Bad Left Hook

Floyd would have been great in any era for exactly the reasons you state.

Sammlung - February 13, 2012 reply

Yes, but the point is that boxing was a tougher sport in years gone by, yet the training methods and technique have not really improved, if anything they’ve gone backwards.
Nutirition and fitness levels are higher today but little else, imo.
There has been no one as good as Ray Leonard or Muhammad Ali since their era. I’m convinced of that.
Boxing has been in a steady decline since the 80’s, imo, some would say since the 50’s.
Doesn’t mean i don’t love the sport, that’s just how it is.Iit’s all about money now, more than ever.
Therefore i think this fanpost asks a very interesting question and i don’t see what’s to hate about the quote to be honest.

Because it’s a self-serving quote where once again Bernard Hopkins expresses his deep love and appreciation of…Bernard Hopkins.

Scott Christ - February 13, 2012 reply

Possibly :)

I see your point, but this quote on it's own doesn't actually say that.

He could be referring to Andre Ward, Floyd, Pacquiao and Sergio Martinez.

Just saying.

please.

Scott Christ - February 14, 2012 reply

I mean, like, seriously.

Get serious.

Bernard Hopkins’ favorite topic is the greatness of Bernard Hopkins.

Scott Christ - February 14, 2012 reply

While you are generally correct, your ire was aimed that this particular comment.

And this particular comment simply doesn’t say that.

Because it’s a self-serving quote where once again Bernard Hopkins expresses his deep love and appreciation of…Bernard Hopkins.

Except that he doesn’t.

Oh for God’s sake. Does he really need to spell it out for you?

Scott Christ - February 14, 2012 reply

No, not at all.

It is what it is, I suppose.

Even when it isn’t.

Pacquiao, Hopkins, Mayweather, JM Marquez, Vitali Klitshcko, Andre Ward are the ones that spring to mind for me who could have competed in any era.
It’s just a a fact that yesteryears fighters were tougher and the technique and teaching from the trainers was likely of a higher level, imo (and from anyone who has studied the game will say too).
Not sure about Martinez. I think he would have been able to handle himself against the likes of Monzon and Hagler but i very much doubt he would have won.
Saying that, he is really a light-middleweight.

So because Martinez might not have beaten the two best middleweights of all time

He wouldn’t be able to compete? That’s ludicrous.

That said, the only reason he even moved up was to get a bigger money fight, and I would put Martinez up against the best 154 pound fighters in history. I don’t know if he beats all of them, but I’d give him a fighting chance against the likes of Hearns, McCallum, Norris, etc.

There are a lot of fighters who would “compete” in any era. Far fewer who would have been champs in the one-belt era, but a lot of that is just a function of looking at specific times. Could Martinez have been top dog in Monzon’s era, or Robinson’s? No. Could he have been in Paul Pender’s? Could he have beaten someone like Cenefrio Garcia? Probably. And hell, how many cutie southpaws did Robinson face in his career anyway? Do we really know how he’d do against that type of fighter who he almost never faced?

Saying someone couldn’t ‘compete’ because they wouldn’t beat the best ever in a certain weight class is just holding fighters to an unrealistic standard, that 3/4 of the past champions from the “glory days” wouldn’t be able to meet either.

Looking at how guys would do under different rules is silly as well. Of course different people do better with different rules, different training regimens, etc. If back in the old days guys could have 12 week training camps, fight only a few times a year and only need to fight 12 rounds, who knows if someone else who was fringy back then would have been great. It’s all just speculation.

Most guys who are world class fighters now wouldn’t have sucked in any era.

Read it again

I said “not sure about Martinez”.
And then i acknowledged that he is really a light-middle.
My reasoning is that i don’t think his level of comp is all that great when talking all time.

It's not

But it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be able to compete.

And if we really want to get nitpicky, then he certainly was a true middleweight back in Hagler’s era and earlier, since weigh-ins were same-day back then and all fighters were a bit smaller in the ring because of it.

And hell, how many cutie southpaws did Robinson face in his career anyway? Do we really know how he’d do against that type of fighter who he almost never faced?

I had precisely this debate with Chaos back in December 2010 – he was adamant Martinez couldn’t have competed, whereas I’m with you. He’s a phenomenal talent and it’s just impossible to really tell how any of these hypothetical fights would turn out.

Oli Goldstein - February 13, 2012 reply

It’s just a a fact that yesteryears fighters were tougher and the technique and teaching from the trainers was likely of a higher level, imo (and from anyone who has studied the game will say too).

With all due respect, this isn’t a fact. It’s your opinion.

I’d agree on the training, with some exceptions, but I disagree with the supposed ‘fact’ that fighters were tougher before.

I believe they were tougher, for one thing, because they fought much more often.
There were also more rounds in a fight. I mean going back to the early 1900’s championship bouts regularly ran for 20+ rounds.
Plus they weren’t as molycoddled as a lot of today’s fighter’s are, imo.
The best fought the best much more often.
All this Manny – Floyd crap would never have happened prior to the 1980’s, imo.
It’s all about greed and taking the easiest route to the top nowadays and that’s part of the reason why a lot of fighter’s are undefeated or have glossy records.
As we know, the main reason MMA (mainly UFC) fighter’s have a less attractive win/loss ratio than boxers is because they fight top 10 fighter’s one after the other.

BTW, i don't always blame the fighter's for this

All this Manny – Floyd crap would never have happened prior to the 1980’s, imo.

Is it just coincidence that Bob Arum and Don King arrived on the boxing scene in the late 60’s-early 70’s?

There were also more rounds in a fight. I mean going back to the early 1900’s championship bouts regularly ran for 20+ rounds.

And as such those guys trained for those fights. In a world where world records for athleticism are broken on a regular basis, thereby giving some weight to the idea that man is stronger, faster and fitter now than he has ever been, do you really think it impossible that men today could train for longer fights, if that was the way and requirement of the sport?

Also, even in 15 round fights (and longer), guys at the top level used to take more rounds off than they can afford to do now, what with the action being compressed into shorter time-frames.

It’s all swings and roundabouts.

Fighting more often doesn’t mean as much either. A guy that is fresh from training, off for 3 months, would likely take a fighter that fought 25 times a year.

RyanSexton - February 15, 2012 reply

i've written about this before

but boxing fans highly overrate past boxers. Fact is, if you brought over prime Muhammad Ali and had him take on prime Vitali Klitchko, Ali would get dominated easily just like every other contemporary boxer. Ali would be giving up massive reach/weight against Klitchko. Ali doesn’t have the kind of one punch KO power to take out iron-chinned Klitchko either. Style-wise, it’s a nightmare for Ali. If Klitchko with his modern ability had been around in the 60s and 70s, Ali wouldn’t even be a household name today.

Every sport has advanced incredibly in the past 40-50 years. Today’s elite athletes are on such a level that if they were transported into the past, people would wonder if they were even human. Yet boxing and baseball are two of the few sports in which the establishment insists that the “oldtimers” could have competed head to head without adjusting for training/nutrition. Sorry, but that training and nutrition, along with 40-50 years of knowledge and trial and error lead to such an incredible edge that the also-rans of today could give yesterday’s stars hell.

And never mind the physical differences …opponents for yesterday’s stars didn’t have easy access to film study to probe and dissect every weakness. It’s far more difficult to stay on top of the hill today than ever. Any flaw will be studied and exploited.

I can’t wait for the Bert Sugars and Teddy Atlases to fade away and go away … they are two of the leading voices with a blind fetish for the antique golden years.

sunzlight - February 16, 2012 reply

Fact is

It’s not a fact at all. At best it’s your opinion, at worst it BS.

BTW

someone did a fanpost on this site not that long ago asking if Ali would have beat the Klits.
The answers were overwhemingly in favour of Ali.
Hey and i didn’t even have to say “fact is”. I just told you a fact and also offered my opinion.

Also

Ali would be giving up massive reach/weight against Klitchko.

Wrong.
Ali had about the same reach as the Klits, at 80", and at 6’ 3" was not all that much shorter.
He was about ten times faster, especially of foot and had much more natural ability, skills and reflexes.
Seems to me like you should actually watch more footage of old fighter’s and do some homework before posting your “fact is” comments, when clearly the “fact” isn’t.

Matt Mosley - February 17, 2012 reply

Put it another way Matt, can you imagine WK facing a young George Forman?

Phill - February 17, 2012 reply

Exactly Philly.
That’s one of the main question marks against the Klits (and i do rate both quite highly and usually don’t mind watching them fight, btw), that when looking back in years to come people will say “who did they actually fight”?
Not that that’s their fault but it’s a fact that there are no Hall of Famers on their records, save for Lennox on Vitlai’s.
Ali fought against a murderers row of heavyweights in the best era ever and came out on top overall.
Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Holmes, Norton, Patterson, Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Jimmy Young. Ok, some of the fights were close or possibly went to the wrong guy, but at his peak (did we ever even see his true peak due to his ban?) Ali was pretty much untouchable (literally), imo.
Six of the above guys are in the HOF and the rest would be at least belt holders in this era, if not legit, lineal champs.
Foreman, Shavers and Frazier are well known as three of the hardest puncher’s of all time.
There’s just no comparison, imo, for the simple reason that Ali proved himself against the best. The Klits have not.
And yes, to answer your question, i can imagine a young, Big George steamrollering Wlad. The jab wouldn’t have kept George off him, imo.

Matt Mosley - February 18, 2012 reply

Ali proved himself against the best. The Klits have not.

I should have said “Ali consistently proved himself”.
Vitali did against Lennox but has really fought no one all that great since and Wlad has never fought a great fighter.

Matt Mosley - February 18, 2012 reply

Good post(s).

Phill - February 18, 2012 reply

The thing is here. I work in construction, and have done for 16 years. My dad did it before me. If some handyman or DIY guy came up to me telling me how to do my job, or thinking he knew better, i would just smile.
I KNOW my job, and i know i’m good at it.
Therefore when someone like Hopkins or Roger Mayweather, or Freddie Roach, or Manny Steward say that boxing was better in years gone by, i respect that, and i listen to that, instead of thiniking i know it all like some.

What has Hopkins got to gain by saying this?

He’s just telling you what he thinks, and he’s got the credentials to back it up.
All of a sudden someone sat behind his computer eating cheese doodles, who’s never even put on a pair of gloves knows better than a seasoned pro and a future Hall of Famer??
I guarantee any of the best trainers and people who have followed the sport through generations would say the same.
As a boxing fan, i only have look at some old timers on film like Jersey Joe Walcott, Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran and scores more and it’s just obvious that they were better back then.

Hopkins has the credentials to back it up because he fought against those guys?

How does Hopkins know any better than anyone else? Hopkins didn’t fight in the 60’s and 70’s. Hopkins likely wasn’t even paying attention to boxing back then.

It’s easier to say guys were better when you’re only looking at the best of the best. But what about in the weaker eras in the past? How about 140 in the 60’s and 70’s, when it was a relatively weak weight class? Anyone can look at prime Ray Robinson and also look at Martinez and say that Robinson was better. But then again, anyone can look at prime Ray Robinson and also look at Marcel Thil and say that Robinson was better. It’s just not a fair comparison to only look at the best unless you hold everyone else to that same standard.

For example, Bobo Olsen is one of the greatest middleweights in history, fought in a very tough era, and had pretty much jack squat in terms of fantastic technique. He was a basic fighter who was a well-rounded tough guy. LaMotta falls into the same category. Both are easy hall of famers. If you look at LaMotta, then look at Martinez, and you don’t look at anyone else, it would be easy to come to the opposite conclusion that you’ve come to because your sample is too limited.

LaMotta was one of the toughest fighters of all time

and had possibly the best chin ever.
He certainly ddin’t get into the Hall for his skills.
But in general people are talking about “the best of the best”.
“Would the best from this generation be able to compete with the best from previous generations”, not “would the best from this generation be able to compete with the average guys from the previous genenrations”.
I acknowledge that it’s hard to say for sure, but i just think that when so many of these guys who have come through generations of fighters say the same thing, there’s got to be a lot of truth to it.
I don’t think it’s all rose tinted glasses stuff, and like i said, guys like Roger (or was it Floyd Sr?) Mayweather and other modern boxing guys have said it, when they don’t benefit directly at all from it.
If anything they would benefit more from talking up the current generation, but they are boxing guys and they know the sport better than most.

I suppose a lot of this debate relies on a specific definition of the word 'compete'.

How does Hopkins know any better than anyone else?

I imagine that in the boxing circles Hopkins mixes in, especially in Philly, he will know many old time trainers and fighter’s and he will have talekd to a lot of guys who were there.
Add to that that he will have a keen eye himself when watching old tape, etc.

You have to insert yourself into the historicak context of the time and then assess the situation. I

think Manny and Floyd make it, but no one else right now. Maybe JJM.

Boss Man - February 13, 2012 reply

Ted is another old time boxing man

who’s opinion has to be respected, imo, simply because he has seen the different generations go by, he fought himself and has always been close to, or involved in, the sport.
And he’s much less charitable than i was to today’s generation.
No Hopkins, Ted?

Respected, sure

But it doesn’t mean it needs to be agreed with. If the conventional wisdom was always right, things would never change.

Ted – you don’t think Donaire could have competed in any era at 115 (when the weight class existed)?

I still say it’s unfair to compare a snapshot of right this minute to all the rest of history. The best versions of a lot of these guys would have been champs in a lot of different eras, and the even the current versions would still be top 10 contenders in strong eras. Does anyone really think Klitschko wouldn’t have been a contender in the Ali-Frazier-Foreman era, especially when you look past them to find that the next guys were of the ilk like Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis, Shavers, etc.

IMO

To say that 3 or 4 from todays top 10 P4P would have been able to compete with the best ever is a pretty good ratio anyway.

It seems we have very different definitions of "compete"

I really think you are nitpicking now

I already said further up, it is what it says.
Are they as good today as they were before?
I say the answer is an emphatic no. Not quite (but it’s always good to debate).
Manny and Floyd are good, but imo (and in plenty of other lists i’ve seen) they wouldn’t make the best 20 boxers of all time.
Maybe they’d make the best 50.
That’s pretty respectable for a sport that’s been going well over 100 years, IMO.

Also

how can you say until their careers are finished?
Manny could KO Floyd in 4 rounds, or Floyd could outbox him in a shutout.
I’m sure an emphatic victory by either would alter peoples all time opinion of them.
Roy Jones was seen as the next SRR for a long time, but he came to an untimely end that has obviously affected his legacy.
Admittedly what they already done has pretty much put them up their with the best, but you never know what can happen.

Bingo--

Define: “Compete”

Abstract term and is leading to confusion. But the idea behind the fanpost is a very good one—
Maybe question who would be a top contender in any era.

Don From Prov - February 13, 2012 reply

Ok, ok, i acknowledge that most, if not all of the top 10 P4P could be top ten in their dvivision in most , if not any eras.
But i don’t think many of them would be champion, certainly not when there was only one champ of the division.
Interesting though, the “compete” thing.

Matt, good point on the ‘one champ’ thing,
There are far too many versions and I’m assuming more weights than there used to be. (perhaps Ted could clarify). Boxers/athletes theses days seem to be a far more finely tuned breed. These factors alone could determine things when making comparisons to the past, then again, maybe not.

Phill - February 13, 2012 reply

Boxers/athletes theses days seem to be a far more finely tuned breed.

Compared to say, the 50’s, 60s or before, i would probably agree but i don’t really see anyone around today looking more physically fit and strong (or any faster) than Sugar Ray Leonard or Tommy hearns were back in the 80’s.
Plus they regularly fought 15 rounds back then.
The only big difference might be the ones who are using PED’s, but that should not be looked at as a geniune reason to say fighters’ are physically better today.
That’s something our generation should be ashamed of, imo.

you're relying on how they "look" as an indication of their actual fitness?

when the way they “look” is in extremely grainy black and white footage? But never mind the film quality, you can still clearly see higher body fat and lower muscle definition of the old timers. They are also much slower than modern boxers. Some of today’s top boxers have absolutely blinding handspeed, something I’ve never seen in ANY of the old timers.

Fact is, the greatest Olympic athletes of yesteryear couldn’t even make it onto today’s backup squads if you don’t adjust for training/nutrition.

sunzlight - February 16, 2012 reply

Oh, did you watch Leonard and Hearns fight on a black and white tv?

You should try them in colour.

And once again,

Fact is

No, not a fact at all.

And before you say, “but Leonard and Hearns are from the modern generation”, well, 30+ years ago is not really that modern in 2012.
If you had read all my posts you would see that i said that i think boxing has slipped since the 1980’s.
And judging by tv audiences and the lack of American’s taking the sport up, i think there is plenty of evidence to back that up.

BTW

I don’t think Floyd Patterson should be included in Ryan’s list of ATG’s. He really wasn’t that great, imo. He had skills, sure, but had little power and wasn’t the toughest.
I’m certain both Klits would have wiped the floor with him.
Saying that, Floyd was really only a cruiserweight.

On the other hand

I’m not confident Marco Huck wouldn’t have knocked him out as well. Bad style matchup for Patterson though.

If the standard is which fighters, as of right now, would have been top 10 in any era that their current weight class existed (but skipping cruiser, SMW and straw since those weight classes are so new), then I’d say the list is:

Wladimir Klitschko
Vitali Klitschko
Sergio Martinez
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao (maybe not right this second, but the version who fought Cotto anyway)
Timothy Bradley
Yuriorkis Gamboa
Guillermo Rigondeaux
Toshiaki Nishioka
Anselmo Moreno
Roman Gonzalez

Guys where it’s possible, but hard to tell because of differences in the rules and the like:
Andre Ward (who knows at 175)
Lucian Bute (same, plus some questionable late-round stamina)
Chad Dawson (here’s the only guy who I think the mental fortitude is an issue for)
Amir Khan
Nonito Donaire (at 118 and below, he’s a no-brainer in the top list, but we haven’t seen enough of him at 122 yet)
Juan Manuel Marquez (I still think he’s a natural 130 pounder)
Pong (just age-wise; prime for prime he pulls it off)
Nkosinathi Joyi (Is he still so good without a size advantage?)

And probably another couple dozen active fighters

who would have made the first list if we talk prime for prime (Jones, Toney, Tarver, Hopkins, Holyfield, Marquez, Marquez, Pong, Castillo, Morales, Barrera, Cotto @ 140, Mosley, John, Calderon, Hasegawa, etc. etc.)

One fighter i really liked to watch from the modern generation

from the lower weights, who would definitely have been a champ in any generation, imo, was Ricardo Lopez.

Actually,

Patterson

could punch and had very fast hands. Now his chin, that is a different story.

Don From Prov - February 20, 2012 reply

Babe Ruth would've sucked today.

See, that was easy. I should tweet that. It doesn’t matter if I can formulate an argument for or against an absurd statement. It only matters that I can get a retweet. Amen.

Pops Daniels - February 13, 2012 reply

Wayne Gretzky wouldn’t have been the stand out player if he was playing in the NHL today. That’s being serious, though.

RyanSexton - February 13, 2012 reply

I just got a memo.

Canada is pissed.