Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Others Prove Weakness of This Era

By Anthony Mason - 07/27/2014 - Comments

pac645By Anthony Mason: “The truth is, it makes the game [where] players have to be more skillful. Nowadays, literally anybody can get out there and get to the basket and you can’t touch anybody. Back then, if guys put their hands on you, you had to have the skill to be able to go both ways, change direction, post up, you had to have a mid-range game because you didn’t want to go all the way to the basket because you would get knocked ass over tea kettle. So I think PLAYING THE GAME BACK THEN REQUIRED MUCH MORE SKILL.” – Kobe Bryant (whose prime years were all in the 2000s) on the NBA of the 1980s/1990s

With this quote, Kobe Bryant, who won all 5 of his NBA championships in the 2000s, disproved the common myth that athletes get better as the years go by. When a sport first starts, it is true that there is a learning curve that needs to be passed. Eventually, however, there is a point where the development of a sport plateaus. Sure, some might point to the steady increase in sprinting times over the years as “proof” that today’s athletes are superior. But how many of those same people neglect to mention how today’s sprinters are aided by starting blocks to propel out of, specialized track sneakers, synthetic tracks, and electronic timing compared?

Compare that with old school track athletes who had no blocks to propel off and get a head start, heavy leather shoes to slow them down, tracks made out of burnt ashes and cinders to add another hindrance, and hand-timing to further lower their sprinting times. Clearly, the advancement of sports is not entirely attributable to the evolution or advancement of the athletes themselves. Give Jesse Owens modern training/nutritioning, special sneakers, electronic timing, perfect track conditions, starting blocks to get a head start, and I’m sure he wouldn’t be far behind Usain Bolt.

I have heard people make the ridiculous analogy that modern boxers compared to old school boxers are like modern sports cars compared to early 20th century automobiles. That kind of comparison is apples to oranges. Like we saw with the old school and new school sprinting example, the athletes themselves weren’t the sole reason for improvement in performance. It is foolish to compare early automobiles to olden day boxers, since the improvement in automobiles is entirely attributable to the advancement of the automobile itself, whereas athletic improvement is not entirely attributable to the athletes themselves. This goes back to the sprinting example where olden day sprinters did not have any starting blocks, modern shoes, tracks, or timing equipment – largely accounting for the improvement of athletic advancement in sprinting times.

Sure, sprinting times and weightlifting records might have increased over the years, but with sports such as the art of boxing, it isn’t about who is the most athletic, who can lift the most weight, or who can sprint, run, or punch the fastest. If that were the case, Bernard Hopkins wouldn’t be in the sport for 26 years. Bernard Hopkins doesn’t have exceptional punching power, extraordinary speed, and is far from a physically gifted athlete outside of his longevity.

Bernard Hopkins started his career in 1988, and 26 years later at the age of 49, he remains arguably the best light heavyweight in the sport – 2 classes (1 by the standards of real old-school boxing) above his best weight. Now how does this show that the boxers of today are superior to those of the old school? Hopkins should have fallen behind if boxers are supposed to get better as the years go by, but that clearly isn’t the case. If a boxer from almost 30 years ago is still arguably the best fighter in a weight class far above his natural weight, and nearing the age of 50, that proves beyond doubt that boxing has regressed, and that old school fighters are far more superior. Hopkins is living proof in front of our own eyes. Even after almost 30 years, the sport hasn’t doesn’t anything to catch up to Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins is actually getting ahead of the sport compared to modern boxers.

Speaking of Hopkins, listen to what he himself stated was the key to his success in his post-fight interview following his victory over Antonio Tarver in 2006. Hopkins had immediately jumped up 2 weight classes by today’s standards (1 weight class in actuality) above his natural weight, and still easily picked apart Tarver, the best light heavyweight at the time.

“I just used Jersey Joe Walcott… and Archie Moore type of style.” Walcott and Moore? Their primes were in the 1940s! The fact that Hopkins copied the old school 1940s boxers and continues to dominate the present day proves beyond doubt that the old school boxers are greater than the new.

How else does one explain how a natural middleweight Bernard Hopkins, who started his career in the late 1980s, specifically mentioned that his emulation of the 1940s Moore and Walcott styles was the key to beating Tarver – the best light heavyweight of 2006. It’s simply obvious that the old school is superior. Clearly the so called “advanced” 21st century boxers are just not in the same league as the truly great boxers of the past.

The same principle applies to James Toney. Toney’s trainer Bill Miller taught Toney to emulate the styles of fighters such as Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Clearly, the results of a prime Toney speak for themselves. Toney dominated 160 and 168 in his prime, and went on to be a contender in the cruiserweight and heavyweight divisions – despite being out of shape, past his prime, washed up, and several classes beyond his natural weight.

The fact that a washed up version of Toney (who started his career in 1988) was a legitimate contender in the cruiser and heavyweight division shows how those divisions specifically have drastically deteriorated in quality, as well as the superiority of the old school.

Sam Peter, one of the best wins on either Klitschkos’ resume, needed a controversial decision and a rematch to beat washed up former middleweight James Toney. One of the top heavyweight contenders of 2006-07, despite being in his prime, was barely able to handle a washed up past prime out of shape natural middleweight, who happened to model his style after 1940s greats such as Walcott and Charles. That is living proof of the sports’ regression. Modern boxers pale in comparison to the truly great boxers of the past. If 21st century boxers are so advanced, why did a prime, top heavyweight contender need a controversial decision and rematch to beat a washed up natural middleweight who used the styles of 1940s boxers? The truth is that new school boxers are inferior.

Another example of old-school superiority is George Foreman. In 1974, he lost the heavyweight championship to a man who is still the greatest heavyweight of all time even after all those years. Foreman came back to the sport, and 20 years later at the age of 45 he regained the heavyweight championship from Michael Moorer, who had just beaten Evander Holyfield. If old school boxers are inferior, how did a fighter whose prime was in the mid-70s regain the heavyweight championship in the mid-90s? Simple – there isn’t much of a difference. If anything, boxing quality has actually regressed since the late 90s.

Boxing is becoming more of a business than sport nowadays. The rapid rise of ordinary fighters like Canelo Alvarez is proof of this. Boxing today favors the financial aspect rather than the art, and that accounts for the inferiority of overrated fighters such as Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather.

It is laughable to hear how boxers of today are superior to the old school. Manny Pacquiao is now fighting a weak opponent in Chris Algieri. Because of this watered down era with over 70 belts available, Algieri is somehow considered a champion. That is the same reason that pacquiao is a fraudulent 8-division champion – because of the large number of meaningless belts that can be won against mediocre opposition as well as the addition of 9 extra weight classes. Apparently, someone who only jumps up 4-5 pounds from 126 to 130 or 130-135 is a 2-3 division world champion by today’s weak standards. And that’s without considering how weak the opposition that needs to be beaten is in order to win that paper title.

When Pacquiao beats Algieri, the blind sheep following the herd will claim that Pacquiao is so great for beating yet another “world champion” just because Algieri held on to a paper title won against a solid and exciting but far from great fighter in Provodnikov. The same is true with the paper champions that Mayweather has fought in his career like Genaro Hernandez and Diego Corrales. Mediocre opposition and the inflated number of meaningless belts also account for Mayweathers multiple meaningless division titles, as well as the minimal difference between weight classes. Pacquiao and Mayweather are two of the greatest boxers of the modern era, but they are only perceived as all-time greats because of the weak era they compete in.

Floyd Mayweather has been forced to get a rematch with Marcos Maidana – a man who his own uncle stated is a weak fighter. Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer in the sport today (but not of this era – that title belongs to Bernard Hopkins), and he can’t even dominate against an ordinary fighter. I do feel he won the first fight, barely but clearly. That is far from anything to brag about, however, considering how his own trainer and uncle admitted Maidana was a weak opponent. Sugar Ray Leonard also has stated he is impressed with Floyd, but “not by who he fights.”

Because of the weakness of this era, Mayweather even at this stage of his career is able to get away with fighting a weak opponent like Maidana a second time. If he was fighting a Ken Norton or Jake Lamotta-quality opponent several times then it would be understandable, but Maidana is nowhere close to that level. Remember, it’s not just me saying Maidana is a low-quality opponent. Roger Mayweather himself said it, so if you disagree with me you disagree with the man responsible for a lot of Floyd Mayweather’s success.

“(Floyd) Mayweather is able to win his fights because I don’t think the status of fighters is as great as they were years ago” – Marvin Hagler.

By extension – that applies to all boxers of this watered down era.



Comments are closed.