 points must system

Ray Leonard vs Floyd Mayweather Jr
Mayweather patiently and easily out points Leonard, 117-111, 117-111 and 117-111, Leonard would make the fight competitive, have more than his moments as he would make Floyd work, he would use his fast flurries to make Floyd rhythm a little off at times, but the timing on that sharp right hand of Floyd is something else, I think it would be placed with the jab, left hook, and uppercut, and it would nullify Leonard, I think Mayweather would more than avenge his father's defeat to Leonard.

Anthony Joshua vs Joe Louis
I think Joe Louis would think 'come on champ, how different can boxing here in the future be?, let's just try and finish this guy' and he would go for Joshua and get a nasty shock when he gets thrown back with a well timed, lovely jab, I think Joshua would patiently, beat up, mark up, and school Louis for the first two rounds, I think he would drop and stagger Louis in the third round, and Louis would be stopped standing, and I think he would be confused as to why the fight was over when nobody has been smashed out of the ring.

Marcos Maidana vs welterweight Roberto Duran
I think Maidana would absolutely destroy Duran after a few competitive rounds, I think there would be even spots of the first round or two, but I think the difference would be the jab of Maidana which would be why he gets the first couple on all the scorecards, I think chino would abandon his jab, and have a war, I think Maidana's punches would bother Duran, but Druan's punches would not bother Maidana, and I think Duran would tire, and Chino would brutally stop him. I think in round 6.

Terence Crawford vs Roberto Duran (lightweight)
I know Duran was at his best when he fought as a lightweight, and I know beating this version of him would have been a much bigger achievement than beating the Duran that was embarrassingly easily schooled by Ray Leonard twice and also by Hagler, and ran over by Herans. I know Duran was very dominant at lightweight because he was better than any other lightweight, and he was world champion for a long time, I know he was extremely powerful and dangerous, and I know he had frightening get hand speed, and he won so many big fights, but against who?, guys who were at world level in a much earlier and less technical era than the boxer I am about to compare Duran to, I think Duran would be fast moving all over the ring, throwing all kinds of punches, and I think he would make Crawford think, but I really think Crawford would have few problems snapping back Duran's head with long, straight counter punches, I think he would nullify Duran in many rounds, I don't think Duran would be intimidated at any point and would have success to the body, I think Duran would be very inaccurate to the head and his own head would be snapped back a lot, and he would be schooled. I think Crawford would be very relaxed about a knockout, I think he would know he has the power to hurt Duran, but I think he would be happy with a unanimous decision, I think he would beat Duran by unanimous decision, with the scores being 120-106, 120-106 and 119-107, having dropped and staggered a tough Duran with no quit in him in rounds 8 and 10.

Muhammad Ali vs Joe Louis
I think that if Muhammad Ali in his prime fought Joe Louis in his prime, then Muhammad Ali would win, I do not think that we had one boxing world before 1970 and then a new one suddenly came after this point in time, I think the world of boxing has been gradually evolving for years and years, and I think that due to Ali being a few decades younger than Louis, this means he was in a later era, and because of they are well known for being at their best at a similar level, I'm confident that Ali would have won. I think Louis was stronger than Ali, and if the crowd was on anybody's side, it would be the brown bomber's, I think the early rounds would be close, but the general idea would be that Louis is on top, I think Ali did focus on 'the sweet science' a bit, not in comparison to a boxing artist fighting today, but a lot I'm comparison to someone in an era below him, and I think he would execute a good game plan, I think Louis would tire after the early rounds, and Ali would take over the fight, I think is hard to say whether he would stop him or not but I would say it goes 15 rounds and Ali wins 147-138, 148-137, and 148-137.

These are 5 predictions that I'm sure most would disagree with, but I'm confident I'm right that this sport has really changed for the better over the years, and it will continue to evolve and just completely rise.

By Jonny Armstrong

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins? FOT, easil

I didn't think about diet. My first thought was to consider training, and more specifically, stamina, with a mind to debating the extra rounds a fighter of the past generation had to get through. But you are spot on with diet - each new generation is living longer and longer. (There is some evidence popping up over and over in the news that today's generation of kids will be the first to reverse this trend because - grossly generalizing here - they are mostly too fat. But, that's a totally another topic. I believe the younger adults of today, and most adults in the middle of life, will, like generations before them, outlive their parents.)

I have to admit I'm not as versed in the top fighters of 30 years, 40 years, and more, ago to answer this question definitively, but how many were at the top of their careers while in their late 30's? (Mayweather). Who of that class were fighting past 40? (B-hop). Holmes and Duran fought well in their late 30s, but that's the extent of what I know off hand.

A sub topic of the diet question would be supplements. Not just for general health and professional-athlete level training, but for recovery and warding off common colds and the like.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats.. who wins? FOT, easily

Thank you, I will continue to work on my analysis tomorrow, I know that the athletes living 50 years ago would have worked hard with their diet in comparison to people out of athlete training, but I just think that if you take a level (say Intercontinental title level) in the 1960s and that same level now then you will see this level of fighters eating more healthily now than then, same for world level, I suppose the gap between the diets of athletes and the diets of average people may be no bigger now than then, but I'm convinced no athlete then could eat and drink as healthily as an athlete now, very, very convinced.

About age, I've seen a video of 38 year old Muhammad Ali, lying there 'Ugh I don't want to fight Holmes, I'm too old, I'm too fat', I know he had an illness but in these days I saw fighters looking old at an age that would be still young today, today we have 50 year old B-Hop, who went 12 rounds with Kovolev just a pregnancy ago, we have Roy Jones who is still fighting well into his fourties, of course these guys are not what they used to be when they were younger, but they are still capable of fighting and winning against decent opponents, in the 60s, 55 year olds looked very much like a 65-70 year old in 2015, this is just another example. Do you agree that Mayweather would lose badly to the best welterweight in the year 2115?

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats.. who wins? FOT, easily

Thank you, I will continue to work on my analysis tomorrow, I know that the athletes living 50 years ago would have worked hard with their diet in comparison to people out of athlete training, but I just think that if you take a level (say Intercontinental title level) in the 1960s and that same level now then you will see this level of fighters eating more healthily now than then, same for world level, I suppose the gap between the diets of athletes and the diets of average people may be no bigger now than then, but I'm convinced no athlete then could eat and drink as healthily as an athlete now, very, very convinced.

About age, I've seen a video of 38 year old Muhammad Ali, lying there 'Ugh I don't want to fight Holmes, I'm too old, I'm too fat', I know he had an illness but in these days I saw fighters looking old at an age that would be still young today, today we have 50 year old B-Hop, who went 12 rounds with Kovolev just a pregnancy ago, we have Roy Jones who is still fighting well into his fourties, of course these guys are not what they used to be when they were younger, but they are still capable of fighting and winning against decent opponents, in the 60s, 55 year olds looked very much like a 65-70 year old in 2015, this is just another example. Do you agree that Mayweather would lose badly to the best welterweight in the year 2115?

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

Manny steward ranks the heavyweights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4sOvbI_tAw

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

It is very interesting , you say you believe Hagler, Pryor, Hearns etc would rule the division over fighters at the top today, and you explain that it it because they were 'animals', I'm not for a second saying you aren't making a good point or denying that they were great, great fighters, but as you have stated Golovkin is an animal, Cotto is an animal, Canelo is an animal, Andre Ward has never really had to dig deep apart from the Boone fight but I'm convinced he would give up ho earlier than these old greats you mentioned, Sergey Kovolev is an animal, the list goes on, I don't deny that Holmes and Foreman were something special in there day, but like I said, if you are going to compare them to the likes of Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder then you need to think about advantages, because like I said, nutritional advice from any doctor or dietitian in the 1970's can never have been as good as today, and there are crucial aspects of the sport that exist now but didn't then, what is is that Holmes and Foreman posessed that you are not convinced the great heavyweights of today do not? What it your evidence for believing Foreman was perhaps still a harder puncher? That is a great point about Norton, but he can't have been as much of a physical specimen as today's great heavyweights because of the difference in diets and training knowledge, and I do believe tag Ali was massively overrated. I'm sure Tyson would struggle with today's heavyweights, his problem in my opinion was that he was rising in a division that only heated up when he was approaching his everyday middle years and later years in the ring, and although he displayed his animalistic punching talents throughput his career, he was never given any real all round boxing experience at a high level. Sorry which lighter weight guys are slower? I'm sure hand speed has improved over the years amongst everything else.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

seriously though, watch Tszyu, Chavez, and Pryor. Those guys would more then likely have an edge on Pacquiao and *possibly give Mayweather problems.

Chavez, I think, was kind of overrated,getting outworked boxing wise by Randall, Whitaker, and Taylor. Tszyu knocked out Judah impressively, although some people don't appreciate how difficult it is to put guys away. Pryor, you can look at his opposition or say crap about a bottle, but just watch his fights and you will see that no one could hang with that guy. *I would bet on Floyd winning, although a Pryor stoppage win or mauling dominant decision is possible.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

Holmes and Foreman would tear these kids apart because they were great boxers, Holmes never got mauled by anyone (other then 88 tyson) with Larry's beutifal Jab. Foreman is consistently rated as one of the hardest punchers ever in hw division, along with Ernie Shavers and Tyson. You are talking about a guy who honestly was avoided by Ali (meaning ali hesitated to make the fight, and then wanted to part in rematch, fighting straight up bums instead) Emmanuel Steward said that Foreman is perhaps one of the best Heavyweights ever, behind Ali. Ken Norton was just a stud that arguably beat Holmes but then age and chin left him. and in 1973 Foreman slaughtered norton in 2 rounds (watch that fight) In some ways, athletes can be seen as horses. As secretariat is hands down the best race horse ever (1973). I said that the older lighter weight guys are slower, as I was speaking somewhat in defense of the fighters of yesteryear. I am not trying to win any arguments for my ego's sake right now. I am just extracting my thoughts.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

This comment is unrelated to boxing, but, I really want to get people's opinion on something, I'm a long distance runner (not a boxer anymore), and I'm very careful with my diet, I have learned a lot about it, I just recently read about some complete and utter moron who wrote a book called 'eat bacon, don't jog', this is supposed to be a good way to get fit, according to the worst healthy diet theorist I have ever heard of, anyone who wants to chime in please do, I would love to hear what everybody thinks of this ridiculous theory.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

You keep throwing in the personal card. I am here to talk about boxing.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

I think you are getting a little bit overboard if you think fury joshua or wilder would beat holmes or norton. I understand you argument and never said I disagreed with your points, but that doesn't automatically mean these new guys are better then the best of the best old guys. smh

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

There was once a guy who walked into a supermarket with a gun, he shot through a couple of Isles, breakfast cereal Isles, the boxes in pieces, what a mess, he walks out calmly, what's his name

The serial killer, haha!

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

I like cofee, to a certain extent.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?
Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

If I said Ali couldn't punch hard, then that would be true, but I never said that, and one great fighter of old knocking another out proves nothing in terms of anything I said, it doesn't prove me wrong, it does not involve any fighter today. But, I will say something, that is a good idea for points vs the points of an Ali critic who said his power was overrated, and they would have lost.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?
Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

I do love a clown, never understood why people find them creepy or scary.

Look, whatever your real name is, I think we should not go down this road again, I apologise for being a bit of a patronising prat earlier, we both need to stop being childish, we disagree about boxing, but there is no reason for us to be harsh to each other, I'm never blameless in our arguments, but I think you know you could make more of an effort to be civil, let's start afresh, a clean slate, I don't think we should talk about this particular subject anymore, but change the subject onto another part of boxing, and try and make more of an effort to get along, OK?

Oh and I think to mark a clean slate we should erase all harsh comments directed at each other from all the pages.

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

I know this was from October last year but when you watch "IT" as a child you never see clowns the same way again.... ever..... DEMONIC CHILD EATING MONSTER THINGS !!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Fighters of today vs. the old greats... who wins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_0GSE-A6Uk Here is an interview, maybe you've seen it or not of dontaes boxing nation with Emmanuel Steward in 2008. He talks about Hearns in todays game, holyfield fighting in his 40's, and where lennox fits among the atg hwts.