Is Boxing the only Sport that has not Improved over the Years?

[SlySlickSmooth]

If I had to define past eras boxing, pre1980's, it would be the "punch bag eras".

Please meet my good friend, George Benton.

[Elroy1]

I believe Marcos Maidana doesn't even following boxing unless you're a superstar. He just fights and lives on his farm. Again, recall my earlier post about Robert Garcia's corner advice and decisions like training Donaire over the phone.

Now compare it with this:

Tyson existed because Cus D'Amato did. Who is Cus D'Amato? The trainer who invented the peek-a-boo. Who did Cus D'Amato grow up and see fight? Dempsey and Louis.

Remember, Maidana lost to Floyd Jr. who is trained by Floyd Sr. and Uncle Roger who were around to witness and even fight against greats like Ray Leonard and Chavez Sr.
They learned by experience/watching past fighters how to train and bring up a fighter to be great. The trainer aspect, remember that.

Good for Maidana!

Problem is he does not simply fight, live on the farm. He make an obvious heavy investment in his training obviously! And it shows because for all the Mayweather's extensive boxing history, simple slugger Maidana, who was supposed to be Floyd's CHERRY PICK to side step the risky fights like Khan and Pac and ensure a victory, almost backfired and got him KOed!

As for the neat story about Cus and Tyson. What is your point?

How was anything you said then against anything I have at all???

Did I ever claim Mike Tyson invented boxing or the peek a boo style? No I didn't! Cus learned from his predecessors whom developed what they had further and passed it onto Tyson who was visually and statistically thousands of times greater than Dempsey and hundreds of times greater than Frazier. Using Cus's system. Developed through his own analysis of guys like Dempsey.

It's a neat story that credits and respects every stop on the way from past to future.

The alternative, that things are getting worse, is ridiculous! In every single era the champs and contenders have been considered to be ****ter than those the generation before. That is a fact!

The funny thing is, the historians, the nostalgists, are the ones that don't even know the history of the sport! atleast when it comes to information which doesn't suit there agenda that is!

[Simurgh]

There you go..

[Elroy1]

Please meet my good friend, George Benton.

There's that awkward moment again.

The one when a nostalgist is putting up black and white footage and thinks he's showing off some kind of Super-Byrd or something

Without dissing his footage let's take a look at the proof of his performance..

George Benton 62-13-1. Ok record, decent, not exactly the stuff of champions though.

Losses to absolute bums Maloney, Blackwood, Mims, Hank and knocked out 2ce.

Managed to KO only 37 opponents with all his fights (=featherfist).

Sorry mate- not very convincing. The story at the start of the film is at odds with the actual record of Benton.

Not I am not claiming he is rubbish or anything, but I'm utterly unimpressed by what I saw on film, I think it was plodding and lead footed and it just doesn't cut the mustard. He is no sweet pea, he is no Floyd, no Byrd, no Chambers, no David Haye.

Let's get real here!

[SlySlickSmooth]

Good for Maidana!

Problem is he does not simply fight, live on the farm. He make an obvious heavy investment in his training obviously! And it shows because for all the Mayweather's extensive boxing history, simple slugger Maidana, who was supposed to be Floyd's CHERRY PICK to side step the risky fights like Khan and Pac and ensure a victory, almost backfired and got him KOed!

As for the neat story about Cus and Tyson. What is your point?

How was anything you said then against anything I have at all???

Did I ever claim Mike Tyson invented boxing or the peek a boo style? No I didn't! Cus learned from his predecessors whom developed what they had further and passed it onto Tyson who was visually and statistically thousands of times greater than Dempsey and hundreds of times greater than Frazier. Using Cus's system. Developed through his own analysis of guys like Dempsey.

It's a neat story that credits and respects every stop on the way from past to future.

The alternative, that things are getting worse, is ridiculous! In every single era the champs and contenders have been considered to be ****ter than those the generation before. That is a fact!

The funny thing is, the historians, the nostalgists, are the ones that don't even know the history of the sport! atleast when it comes to information which doesn't suit there agenda that is!

There is nothing to prove, because the whole argument you started with is bogus. As my post points out.

Maidana was almost able to beat a highly tutored Mayweather, why? Because he trains hard obviously.
But he didn't beat him, why? Because Mayweather is well schooled AND trains hard.

Tyson is good because of Cus' analysis and innovations of past fighters, so Tyson is good because of excellent tutelage.. but then Tyson did lose too. Tyson fell off because he lost the tutelage and lost the same training regiment.

There is no way you can say in general that, fighters now > fighters in the past. Because knowledge of boxing is transferred from trainer to student.

But because there is a mix of raw strength/athleticism vs talented individuals and all sorts of mixes in-between, this debate will be endless.

The only way to compare individuals is through accolades and film, humans have been the same the past 100 years. Granted we have the ability to put it into our subconscious we are greater than those before, evolution takes much much longer than 100 years. This entire debate is useless and was only used to prove the idea that you can actually debate that boxers from any era are generally better than other is idiotic.

By comparing through accolades and film, you could form an argument and say boxers from now are definitely better than the 1910-1920 era. But I am sure there are men just as talented if not better than Rod Salka from that era... Just watch the film and look at their accolades. Don't go off some belief that because we have gone further in time the athletes are somehow guaranteed to be better.

I wish I hadn't engage in this with you because the basis of your argument lies around the fallacy of hasty generalization.

You must agree that to argue this idea that boxers from one era are generally better than another is simply a waste of time. Nostalgia isn't the reason we say Ray Robinson is the best. Partly, yes. But its because there IS film out on him and we can look at his accolades.

[SlySlickSmooth]

There's that awkward moment again.

The one when a nostalgist is putting up black and white footage and thinks he's showing off some kind of Super-Byrd or something

Without dissing his footage let's take a look at the proof of his performance..

George Benton 62-13-1. Ok record, decent, not exactly the stuff of champions though.

Losses to absolute bums Maloney, Blackwood, Mims, Hank and knocked out 2ce.

Managed to KO only 37 opponents with all his fights (=featherfist).

Sorry mate- not very convincing. The story at the start of the film is at odds with the actual record of Benton.

Not I am not claiming he is rubbish or anything, but I'm utterly unimpressed by what I saw on film, I think it was plodding and lead footed and it just doesn't cut the mustard. He is no sweet pea, he is no Floyd, no Byrd, no Chambers, no David Haye.

Let's get real here!

Stop going off the specific point I address. You said this was the punching bag era. Please prove it wrong.

I'm not here to talk about how good Benton was.

You say you can quantify all these things, but you're not putting up any numbers aside from what even a 5th grader can pull out from reading boxing records. You didn't study tape on any of these bums, neither did I. So why are you calling them bums anyways? Formulating opinions on complete bullshit. Benton was trained by Eddie Futch.

[Elroy1]

There you go..

Yep that was the one I was referring to.

But let's dismiss Mike's admissions and credit OneRound and his "handlers" instead.

His puppetry opinion backed by his bush baby like IQ say more than a great like Mike ever could!

[SugarRayCurtain]

sure, skills have improved
But just like all the sports you mentioned, the athletes have improved mainly due to chemical enchancement or PEDS.
Boxing is no different

[SlySlickSmooth]

Yep that was the one I was referring to.

But let's dismiss Mike's admissions and credit OneRound and his "handlers" instead.

His puppetry opinion backed by his bush baby like IQ say more than a great like Mike ever could!

How does that even prove anything.

That's like me putting up Ray Leonard saying he could beat Mayweather and using it as proof that fighters from the past can beat guys now.

Yes Tyson addressed the vitamins and all, but the vitamins mean that fighters in today's era would beat previous era. And in short, that just isn't completely true.

[bojangles1987]

How does that even prove anything.

That's like me putting up Ray Leonard saying he could beat Mayweather and using it as proof that fighters from the past can beat guys now.

Yes Tyson addressed the vitamins and all, but the vitamins mean that fighters in today's era would beat previous era. And in short, that just isn't completely true.

You're talking to Elroy1. Stop taking those posts seriously, and certainly don't expect any actual debate. Come on, you should see it by now.