Question, Boxing Historians

[aether]

im gonna admit, i don't know about boxing history as much as some people here.

i just want to ask, do fighters from the past like Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Armstrong, etc... have superpowers?

cause some of you "boxing historians" seems to throw a fit if someone mentions a modern fighter, beating those fighters, even if they present a very valid argument in doing so.

is boxing the only sport where as time goes by, its pugilists get worse instead of better?

ive seen videos of those fighters, read a bit on them, and i don't see what's wrong with someone saying "Mayweather would outbox Leonard" or "Pacquiao would ko Duran" when they present arguments in doing so. am i missing something here? or am i just an ignorant fool who doesn't know **** about boxing?

oh great knowledgable boxing historians, forgive my ignorance if i haven't showed enough respect to them.

[BennyST]

im gonna admit, i don't know about boxing history as much as some people here.

i just want to ask, do fighters from the past like Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Armstrong, etc... have superpowers?

cause some of you "boxing historians" seems to throw a fit if someone mentions a modern fighter, beating those fighters, even if they present a very valid argument in doing so.

is boxing the only sport where as time goes by, its pugilists get worse instead of better?

ive seen videos of those fighters, read a bit on them, and i don't see what's wrong with someone saying "Mayweather would outbox Leonard" or "Pacquiao would ko Duran" when they present arguments in doing so. am i missing something here? or am i just an ignorant fool who doesn't know **** about boxing?

oh great knowledgable boxing historians, forgive my ignorance if i haven't showed enough respect to them.

Yes. That is correct.

[BennyST]

Just on a side note, I love how you call Duran and Leonard old timers!

That ****'s hilarious. Yeah, Duran only finished his career during Pac's title reign at SBW and Mayweather's at 130 and Leonard finished his around the time Pac won his first title so they are certainly old timers.

**** man, in fact, they are such old timers that it's impossible to compare them. The skills they show are just paltry compared to guys who were also fighting while they still were. Although Freddie Roach himself says that Pac wouldn't stand a chance against Duran.....And let's not even go there with Leonard at WW, they are still such old timers that it's obvious that they wouldn't win today against anyone!

I mean, come one, Mayweather and Pac got PPV numbers through the roof! Duran and Leonard are just old dudes that can't fight for ****!

[sonnyboyx2]

im gonna admit, i don't know about boxing history as much as some people here.

i just want to ask, do fighters from the past like Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Armstrong, etc... have superpowers?

cause some of you "boxing historians" seems to throw a fit if someone mentions a modern fighter, beating those fighters, even if they present a very valid argument in doing so.

is boxing the only sport where as time goes by, its pugilists get worse instead of better?

ive seen videos of those fighters, read a bit on them, and i don't see what's wrong with someone saying "Mayweather would outbox Leonard" or "Pacquiao would ko Duran" when they present arguments in doing so. am i missing something here? or am i just an ignorant fool who doesn't know **** about boxing?

oh great knowledgable boxing historians, forgive my ignorance if i haven't showed enough respect to them.

are you in your teens?

[Mersey]

I understand what you're saying.

I don't see anything wrong with people thinking Floyd could beat SRL. SRL is one of the best of his era, Floyd is one of the best from his era. It's not a crime to compare these two.

[BennyST]

I understand what you're saying.

I don't see anything wrong with people thinking Floyd could beat SRL. SRL is one of the best of his era, Floyd is one of the best from his era. It's not a crime to compare these two.

No, there is nothing wrong with it at all if you know where you are coming from and have valid points to back it up.

Really, the guy thinks that Pac would KO Duran. There is no simgle argument to back that up. That in itself shows a pretty sore lack of understanding and then calling him and Leonard old timers was even worse. They were still fighting when this guy was alive.

Fine if you think they win but for God's sake try backing it up with some genuine knowledge. Instead of the usual NSB response of "They were old dudes who fought with no skill. Pac would KO them all in a few rounds. New fighters are better than old ones because they use new training techniques and Leonard lost to Camacho and Duran lost to Laing. Pac pwns them. LAMO." or the other one in which for some reason they think people that say they would lose to a fighter from an older era only do so because they are from an older era, and not because they have seen them against fighters of possibly much greater skill, in much harder fights over a longer period of time and have seen much tapes, and have studied them a lot.

There is a reason why people say thin gs like that and there is a reason why these guys rarely ever lost at their best, while fighting the best. It's not a fluke they are ATG's and it's not because they are from an older era that people think Pac wouldn't be able to win, let alone KO guys like that.

[aether]

Just on a side note, I love how you call Duran and Leonard old timers!

That ****'s hilarious. Yeah, Duran only finished his career during Pac's title reign at SBW and Mayweather's at 130 and Leonard finished his around the time Pac won his first title so they are certainly old timers.

**** man, in fact, they are such old timers that it's impossible to compare them. The skills they show are just paltry compared to guys who were also fighting while they still were. Although Freddie Roach himself says that Pac wouldn't stand a chance against Duran.....And let's not even go there with Leonard at WW, they are still such old timers that it's obvious that they wouldn't win today against anyone!

I mean, come one, Mayweather and Pac got PPV numbers through the roof! Duran and Leonard are just old dudes that can't fight for ****!

yes, guys like hagler hearns, duran where not that far off..

but it seems like its such a crime to compare fighters today to those in the past.

for the record, i didn't say THOSE fighters wouldn't stand a chance with today's fighter. you got it backwards.

[aether]

No, there is nothing wrong with it at all if you know where you are coming from and have valid points to back it up.

That in itself shows a pretty sore lack of understanding and then calling him and Leonard old timers was even worse. They were still fighting when this guy was alive.

Fine if you think they win but for God's sake try backing it up with some genuine knowledge. Instead of the usual NSB response of "They were old dudes who fought with no skill. Pac would KO them all in a few rounds. New fighters are better than old ones because they use new training techniques and Leonard lost to Camacho and Duran lost to Laing. Pac pwns Really, the guy thinks that Pac would KO Duran. There is no simgle argument to back that up. them. LAMO." or the other one in which for some reason they think people that say they would lose to a fighter from an older era only do so because they are from an older era, and not because they have seen them against fighters of possibly much greater skill, in much harder fights over a longer period of time and have seen much tapes, and have studied them a lot.

There is a reason why people say thin gs like that and there is a reason why these guys rarely ever lost at their best, while fighting the best. It's not a fluke they are ATG's and it's not because they are from an older era that people think Pac wouldn't be able to win, let alone KO guys like that.

look at my previous posts... i never stated that pacquiao would KO duran. it was an example i thought off on the top of my head.

im not gonna give reasons why pacquiao would KO duran, cause it was never my intent to prove that point.

the point i am trying to prove here is that some of you guys are selling modern fighters a bit short.

[aether]

another thing, when you guys say today's fighters can't be compared to fighters in the past cause they had 100+++ fights, fighting 20X a year.

how can that be fair? you are judging a fighter's worth based on standards from an era where it is the norm.

would fighters today have to do that also to be even compared to those fighters? considering the fact that their opponents, like most fight 3-4 times a years?

[TheGreatA]

another thing, when you guys say today's fighters can't be compared to fighters in the past cause they had 100+++ fights, fighting 20X a year.

how can that be fair? you are judging a fighter's worth based on standards from an era where it is the norm.

would fighters today have to do that also to be even compared to those fighters? considering the fact that their opponents, like most fight 3-4 times a years?

It's not about how many times they've fought, it's about the competition they fought. You can still fight 200 times today and not get rated by anybody, see Buck Smith for example. He is 179-20 and you've probably never even heard of him and if you have, you'd know he is just a journeyman.

Modern fighters can compete with quality over quantity but it's not happening for the most part. A lot of the fighters pad their early records, handpick the right opponents and generally avoid taking unnecessary risks and fighting the best until it makes "sense" (and it rarely does).

How many times did Sugar Ray Leonard fight? 40 times? Yet he is rated as one of the very best of all time. Why? Because he fought and beat Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez. As good as Floyd Mayweather is, his wins over De La Hoya, Marquez, Hatton, Castillo and Corrales don't quite compare to that.