1981 compared to 2011

you get what you get, you are not required to respond to anything i type.

 

There is so little boxing to choose from these days though...........

 

Since no one has invented a time machine to date (that I know of) we may as well shut down this site right now and everyone on the planet should simply stop following the sport since the good days are gone forever.

 

I'd argue that the 1940s and the 1970s were the absolute high water marks overall for the sport

The 50s, 60s and 80s were strong decades, the 90s was good not great

But I'd be more than comfortable comparing any year from 1940-2000 with 2011 or 2010

 

It would be nice if you actually could just discuss boxing for once instead of being argumentative just for the sake of it. Ugh.

And again...your going off the point doesn't really address what I had to say.

It's too bad...I was hoping for some useful discussion...but instead it's more of the same from you.

 

And the forum continues to suck just a little bit more every time you post...

 

cyberboxingzone might be more your speed.

 

Are you really reduced to this?? ::

 

As I was saying, if you draw a line from 1951 to 1981, people would be whining and moaning too.

Walcott would have fucked Holmes up.

Ray Robinson would have made them all his bitch.

Light-Welter was for faggots. They didn't need that shit back in '51.

Toweel would have handled Chandler.

 

You've left out a lot of decent fighters there, ostensibly on the grounds that they had no equivalent for the period in question. You can't do that. Who is to say that Ward or Bute or Froch or whatever might not have been up to the 168lb task of 1981?

 

and this??::

 

Careful....you are making way too much sense...it might cause an allergic reaction to some.

 

:hump:

 

The champions list from 1981 is epic. There's no need for an era comparison, this list is cool enough on its own.

 

I like you dude, as you know, but I must say:

Shut the fuck up you miserable bastard!

So we haven't had any great fights or matchups in the last couple of years! You gonna give up on the sport??

You talk about the 80s, but seem to forget that the Heavyweight division in the 80s was boring as hell, and filled with a bunch of fat guys and alphabet titles (and that includes Larry Holmes actually...although he was undeniably a great fighter..IN HINDSIGHT)...until a guy named Tyson came along and injected some much needed excitement back into the division.

These lulls occur form time to time, boxing fans just need patience.

Right now we have manny Pacquaio...a more exciting fighter than 99% of the fighters that came before him from ANY era. ANY. Pacquiao is not only exciting he's also undeniably great. And you fuckers are still complaining.

And yes I'll bring Mayweather into it. P4P Floyd is as good as any fighter from any era. Sure..he's frustrating in that he's inactive often. But the fact that it's possible that there can be a matchup between him and the said Pacquiao at least gives us something to hope for.

I agree...the 80s were fun as hell in boxing. But they were also the golden years for Track and Field (Coe, Ovett, Cram, Carl Lewis,Ben Johnson, Said Aouita, Flo Joe, Heike Dresckler, Evenlyn Ashford, Marlie Goer, Marita Koch, Edwin Moses, Jochim cruz, Alan Wells etc). Today we only have Usain Bolt, that's it. I digress but he point is it's not just boxing that has a lull, track is even worse off comparitively.

Last thing we need is doom and gloom from the Bert Sugar fuckers (Yes..I said Bert Sugar....what what???).

 

Mate...you have picked ONE YEAR, a pinnacle of sorts...and tried to compare it to this year, and then tried to draw some sort of a conclusion. That never works in statistics or maths or anything.

We are ALL agreed that there has been a recent {much closer to 2011 than it is to 1981} decline in the depth of talent and in the recognition of talent.

The cause, or causes, for this ....however go back some years, to well before 2011. There are lots of different reasons.

As I say, you could probably pick the top two heavyweights, get that dullard Haye to stay at 200 where he belongs, along with Adamek and Cunningham, get Floyd, Pac, Marquez and Donaire and make some sort of a half-assed stand vs the guys of 1981.


Even at that, you are leaving behind the 168lbrs, who are a talented bunch, and have been for years. For years 168 has been a quality division where ANY weakness or pretensions were immediately weeded out.

 

I was saying that that is what other people would have been saying. Not me.

 

Looks like you were right. I kinda thought the same thing when I decided to post this, but I was hoping MAYBE there could be some non-agenda based or non-childish responses from some of the folks you mentioned.

Guess not. Much like I miss the better days in the sport...I also miss the days when there were good discussions around here.

I'm hitting the sack...have at it folks, flush this topic down the shitter like you do everything else.

 

there's not even a remote comaprison, seriously

Jeff Chandler was better than Toweel

Holmes was better than Walcott

Light Welter had been around long before that, but wasn't actively being contested anymore in 1951, by decades end it was back

 

Yes, there were good discussion around here until you came along and labelled everyone who disagreed with your positions as "shilling for their favourites", "just like Kid Dynamite", "Nuthuggers", "..put down boxrec for a second", etc with your sickening elitist mentality.

 

Right. So as I say, we've been having a decline now for some time.

In 1950, boxing was described as the "So-Called Sport of Professional Boxing".

Todays best guys are capable of standing in and giving an account of themselves.

Its the padding, the filler, that is totally lacking.

We got ZERO depth.

 

I'm shocked you think that, honestly

 

Yes I know. I was being sarcastic.

 

We can say that now....what Irish is saying is that in every era the fighters from past eras are considered better than the current crop. It's the mentality of the idiotic elitist fight fans. In the early 80s if you had asked 100 fight fans, over 90% of them would have probably not had Larry Holmes in their top 10 all time.

 

ah, got it

 

Why?

 

Sly, which is better, the 1981 list or the 2011 list

just answer that one question

 

You're not being fair. Boxing has historically been about phases and eras rather than single years or even entire decades. Sometimes it is about 3 years here and 2 years there.

Its not a map you can stick a pin in at an exact point and just hold it there.

Its the syntax, how one year runs into the next, and what it throws up.

 

because usually you don't say anything that might lead anyone to believe you could be what Sly calls an eltitist

 

The 1981 list is. Of course it is.

Boxing is like a collection of paints that run into each other.

Its not a block chart.