As boxing fans do we over glorify the past? Or is it justified?

[Skittlez]

I think it's in between.

What I mean is ... you can clearly see that the 175 Division during the 70's and early-mid 80's is miles and miles above the 168-175 division today.

The likes of Spinks-Johnson-even MSM will walk through the current 175.. It makes me shudder to think of what Spinks would do to guys like Froch or Dawson.


The 90's clearly had more heavyweight talent and the 160-168 was obviously superior to today.


BUT... I feel that guys going as far back as the 20's is over doing it a bit.

[The Gambler1981]

I say yes, but I also think a great fighter in any era would find a way to make it work in any era.

I like a method where you judge a guy against their contemporaries then rate their greatness in comparison to their own era, then you judge guys on how great they were to their peers.

If any baseball fans out there think WAR for boxing.

[turkas]

This is nothing unique to boxing, every sport does this it history.

Hell, this is just a common thing with History in general. We always tend to long for the past for some reason. When you ask someone who the best president was they are more than likely going to give you a name from the 18th, 19th, or early 20th century and when you ask them why they can't tell you because they don't know anything about them or what they did.

[ToyBulldog]

Guys in the '20s were fighting as welterweight champs going up and beating heavyweights. I don't think it's overglorifying at all. They were deemed the Roarin' 20s for a reason.

[jri9d0]

I don't think so. I especially put these fighters in a higher regard because unlike the fighters of today those of yesteryear fought without suspicion of PED use and didn't make as many excuses as why they couldn't make a mega event.

Can you imagine Ali/Frazier never fighting because one isn't deemed as popular in the public's eyes?

Or how about not coming to terms to fight because another decided he was on vacation?


To be honest, stylistically I really think only a few of today's fighters might be able to hang with those of yesteryears.

[The Tase]

Yes.

Putting fighters with no fight footage in the top 5 all time is shameless and dishonest.

Referees as judges, black fighters royally screwed left and right, italian mafia controlled fights....

Golden Era = Tainted Era

[2todabody]

I think us older guys do, but with some good reasoning, the big $$$, and promotional monopolies involved with todays boxing have the best fighters not fighting each other, good young fighters not getting a chance because of risk/reward or not popular enough, makes you wish for the older days.

[tangalog2200]

I don't think so. I especially put these fighters in a higher regard because unlike the fighters of today those of yesteryear fought without suspicion of PED use and didn't make as many excuses as why they couldn't make a mega event.

Can you imagine Ali/Frazier never fighting because one isn't deemed as popular in the public's eyes?

Or how about not coming to terms to fight because another decided he was on vacation?


To be honest, stylistically I really think only a few of today's fighters might be able to hang with those of yesteryears.

you have very valid points up there.

i have watched ali/frazier/leonard/hagler/hearn etc and is still watching fighters of today and i easily say the old bunch were better in so many ways