Why is Boxing the only Sport where the fans think Past >> Present

I wonder if people actually watched Michael Jordan when they say that NBA players today are more athletic than anyone when Jordan played. Other than Lebron, and only because of his size, I don't think anyone is a better athlete than Jordan was. Couldn't agree more.

Back in the day: One title, 8 divisions, 15 rounds fights, much more fighters than you have today, fought more frequently, the purses were not huge... You have great fighters today but bring yesterday's terms to today and see how the fighters fair. Would really doubt that if we had 15 round fights you would have 6' 7" HWs and a 140lb fighter re-hydrating to 160lbs. Fighters back in the day have a lot of loses cause they fought each other at the top level cause they wasn't a lot of money. still today we have a lot of great fightes but the sport is much different than it was in the past

In America the "Bert Sugar Syndrome" is alive and well, especially among the old guard of boxing writers and media people. Perhaps time will eradicate that as these types inevitably die off, but let's hope boxing doesn't die off with them. There is no danger whatsoever of boxing tradition as you describe it suffering. That tradition is strong and entrenched. The danger is in that tradition snuffing the life out out the sport in the present day. Just because you dont have respect for past legends,doesnt mean everybody is as stupid as you Tunney/Freedom

The NFL, NBA, and MLB, etc., were around and popular and lucrative in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. The idea that these other sports just suddenly started siphoning off all the US heavyweight boxing talent when Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos showed up is absurd. What really happened is that the fall of the Soviet Union had the inevitable effect of freeing East European heavyweights from former Soviet bloc countries to compete professionally. And the rest is history. The United States will never again dominate the heavyweight division the way it did in the past. Never again. The NFL and NBA were no where near as popular as boxing in the 60s or 70s, and when they did become as popular, the 80s, that's when heavyweight boxing started the decline in depth of talent that we continue to see today. That's not even a debate, that's a fact. Maybe some of those athletes that took up other sports would have been great, maybe they wouldn't have, 50 years ago those guys would have tried, and you don't even see that now.

Every sport has older people competing in it longer and longer. Kobe is old as ****. Grant Hill is a grandpa and still effective... I certainly don't see any fighters on TV with worse skills than that dude Panama is facing. I was mostly talking about sports where you can measure the difference in quality from the 1950's to today, such as track & field where records continue to be broken. Can't necessarily do that in basketball. These records are most often brought up in arguments about why boxers from 20-30 years ago couldn't be on the same level as today's. The fighters Panama was facing in the gif. were local British boxers and I reckon many British bantamweights today would be befuddled by Panama Al Brown to say the least. He was 5'11 and had a 76 inch reach, similar to most of today's welterweights and middleweights. Johnny King was one of the boxers being clobbered around: FRIENDS AND RIVALSYour browser does not support iframes. Looks pretty much like the usual British contest today. Ever seen a "Prizefighter" tournament?

In any other Sport, fans realise that Athletes are better conditioned, more skilled and generally more athletic Yet when it comes to Boxing no active fighter gets a fair shake against the "Legends" of the past when it comes to "ATG Ranking" or "Fantasy Fights" The real question is, why is boxing the only sport where fans get so serious when taking trips to fantasy island? I mean really, I understand the passion folks have for the old school fighters, but we are in the here and now...most debates are pointless anyway. It all ends up being a flame war of opinions. Nothing more. Not saying I am any better than anyone here, but that is why I refuse to discuss fantasy fight with anyone. It's amazingly pointless...Just my opinion.

In America the "Bert Sugar Syndrome" is alive and well, especially among the old guard of boxing writers and media people. Perhaps time will eradicate that as these types inevitably die off, but let's hope boxing doesn't die off with them. There is no danger whatsoever of boxing tradition as you describe it suffering. The danger is in that tradition snuffing the life out out the sport in the present day. yeah i mean i get you but i just see the total opposite when i talk to people about boxing. maybe it is difference in where we live or something, but around the DC/Baltimore area people are always talking about guys like Larry Holmes. and people know that bernard hopkins and floyd are actually once in lifetime type fighters, but there is a great apathy to the promotion aspect. people always tell me the PPV is bull**** and they would rather wait a week and watch it online for free. I just never hear the "bert sugar syndrome". perhaps in the boxing history section of a forum? but what again are you really doing in this section if you don't expect to be exposed to those who call themselves "historians". I agree that most of these guys that think they know something on tv don't have a real stoop to stand on, they are where they are because of the "character". most of the back and forth arguing about boxing is actually done on forums like this one or at bars

The reason has to be, that it is correct. I look at it this way, in the older days, there were at least a hundred times as many boxers around as there are today, whidh has a much smaller group particpating. In the older days there were only 8 weight classes, and a champion would certainly have to have fought his way through perhaps the equivalent of 25-30 present day contenders, maybe more, before he got a title chance. Even in later years, Hagler had over 50 fights before he got a title shot. In earlier years, a champion might have had up to 100 fights, was vastly experienced in every kind of style or opponent. Today's fighters don't even begin to approach this level. The reason that track, athletics, basketball, baseball, football etc. have progressed whilst boxing is seen to have regressed is that these sports are not merely man-against-man, or team against team, they are against verifiable records. And it's by pitting themselves against these records, that we can see the progress they have made compared to the earlier players. The records are ALWAYS there, they survive, faster times, swimming records broken, longer hits, longer throws, longer kicks etc. Boxing is different, and always will be. Today's champion is champion of a division half the weight dimensions of an earlier division, and king of a group of competitors counted literrally in the tens, where on older days they would be counted in the thousands. It's logical................... all good points that i pretty much agree with, but as the other guy said its important not to speak about it in such a way that is seems like current fighters are not worth watching. i feel that would be taking it to far, it reminds me of people i know who say they wont listen to music made after the 90s. i understand where they are coming from but at the end of the day its like ****ing come on

There is nothing at all wrong with a sport having a mythology and a history that people appreciate. But that is not the point being argued here. The point is that boxing is the one sport where the past is constantly being presented as and promoted as being totally superior in all ways to the present, to the ultimate detriment of the sport. You'll never hear the media people in any other sport constantly denigrating the current product they are promoting in favor of the past -- only in boxing will you hear that from supposed "experts" like Bert Sugar. It's crazy and counterproductive to keep telling people that there is no point in watching what is going on now, because none of it measures up to the past. And then people wonder why boxing is "dying" in America. Use the past to promote the sport and create interest in the present. Not to bury the present. Big difference. in that sense you are correct. if someone has taken the "mythology" of the sport and used it to somehow make the current product less than it could be, they have "abused" the tradition. in this situation it is the person at fault not the underlying ideas. i don't exactly share your opinions about bert sugar, I actually think he is more of an ineffectual "nothing". if you really, really "listen" to him then you are fool because he is clearly a joke. i just dont happen to hear many people that sound like they have bert sugars words coming out of there mouth, ten years ago maybe it would be a little different? im just saying, maybe some idiot took the **** to far and i agree, that was wrong. but im also here as a dedicated boxing fan saying the tradition matters and i don't want that "suffer" any more than i want modern boxing to "suffer"

In any other Sport, fans realise that Athletes are better conditioned, more skilled and generally more athletic Yet when it comes to Boxing no active fighter gets a fair shake against the "Legends" of the past when it comes to "ATG Ranking" or "Fantasy Fights" The reason has to be, that it is correct. I look at it this way, in the older days, there were at least a hundred times as many boxers around as there are today, whidh has a much smaller group particpating. In the older days there were only 8 weight classes, and a champion would certainly have to have fought his way through perhaps the equivalent of 25-30 present day contenders, maybe more, before he got a title chance. Even in later years, Hagler had over 50 fights before he got a title shot. In earlier years, a champion might have had up to 100 fights, was vastly experienced in every kind of style or opponent. Today's fighters don't even begin to approach this level. The reason that track, athletics, basketball, baseball, football etc. have progressed whilst boxing is seen to have regressed is that these sports are not merely man-against-man, or team against team, they are against verifiable records. And it's by pitting themselves against these records, that we can see the progress they have made compared to the earlier players. The records are ALWAYS there, they survive, faster times, swimming records broken, longer hits, longer throws, longer kicks etc. Boxing is different, and always will be. Today's champion is champion of a division half the weight dimensions of an earlier division, and king of a group of competitors counted literrally in the tens, where on older days they would be counted in the thousands. It's logical...................

it is purely a matter of perspective. if you debate someone intelligent about this it becomes a stalemate everytime. boxing is highly stylistic, high class fighters have an artistic quality to them and trying to figure out why something artistic appeals to one man and not the other becomes an esoteric and nonsensical conversation. it is a matter of taste, not everyone can see this and they will continue arguing that one way or the other is, in fact the correct way but neither side can establish anything. i could think of a sensible defense for either side or argue it either way but it is actually totally pointless to do so, each person should simply appreciate what appeals to them and as they branch out to others perhaps their ideas will change, perhaps not. in the end, some progress will be made because the person is now into the sport that much more. it is only beneficial to modern fighters if they feel like they are competing with the legends of the past. if i heard a young fighter say "i want to be the next joe frazier" I would be happy about that. what is wrong with having a small "mythology" in boxing? they have it in all sports. when the rubber hits the road, it is the fighter that has to do the work and take the punches. I just never felt it necessary to take shots at the traditions and "mythology" in boxing. how is it bad? people love to have nostalgic talks about old fighters, and the same people love to go see fights that happen today. in a nutshell it comes down to taste. some people simply appreciate the "vibe" of the old time fighters more. there is no scientific explanation other than the fact that people have the freedom to scan through hundreds and hundreds of fights and they will remember some as more "striking" than others and influence their personal taste

In any other Sport, fans realise that Athletes are better conditioned, more skilled and generally more athletic Yet when it comes to Boxing no active fighter gets a fair shake against the "Legends" of the past when it comes to "ATG Ranking" or "Fantasy Fights" Reasonable question, applied to a sport appreciated by folks that are lured into a fighter based on more than just raw skill. It's no coincidence that I can vividly recall entire days and events that were held close to a fight. The tenseness that comes with watching a fight and following a fighter, to me transcends almost any sport. I think the problem comes in when fans are unwilling to admit their bias, instead they try to read their infatuation into statistics and facts, they creatively bend reality based on nothing more than hope in their favorite fighter. Boxing is a sport of gratuitous extremes that attracts a fan base as radical as the sport itself. So transcending time, or reason, or conditioning or whatever such thing isn't the point, the fan is the point.

To put it simply, take a look at the p4p from 30 years ago and compare it to today's: 1 - Thomas Hearns 2 - Sugar Ray Leonard 3 - Marvin Hagler 4 - Larry Holmes 5 - Alexis Arguello 6 - Wilfredo Gomez 7 - Eddie Mustafa Muhammad 8 - Matt Saad Muhammmad 9 - Wilfred Benitez 10 - Roberto Duran 10 - Aaron Pryor Can anyone in their right mind claim that today's line-up looks better? 1. Manny Pacquiao (33 years old) 2. Floyd Mayweather Jr. (34 years old) 3. Sergio Martinez (36 years old) 4. Nonito Donaire 5. Andre Ward 6. Juan Manuel Marquez (38 years old) 7. Wladimir Klitschko (35 years old) 8. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (34 years old) 9. Timothy Bradley 10. Vitali Klitschko (40 years old) What was once considered a "young man's game" seems to dominated by older men who have been around for decades. We can't claim this for another sport. Every sport has older people competing in it longer and longer. Kobe is old as ****. Grant Hill is a grandpa and still effective... I certainly don't see any fighters on TV with worse skills than that dude Panama is facing.

You gave me Andre Berto...lol That scab gets tired and falls in for a clinch after 3 punches...His modern methods ain't doin shi.t for him.. I wasnt saying Berto beats all of the old school fighters I was just using Berto as a context to show new training methods. Ward works with the same people as Berto, maybe he is a better example. And btw the methods in the video are scientifically proven to be more effective.

Another fool talking out his azz. Name some of these modern fighters that could tear through the old school... Taking vitamins doesn't make you better..skills pay bills... Today's guys can't even fight on the inside....let alone BOB AND WEAVE.. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

You don't know shi.t from shoe polish. Old school fighter DID LIFT WEIGHTS they just didn't over-do it...Why is that so hard to understand????????????? Weight lifting doesn't seem to be helping modern fighters..especially trash like Berto.. Jack Johnson drank PURE water...breathed PURE air...and ate PURE food...He didn't need a fa.g like Ariza for anything. If you're basing your argument on scabs like Pacman and Berto you're actually making my case for me....lol I don't see any fighters today more "effective" than the guys in the 15 round days...especially Berto and Nanny sue... NONE of what you say has produced a better fighter...not ONE... Here I'am thinking I will have an intelligent conversation, what was I thinking... You asked me for examples of new training, and I gave you examples of new training.

To put it simply, take a look at the p4p from 30 years ago and compare it to today's: 1 - Thomas Hearns 2 - Sugar Ray Leonard 3 - Marvin Hagler 4 - Larry Holmes 5 - Alexis Arguello 6 - Wilfredo Gomez 7 - Eddie Mustafa Muhammad 8 - Matt Saad Muhammmad 9 - Wilfred Benitez 10 - Roberto Duran 10 - Aaron Pryor Can anyone in their right mind claim that today's line-up looks better? 1. Manny Pacquiao (33 years old) 2. Floyd Mayweather Jr. (34 years old) 3. Sergio Martinez (36 years old) 4. Nonito Donaire 5. Andre Ward 6. Juan Manuel Marquez (38 years old) 7. Wladimir Klitschko (35 years old) 8. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (34 years old) 9. Timothy Bradley 10. Vitali Klitschko (40 years old) What was once considered a "young man's game" seems to dominated by older men who have been around for decades. We can't claim this for another sport. That is sick. Never thought on how if could be presented like this before. :cool2:

I don't think a potential lack of iron bothered Jack Johnson much: http://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jack-johnson-boxer.jpg?w=600&h=811 1:25 And when you're talking of Jack Johnson, you're talking of a way different era from a century ago. You can't compare a Usain Bolt to a runner from 20 years ago, but you have a Bernard Hopkins around in boxing that has fought for over 20 years. I believe that alone shows boxing to be different. Experience and skill can overcome a gap in athleticism and youth.

To put it simply, take a look at the p4p from 30 years ago and compare it to today's: 1 - Thomas Hearns 2 - Sugar Ray Leonard 3 - Marvin Hagler 4 - Larry Holmes 5 - Alexis Arguello 6 - Wilfredo Gomez 7 - Eddie Mustafa Muhammad 8 - Matt Saad Muhammmad 9 - Wilfred Benitez 10 - Roberto Duran 10 - Aaron Pryor Can anyone in their right mind claim that today's line-up looks better? 1. Manny Pacquiao (33 years old) 2. Floyd Mayweather Jr. (34 years old) 3. Sergio Martinez (36 years old) 4. Nonito Donaire 5. Andre Ward 6. Juan Manuel Marquez (38 years old) 7. Wladimir Klitschko (35 years old) 8. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (34 years old) 9. Timothy Bradley 10. Vitali Klitschko (40 years old) What was once considered a "young man's game" seems to dominated by older men who have been around for decades. We can't claim this for another sport.

It's a nostalgic thing I think. People act like you've committed sin if you say any current fighter would have beaten or is better than the old time fighters. They set it up where it's impossible for the sport to ever evolve. If nobody can be better than past fighters then the sport is doomed to go downhill. People are retarded, it's that simple.