Why do people crap on 40s and 50s boxing?

I read a lot of stuff on here that basically sh1ts on boxers from the 40s and 50s and makes out that boxing has come on massively. Why is this? Its BS!

Ali was the heavyweight of all time in my opinion, although I think Joe Louis is a close second. Ali was one of a kind and it falsely makes people think that boxing suddenly had changed because of Alis talent. He was a one of kind! Look at the heavyweights round him. George Foreman was not a supremely skilled boxer. He was a devastating puncher, but Joe Louis was a better boxer. Joe Frazier was a class swarmer, but his style wasnt new (Jack Dempsey!) and he wasnt as skillful as Walcott or Charles. Thats not to say one guy or another would win but there was no "improvement" of ability or technique.

Mike Tyson was trained by the same guy who trained Floyd Patterson and was at his best under his tutelage using a style Floyd Patterson used decades before. Larry Holmes used a great jab to boss fights and set up his right hands. This is what Liston did. I saw on ESPN that an old time trainer Lou Duva rated. MArciano as the greatest heavyweight and said he was the hardest working heavyweight he had ever seen (he rated Holyfield as the second hardest working). Some people on here think Marciano was an alcoholic whos training consisted of laying off the booze for a week before a fight. Horsesh1t! He worked his balls off in the gym.

Im not even going to get into the heavyweights of today because its too depressing for a weekend but they dont have any of the ability of the 40s and 50s guys.

Who craps on 40s/50s boxing..........I don't..

Joe Louis opponents weren't very good.....and the good ones had already been found out......in my opinion........Never had a defining fight.

Louis better boxer than Frazier maybe.. so what ??......Tubbs was a better boxer than Tyson....

No one is crapping on 40s/50s boxing.........

Armstrong is 3rd on my p4p list..........Robbo is second..............and Louis is 2nd on my heavy list....

I think Louis is overrated.............But a great heavy for sure........

Think you are jumping to conclusions Mate.....Then again everything is always black and white with you.

You think David Haye beats Joe Louis.........................

Nuff said

I think he beats all his vanquished opponents.....

So let's get this right...You are using the fact I think Louis is overrrated to write an article that I crap on boxers from the 40s/50s..

even though I have two at 2 and 3 on my list....  

Nah you said you thought Haye would beat Louis. And Marciano for that matter.

Feel free to apologize to Joe though.

I think Haye has a good chance of beating Louis........

170 pound nearly Conn did.....Louis couldn't take a Haye bomb.......

Also think Marciano is made for Haye.....Archie put him down..

End of..........Just a dumb article....

Your list is a waste of time if you have Louis at number 2 but think Haye beats him. Pulling the grenade out by the pin and blowing up your own argument.

Who else have you got on it? Ali number 1 but losing to Carl Thompson?

"I dont think anyone craps on 40s and 50s boxing but I think David Haye beats all the heavyweights from those decades"

"But trust me Joe Louis is 2 on my list so Im not crapping on him"

"Now wheres the toilet paper??"

It's fair to say the heavyweight division was garbage in the 40's, it's Louis and Louis only that makes it better than the current crop.

You can't make sweeping assumptions based on the perception of one division, there were after all 7 other divisions but I get the feeling this pile of crap is just another Louis bumfest.

He thinks because I think Louis shouldn't be number 1 and think Marciano struggles with a 215 pound Haye........

That I think all the 40s and 50s fighters were crap...Even though I have two in my top 3 p4p list !!  

Pointless drivel ..

Yeah but the rest of them comprised of light heavies, middleweights and Poopie heavies they held their own against the smaller fighters. The ones we know might have been exceptional but put even someone like Tua in with the bulk of Louis opponents and he'd flatten them though he probably wouldn't beat Louis. Louis is quite clearly exceptional but thats almost entirely based on the longevity of his reign and us watching him fight -our own eyes showing that he's a cut above the rest. So to some extent there is a depth to the division in the later years that wasn't quite there before, not always but mostly. Its a fools errand to claim with any certainty what would happen if you took em out of the era and plonked em into another one.

Prior to Ali's arrival as a force there was Liston and Cleveland Williams and Patterson - the latter of whom was champion, then after that there were the also rans such as Johansson and thats where the depth ended for any meaningful contender.

In the Ali era there was the end of Liston career, himself, Frazier, Foreman as the elite, Norton, Terrell, Shavers, Lyle, Young as the also rans and after that, Patterson, Cooper, Ellis, Mathis, Bonavena, Quarry, Bugner bringing up the rear

In the Holmes era, there were a few decent fighters but nothing to outshine the 40's and 50's

In the Tyson era, there were several great talents and a decent depth but no great heavies apart from himself. Douglas, Tubbs, Thomas, Witherspoon, Cooney, Berbick, Ruddock etc but half of them were on coke and for one reason or another never fulfilled their potential.

After that came a a weak start to an era where moorer became champion and Foreman flattened him but a few reasonable heavies around, early holyfield, for example but nothing to stand out.

Then came a crazy era where the depth in talent could have resulted in another golden era but didn't quite live up to it. Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, Faded Tyson as the elite, Tua, Ibeabuchi, Golota, Ruddock, Morrison, Bruno, Mercer as the also rans

This Era has been lacking in talent, Klitchkos, Chagaev, Haye as any heavies of note but Lewis brought on the era of the superheavy and it might be here to stay. This could work two ways, make the division worse or force up and coming big men to adapt and might lead to an improvement soon as seen in the smaller division where Golovkin and co are stepping out from under the upright amatuer cloud.

40's and 50's era fighters best were among the very best but around them there wasn't a great depth to them as later ones. Crapping on them might be going a little far but in comparison with others there are about 3 better ones and all of them high profile.

What was the biggest fight in heavyweight history??????......."Louis has no defining fight"??????..............................................................


.......................................................try to keep it real............you're losing it.

Wlad beats Ali...............too big............too much science.......defense too good.............Ali can't get a shot off...............Ali's fought 50 years ago..............evolution takes place. 


Louis had a better chance of beating Wlad because of his devastating power.


That's the kind of Broscience you get from the .............'dot meister'.........

Schmelling had lost to Sharkey ...........

The thriller in manilla wasn't a defining fight.......Frazier had been blasted out by Foreman..

Think you are getting confused Mate..

Strongback wrote:Wlad beats Ali...............too big............too much science.......defense too good.............Ali can't get a shot off.  


Louis had a better chance of beating Wlad because of his devastating power.


That's the kind of Broscience you get from the .............'dot meister'.........

You are pathetic..

You are good TRUSSMAN but you are not THAT good.

You could be MAGNIFICENT.

Win the crowd TRUSSMAN.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Wlad beats Ali...............too big............too much science.......defense too good.............Ali can't get a shot off.  


Louis had a better chance of beating Wlad because of his devastating power.


That's the kind of Broscience you get from the .............'dot meister'.........

You are pathetic..

We can all be silly billys.

Superflyweight had you down to a tee..  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Superflyweight had you down to a tee..  

What he knew how to bore me to death?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He thinks because I think Louis shouldn't be number 1 and think Marciano struggles with a 215 pound Haye........

That I think all the 40s and 50s fighters were crap...Even though I have two in my top 3 p4p list !!  

Pointless drivel ..

I think Marciano would more than struggle.

Rocky was great for his era, but come on. A 185lb Marciano versus a 215lb Haye would be a mismatch. Haye has everything in his favour - size, strength, skill and speed.

It's just evolution. Every sport has got better over the years. I don't know why Boxing has so many blinkered deniers.

I doubt Haye is as strong as Marciano, even following Evan Field up to heavyweight. Marciano certainly hit harder.

The biggest factor here has to be heart. Rocky had it in bag-fulls, Haye had a sore toe.

I think the discrediting of 40's and 50's fighters came largely from azania's moronic repetition of them not evading punches because it was considered un-manly not to get hit back then or some such bullsh!t.

I actually wrote an article some time ago asking whether the 40s or the 80s was the most talented era...

Pep, Armstrong, Robbo, Cochrane, Louis etc...........Had a lot going for it...

Just don't think Louis opposition was that good..........Schmelling had lost to Sharkey.......Sharkey to Carnera........Carnera to Baer.......Baer to Braddock.......Braddock to everybody..........Walcott was 1-1.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I actually wrote an article some time ago asking whether the 40s or the 80s was the most talented era...

........Walcott was 1-1.........

Ali was actually 1-1 with Neon Leon.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I actually wrote an article some time ago asking whether the 40s or the 80s was the most talented era...

........Walcott was 1-1.........

Ali was actually 1-1 with Neon Leon.

NO REALLY ??????........Wasn't Ali's best win though was it!!         

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I actually wrote an article some time ago asking whether the 40s or the 80s was the most talented era...

........Walcott was 1-1.........

Ali was actually 1-1 with Neon Leon.

NO REALLY ??????........Wasn't Ali's best win though was it!!         

Louis was hardly at his peak when he beat Walcott. Just like Ali wasn't when he fought Leon.

I'm not interested...

Seeing as Ali was 5-1 against Liston, Frazier and Foreman think we can let him off a bit for losing to Spinks when he was completely shot.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested...

Well then don't bring it up ad nauseum.