I'm just wondering if more weight is given to the great fighters of the bygone eras, compared to modern day greats.

Will today's fighters be ever compared to the legends of yester year,will they be ever seen in the same regard, or will they be always written off, just because historians and boxing writers have that sentimental attachment to the 'old fighters', and that obssession that their 'heroes' will never be superseded by new up and coming fighters.

Do they have too much pride in their fighters of the past era, that it has become embedded in their way of thinking that it's just so hard to accept a new fighter that is actually better than their all-time favourite hero.

This does not necessarily have to be about boxing. This question encompasses all other sports.

That has probably been the question for the past 100 years.

Some of the older people in Joe Louis' era were saying that Louis was not nearly as good as Jack Johnson and some of the older people in Muhammad Ali's era were saying Ali was not as good as Joe Louis... and the younger people were of course saying Louis was better than Johnson, Ali was better than Louis, etc.

History has treated all of them pretty well.
Look at Lennox Lewis, no one gave him credit for anything when he was the champion.
Now that he has retired and a few years have passed, he is already making some peoples top 10 ATG HW lists.

I think there will always be bias towards some1's era in which they lived.

Some great posts and absolutely true. People will usually favour their heros from their own prime in life. Yep one day I'll have to bite down on the bullet and say that the current heavyweight champ is better than Ali..........I just dont think hes appeared yet!

The old ATGs were great in their day. The problem alot of the older generation of boxing fans have is comparing yesterday's heavyweights with todays and thinking that the likes of Dempsey would destroy Lennox Lewis just like he did Carpentier........they were so much smaller and the genuine big guys from the time appeared to have less grace and skill than todays big heavies from watching fight films.

That said things become alot more difficult with the lower weight divisions.....I think the likes of Ray Robinson, Willi Pep, Sandy Saddler, Billy Conn would all mix very well with the current crop of similarly weighted fighters. The reason why lies with activity for me, these guys fought every month or so, not like the current stars........once or twice a year!

Some great posts and absolutely true. People will usually favour their heros from their own prime in life. Yep one day I'll have to bite down on the bullet and say that the current heavyweight champ is better than Ali..........I just dont think hes appeared yet!

The old ATGs were great in their day. The problem alot of the older generation of boxing fans have is comparing yesterday's heavyweights with todays and thinking that the likes of Dempsey would destroy Lennox Lewis just like he did Carpentier........they were so much smaller and the genuine big guys from the time appeared to have less grace and skill than todays big heavies from watching fight films.

That said things become alot more difficult with the lower weight divisions.....I think the likes of Ray Robinson, Willi Pep, Sandy Saddler, Billy Conn would all mix very well with the current crop of similarly weighted fighters. The reason why lies with activity for me, these guys fought every month or so, not like the current stars........once or twice a year!

I agree with his 100%. I think guys like DLH fight too little and that's their downfall.

After reading Ray Robinson bio, I was amazed just how much he fought, especially when he was in Europe, sure not every guy he went up against was a threat but at least he was active.

I think they are over rated.

I think they are over rated.

So how many of them have you actually seen fight?

It depends what you mean by overrated. Take the great MWs, Hagler, Leonard and Hearns. Are they three of the best MW's ever? Yes. Would they be absolutely unbeatable by the recent best boxers around the MW range, like Hopkins, Jones and Calzaghe? No they wouldn't. I would describe the earlier trio as the better, greater boxers overall, but the notion that no member of the later trio is even fit to mentioned in the same sentence, let alone capable of beating them is just wrong. You might favour the earlier fighters to win in most cases, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

It is fine to favour a fighter based on their ability and say that on balance they were the better fighter, but as soon as we start talking about 'unbeatable, peerless legends' we start going wrong in most cases. Very few boxers are so far and away from all the rest, if any are.

Not at all. That doesn't mean that recent years haven't produced any greats though. I certainly think Bernard Hopkins is a top 5 ATG Middleweight who could hold his own with most anybody on the list.

Poet

they weren't overrated for their time, but generally athletes get better with time, and boxers ARE athletes.

the current heavyweight division blows however, sure they are big but they suck beyond suckage.

certain featherweights like Marquez, Pacquiao and Morales are monsters though, they could tussle with anyone from any era and probably come out on the winning side.

I'm with you Apples. Observation of the Olympic games (and records being broken) shows that human performance has come on leaps and bounds, are we to consider that boxers are the exception to the rule?

There have been some standout individuals in history though, true exceptions to the rule like Ray Robinson.

One thing about the fighters of yesteryear: They had more power than today's fighters. Mike Tyson was the last of the KO artists. Back in the day, there were far more dramatic and conclusive (KO/TKO) endings to fights.

Today, far too many fights end in disappointing and controversial ("I wuz robbed") decisions. Today's fighters pay the ultimate price (losing) for their lack of urgency to dispose of their opponent. It seems like the bigger the fight, the less likely it will end before the scheduled limit.

@panamaniac,

I sort of agree, but I think its due to fighters all trying to be so well rounded in every area it limits them.

Fighters back in the day if they punched hard, they worked on punching power 80% of the time.

If a fighter nowadays hits hard, they work on other areas to build his speed up, this can be a downfall sometimes though.

Klitchko throws typical hooks like a basic boxer, Foreman threw his entire body behind his punches and if he missed he sometimes lost balance, the downside was he had essentially no boxing skills whatsoever.

I also think fighters are to afraid to get hit and don't necessarily want to kill their opponents, although certain fighters in lower divisions may object to this...

Alot of the old school fighters let it all hang out in the ring, trained for 15 rounders, and the "WINNER" got the bigger purse. Times change, things get modified, upgraded,...today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster....but in allowing promoters to set restrictions, and conditions (choice of ring size, gloves, etc.) that fighter becomes "comfortable" knowing he is guaranteed a set purse...even if he loses!! That extra "push" or going the extra mile, and fighting your heart out......it becomes obsolete. Some, not all, but alot of fighters need to get out that "COMFORT ZONE". IE; take on your mandatory, giving the #1 Contender his shot at the title. So in chasing the more profitable bout, so goes the warrior ethos.

Marciano is up there with Primo Canera. Clever guy retired ealry before getting outboxed by an old man. Oh I forgot, he did get outboxed by a slow old man but then hit him while he was down. Wouldn't even make it as Heye's sparring partner, never mind Ali or Tyson's.

Marciano is up there with Primo Canera. Clever guy retired ealry before getting outboxed by an old man. Oh I forgot, he did get outboxed by a slow old man but then hit him while he was down. Wouldn't even make it as Heye's sparring partner, never mind Ali or Tyson's.

Marciano fought at a weight lighter than what most LHWs come into the ring at, so what exactly is your point. If he fought today he would be a LHW or possibly a SMW and would give anyone a tough fight. He definitely kicks the hell out of Tszolt Erdei and grabs himself a title right off the bat.

The discrepancy lies in that the older generation of boxers just appeared to be much more durable people. They fought more, the accomplished more, and they left no room for the experts to question their greatness. Is Money May better than Sugar Ray Robinson? We will never know because Money May won't see 200, even 100 pro fights. So logic says that Robinson is definately the better man.

We also have to understand that for many different reasons, boxers today will never be as active as the boxers of old. I consider James Toney to have a very deep career with over 80 fights. Without comparing records it is easy to make the argument that the skill level and overall pressure of being a pro boxer today is much higher.

The biggest argument of the 'modern fans' are the physical diffirences. Really, when it comes down to it, size is not the reason for superiority. Human beings do not evolve physically in 50-100 years. If anything, they were even better physically back in the day. They were tougher, faster and more skilled(in the overall scheme of things) etc. In fact, we have many examples of smaller fighters doing great in todays world of big men. Best examples would be Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson, men who were naturally 210-220. They were dominant forces in their primes, and fought many bigger opponents and showed size alone doesn't win fights. Then we have an even more recent example in Chris Byrd. The Muhammad Ali type of body. Good fighter in his best days, able to beat or compete with the big men even though he was much smaller. Soon we will have David Haye who will try to take over the heavyweight devision.

But hold on now, i'm talking more about the heavyweights, because that's where this debate lies. People really don't argue the whole evolved thing when it comes to old fighters of lower weight classes. That's a good thing, and pretty logical if you ask me.

It was the standard to be very active. That way, you were always fighting, you would'nt even need to spar. Your body becomes hardened and you get much tougher.

I think the styles has become much better though and more technical.

Marciano fought at a weight lighter than what most LHWs come into the ring at, so what exactly is your point. If he fought today he would be a LHW or possibly a SMW and would give anyone a tough fight. He definitely kicks the hell out of Tszolt Erdei and grabs himself a title right off the bat.

Still overrated. No way is he an ATG and what you said there is a load of crap too. Probably would get outboxed by Erdei, and at light heavy he would get killed by all apart from Clinton Woods. That would be his class of fighting. Don't take my word for it, watch the tapes.

BSer Tarver, washed up Roy (don't even think about prime Roy!), Old B-Hop, Calslappy the daylight robber, blown-up Winky and maybe even a blown-up washed-up Tito. I can see them all taking the little robot to school and then some.