Why could past ATGs knock out guys 40 pounds bigger than them...

[SBleeder]

... yet today's fighters, even the great ones, get up in arms over catchweights, 2 pound advantages, etc.?


Sam Langford, a natural lightweight/welterweight, had no problems jumping in the ring with a light-heavyweight or even a heavyweight; often he'd tear them apart.

I realize a guy like Langford is a once-in-a-century fighter, but seriously? We've already sub-divided the original eight weight classes into virtual catchweights as it is. Now we've got fights at catchweights within catchweights. Where are the men who are willing to say, "I don't care how big he is or how small I am. Put me in the ring with him and I'll whip his a$$."?


/Rant.

[Humean]

The quality in Sam Langford's era was significantly lower. If Langford was around today he wouldn't beat anyone good that was 40 pounds heavier than him.

The reason they are up in arms is because today's fighters have a better understanding of the importance of weight. In Sam Langford's day it was simply a question of the money, take what you can.

Not that i'm much of a fan of catchweights.

[Bolo Punch]

The quality in Sam Langford's era was significantly lower. If Langford was around today he wouldn't beat anyone good that was 40 pounds heavier than him.

This.

Sam Langford may have been an exceptional talent, but the sport was a hell of a lot less evolved back in his day, which equals a lot of his opposition not being 'the real deal'.

In the second half of his career, I believe I'm right in saying that Langford piled on the beef and actually turned himself into a conditioned heavyweight fighter.

[SBleeder]

The quality in Sam Langford's era was significantly lower.

Horsecrap.

Johnson, Jeannette, Wills, Walcott, Ketchel, Gans, McVea, O'Brien, Flowers, Meehan, ... and those are just off the top of my head. This list doesn't include other great fighters who ducked Langford either out of fear or due to race.

Langford fought more ATGs than there are current fighters who will go down as ATGs. Stanley Ketchel, to pick a name a random, would put the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr. in a pine box.

[New England]

the opponents were not as good. boxing was incredibly crude in langford's time. tons of wrestling. very few clean punches. pure boxers from the period were very rare, and lightyears ahead of their time.

you honestly think sam langford could knock out lennox lewis or mike tyson? of course he couldn't.


how would lennox lewis do against jim flynn?

[Bolo Punch]

Horsecrap.

Johnson, Jeannette, Wills, Walcott, Ketchel, Gans, McVea, O'Brien, Flowers, Meehan, ... and those are just off the top of my head. This list doesn't include other great fighters who ducked Langford either out of fear or due to race.

Langford fought more ATGs than there are current fighters who will go down as ATGs. Stanley Ketchel, to pick a name a random, would put the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr. in a pine box.

So you're saying that fighters back 100 years ago are better than the fighters of today? Not a chance. The sport has changed so much since then for the better, in terms of training, dieting, etc.

Also, to be honest, I'm not quite sure exactly why there are more fighters considered as ATGs from so long ago. Perhaps it's the mystery factor since there isn't a whole lot to truly judge them on (film), perhaps it's down to the fact that they fought a whole lot more and therefore had more time to capture their best wins, perhaps it's a case of a history being romanticised by the older generation from that era and everyone else go along with the myth, perhaps they were all truly great. Who knows.

For the record, I do rate Langford very highly due to his resume but I doubt he'd stand up to the challenge that today's fighters would bring.

[New England]

So you're saying that fighters back 100 years ago are better than the fighters of today? Not a chance. The sport has changed so much since then for the better, in terms of training, dieting, etc.

Also, to be honest, I'm not quite sure exactly why there are more fighters considered as ATGs from so long ago. Perhaps it's the mystery factor since there isn't a whole lot to truly judge them on (film), perhaps it's down to the fact that they fought a whole lot more and therefore had more time to capture their best wins, perhaps it's a case of a history being romanticised by the older generation from that era and everyone else go along with the myth, perhaps they were all truly great. Who knows.

For the record, I do rate Langford very highly due to his resume but I doubt he'd stand up to the challenge that today's fighters would bring.

it's my opinion (shared by many others,) that boxing peaked between the 40's and the 90's. i use my eyes. i've been watching this game for a long time, and i'm a good/very good athlete, so i know what i'm looking at.


fighters used to fight more, and thus would accomplish more during their careers.

you will take losses, but if you're fighting 100+ times you'll get some great wins.

[Bolo Punch]

it's my opinion (shared by many others,) that boxing peaked between the 40's and the 90's. i use my eyes. i've been watching this game for a long time, and i'm a good/very good athlete, so i know what i'm looking at.


fighters used to fight more, and thus would accomplish more during their careers.

you will take losses, but if you're fighting 100+ times you'll get some great wins.

I would bookmark around the 1930s to be the time when the truly great fighters of then could mix it up with the best of the bunch from the present day or any point in between.

I think it's a bit naive to say that boxing peaked in the 90s, although that's just my view. There's probably not as many great fighters today than there was in the 90s but until there's around 15-20 more years of that lineage, I think you could put this point in history down as a minor blip in the sport, rather than a decline.

[Humean]

Horsecrap.

Johnson, Jeannette, Wills, Walcott, Ketchel, Gans, McVea, O'Brien, Flowers, Meehan, ... and those are just off the top of my head. This list doesn't include other great fighters who ducked Langford either out of fear or due to race.

Langford fought more ATGs than there are current fighters who will go down as ATGs. Stanley Ketchel, to pick a name a random, would put the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr. in a pine box.

You cannot be serious. The fighters of the first few decades of the 20th century had no where near the skills of later fighters. The limited video of these fighters very clearly indicates this. To add to that the very thought that the earliest practitioners of a sport could be better than later versions is completely preposterous. Every other sport has seen improvements over time due to a variety of factors, I posted some in another thread a few days ago in response to your question. //krikya360.com/forums/sh...6#post13695526

There is a difference between greatness and how good a fighter was. Those all time greats that you list were the best in their day and because of this are rightly rated as all time greats but that does not mean they would be any good today. The idea that Ketchel could beat Mayweather even with a slight weight advantage is also ridiculous.

I do not subscribe to the view that boxing skills have declined, they have certainly improved since the first few decades of the 20th century. Whether they have improved since around the 30s or 40s onwards is more debatable but they have certainly not declined since then. American professional boxing has declined since the 50s vis-a-vis the rest of the world but boxing in general has not.

[SBleeder]

You cannot be serious. The fighters of the first few decades of the 20th century had no where near the skills of later fighters. The limited video of these fighters very clearly indicates this. To add to that the very thought that the earliest practitioners of a sport could be better than later versions is completely preposterous. Every other sport has seen improvements over time due to a variety of factors, I posted some in another thread a few days ago in response to your question. //krikya360.com/forums/sh...6#post13695526

There is a difference between greatness and how good a fighter was. Those all time greats that you list were the best in their day and because of this are rightly rated as all time greats but that does not mean they would be any good today. The idea that Ketchel could beat Mayweather even with a slight weight advantage is also ridiculous.

I do not subscribe to the view that boxing skills have declined, they have certainly improved since the first few decades of the 20th century. Whether they have improved since around the 30s or 40s onwards is more debatable but they have certainly not declined since then. American professional boxing has declined since the 50s vis-a-vis the rest of the world but boxing in general has not.

There are hardly any fighters today who approach the skill level, or the levels of conditioning, of guys like Joe Gans, Sam Langford, or Jack Johnson. Even a cursory study of skill confirms this.