Are the REAL oldtimers overrated?

[BattlingNelson]

I already said there were a few exceptions, and that is all I think there were. My impression is gained from watching numerous fights of the era, not just one fight. Next perhaps you will tell me that bareknuckle fighters threw as many punches as moderns.

I don't know who Monte Cox is. I have read so many so-called experts that I no longer take them seriously at face value. They love to take some popular opinion and try to show how wrong it is. This makes them look like bigtime researchers for whom there is some reason for them to be there other than they got hired by a family friend. If they can turn a popular opinion on its head, they feel they have done something big. Instead of reading this churl simply watch the fights from that era.

This guy is probably as big an expert as Tracy Callis, who is a boxing halfwit in my opinion.

Cox has written quite a bit of good stuff IMO and I see little reason to question fairly easy to verify punch stat numbers.

[The Old LefHook]

No matter who you watch from that era, it is one punch and grab. Papke, Ketchel, Moran, Johnson, take your pick.

I never saw a man knocked out yet when the opponent's arm is locked up. Early period fighters would be booed from the ring today. Dempsey and a few others pass any era, but for the most part all their contemporaries did is one punch and grab, and it is awful to watch. I do not need Monte Cox, I have eyes of my own.

[BattlingNelson]

No matter who you watch from that era, it is one punch and grab. Papke, Ketchel, Moran, Johnson, take your pick.

I never saw a man knocked out yet when the opponent's arm is locked up. Early period fighters would be booed from the ring today. Dempsey and a few others pass any era, but for the most part all their contemporaries did is one punch and grab, and it is awful to watch. I do not need Monte Cox, I have eyes of my own.

Grappling and infighting was clearly a more integrated part of boxing in those days. Those things changed with bigger gloves and less dirty tricks being allowed. Still though. Plenty of punches was being thrown and that was ifor more rounds.

[Ben Bolt]

All comparisons between fighters of different eras are only subjective, so I’m just satisfied with the fact that certain fighters dominated in their time. Transport Joe Louis to the 2000s or Wlad to the 1930s ?after all, we’d never know how they had coped in an age of [to them] unfamiliar conditions.

Max Baer, a brief spell at the top. Yet, he once was THE No. 1 heavyweight.

[TheMexHurricane]

As an interesting side-note b4 I answer, the white fighters of that era were at a disadvantage to the black fighters because they were fighting/dying/suffering injury/psychological damage or plain just didn't want anything to do with fighting during/after WWI and II and that diminished their pool of talent. That might explain why today's white fighters are doing so much better than the one's from that day. To answer the question, neither over nor under rated. The reason you can't compare yesteryears fighters is because they fought when the talent pool was severely diminished by those wars(I, II and Korea), famine(The Great Depression), and the fact that they didn't have today's transportation(with alot more folks living in the boonies and not having cars) and technology(alot less folks seeing or hearing the fights). And that's after the fact that the population was much smaller than today's to begin with. Very, very gritty fighters tho and worthy of our respect.

[Mooshashi]

Some are overrated for sure. Much of what we know of those old guys comes from newspaper articles which, in the day, were meant to be read by readers who had not seen the fight, so the articles could not be verified. The articles were histrionic to the extreme. Read some of thr stuff written about supposed "wars" or "the most brutal bout I've ever seen " then watch a youtube video of it and its like an Andre Ward snoozefest.

There are boxing sites out there that proclaim Greb was a god...yet no one living has seen him fight...no old films exist of his fights. How can we judge his ability except for biased newspaper articles and his record againt other opponents?

Were they tough? Hell yes they wer tough. 30-40 round bouts!!!! But they (I mean some of them)are overrated because "the old days" always look better in hindsight. Someday Tyson Fury will be a top 10ATG on some lists.

[them_apples]

By "REAL" I dont mean boxers from 50 or 70 years ago - but those who boxed a really long time (100+ years) ago! Last week I came across this all-time p4p list by Tracy Callis, which I have since given some thought:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charlie Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
10. Harry Greb

... and the first thing that struck me (hence the question!), was that all but 2 (Robinson and Armstrong) were born in the 19th century! We have Mitchell, Nonpareil and Fitz all born within 18 months of each other in 1861-63... followed by O'Brian, Ketchel, Langford, Greb and Dempsey (1895) before the century ran out. So, according to Mr. Callis, 8 of the 10 best boxers ever just happen to have been born in the last 4 decades of the 19th Century! Hmm...

But what is it, that makes a historian rate these oldtimers over more modern boxers? Were they really better back then, and if so... why? More fights against tougher competition, better conditioning due to longer fights, better trainers... or something else? Or is Mr. Callis simply being a tad too generous to the oldtimers? I would like to hear some opinions on this.

overrated by some underrated by others. I think at the highest level they are overrated though, since the people that underrate them don't have respected opinions or know anything about boxing.

Being tough and strong can only take you so far in boxing. There are fundamental boxing skills that weren't developed back then. I think we have lost certain skills as well, but overall - I don't think Jack Johnson would be a defensive genius today, I don't see Mickey Walker beating Marvin Hagler or Monzon either.

[them_apples]

Grappling and infighting was clearly a more integrated part of boxing in those days. Those things changed with bigger gloves and less dirty tricks being allowed. Still though. Plenty of punches was being thrown and that was ifor more rounds.

not to mention the ref wouldn't step in until the fighter was completely finished, and back then you REALLY had to finish a man almost till the death. A champion back then always tried to get up. Tougher times yes. I don't know if the skill defecit could be overcome by this though.

Joe Frazier did get up 6 times vs George though, and they wouldn't have waved that one off.

[billeau2]

Grappling and infighting was clearly a more integrated part of boxing in those days. Those things changed with bigger gloves and less dirty tricks being allowed. Still though. Plenty of punches was being thrown and that was ifor more rounds.

Its hard to say....basically because the game was so multidimensional back then, but it was a very sophisticated game and people like Lefty who think their eyes are an ultimate arbitrator will have a hard time understanding that the grapple was the fight because just like in Judo and sports Ju Jutsu: you gain position first then apply technique...which is coincidentally, ironicly, the very opposite of self protection theory! The fact that it looks like not much is happening is enough for some, others want to know why and believe in the old addiage: "Believe nothing if what you hear and half of what you see."

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I don't even know how you can compare jimmy wilde to say ricardo Lopez... The sport is just so different