Are Today's Fighters Held to Higher Standards than Fighters of the Past?

PBP9y ago

I believe so and I will provide 5 examples: 1. Losses are Penalized More - Losses are penalized today more than ever before. A loss takes you out of title contention, fan interest declines, money declines and it becomes more and more difficult to get relevant fights. God forbid you lose a fight as a prospect. The promoter will completely lose interest in you. Fighters of the past not only have several losses but BAD losses. I'm talking Roberto Duran/Kirkland Laing, Sugar Ray Robinson/Ralph Jones, etc. Can you imagine if a fighter of today lost to that caliber of fighter? They would be ridiculed to death and would not make it back on TV. 2. Contenders Are Under Higher Scrutiny - An ATG or HOF resume generally consists of the following: a. A handful career defining fights vs fellow hall of famers. In the old days when fighters had over 100 fights, you maybe had more of these opportunities but in the new era, there are maybe 5 of these in a 50 fight career. b. Title defenses against the contenders in your division. It seems boxing fans only give credit for category "a" now. Top 10 contenders are considered bums and a champion gets no credit for beating the #4 or #5 guy in his division. And I'm not talking about sanctioning body rankings. I'm talking Ring/TBRB ratings. 3. More Pressure to Dominate and Be "Exciting" Close decision victories are not good enough. Many fans and media will scream robbery and demand a rematch. Even though, if a fight is 50/50 going in, it will likely be a closely contested matchup that is decided by a point or two. The resumes of many ATG's have numerous close contested wins which defined their careers. Second is the pressure to excite. The Rumble in the Jungle, Tyson/Holyfield, etc. were clinch-fests. But at some point, clinching no longer became a part of boxing. In fact, many fans even have reduced the value of a jab, the most important punch in boxing. If you watch the black and white fight footage, what's funny is you see a lot of resemblance in the tactics and techniques that are utilized by Andre Ward and prime Bernard Hopkins. 4. Nostalgia Fighters of today have to overcome the admiration and hype of the old school contender. For example, a champion of today beats Joe Smith Jr., it's considered a cherry pick over a construction worker. A fighter from the 50's beats the Joe Smith Jr. equivalent and it's probably one of his hall of fame wins. I attribute this partially to my final point: 5. There is footage of almost everything you do Fighters of the past benefit from not having footage so you have to rely on books and media (which tend to exaggerate) to learn about how certain fights play out. You don't get to see the rounds they lost, score the fights yourself, look at frame by frame to see if punches landed, etc. Today, you can go on YouTube and see Andre Ward or Deontay Wilder get dropped early in their careers or Gennady Golovkin look human against Kasim Ouma. So for those reasons, I think fighters today are held to higher standards than fighters of the past. It is almost impossible for a fighter in today's landscape to ever be viewed in the same light of fighters in previous eras.

Comments (20)

Kev

Great post, good points, I agree. Boxing fans are more cynical now.

9y ago

Joe_Beamish

If you lost a handful of fights in the past the attitude was you'll get 'em next time kid or your day will come . If you lose one fight today you're a bum ! End thread.:boxing: No, the few fighters today that are held to the "0" standard (the mayweather standard, we'll say) win many fights by outpointing guys who look untouched afterwards. Back in the day you had to kick somebody's ass.

9y ago

Joe_Beamish

Past fighters had to fight more fights, with more rounds, to compete for only one belt per division, in fewer divisions. So, no.

9y ago

Tom_Cruise

As time goes on i do think the way people view your resume changes. The solid top 10 contender types are forgotten for the most part, while the 'names', no matter what stage of their career they were in, will be remembered. So a Clottey type win for Pac might fade into insignificance to the boxrec warriors of the future, but the ODLH win will be held up as an example of his greatness. Basically the context of the fights gets forgotten and only the names remain.

9y ago

soul_survivor

lol absolute nonsense, is pbp the new larry ?

9y ago

Tom_Cruise

I think it was much more difficult to get to the top in the past than it is now. How many fighters from the black and white era were there like Joshua who turned over already a star and are already a massive name without having fought anyone. SRR had fought multiple greats before he had even fought for a title. It was years before he had the recognition that he has today. Most of the top fighters from those eras you hear about today toiled away in obscurity for years fighting killer after killer for virtually no money (especially black fighters like Moore or Charles). Compare that to today where prospects are picked up by fans after a few fights and many highly touted ones are guided through the levels with careful matchmaking I get the point about fighting less means less opportunity to fight the best. But all fans generally ask is that you fight the right opponent at the right time. Ray Leonard for example has a modern resume in terms of no. of fights, but he took the fights mattered at the time when they most called for (maybe with the exception of Hagler). Basically no. It is much easier for fighters today in almost every way. Its not nostalgia imo. When you really look deeper into the great resumes you realise just how special they were.

9y ago

Dr_Rumack

That's true. Smaller gloves, 15 round fights, fighting more often, less safety standards in play, etc. Don't forget the mafia.

9y ago

JoeMan

Doesn't even matter whether they're held to higher standards. Question is are those standards being met? No. Fans can b1tch all they want till they're blue in the face and promoters would still make objectionable fights, ie, Lara/Foreman. Broner lost to Maidana. Three months earlier, Matthysse lost to Swift Garcia. They came back fighting nobodies, instead of against each other, loser vs loser. Both were Haymon fighters and still didn't fight after fighting 2 nobodies each. Standards are non existent.

9y ago

Real_King_Kong

It has to be taken into account who is holding them to this standard. Let's not confuse a bunch of message board fanboys trying to score points off eachother with fair and objective boxing historians. Sometimes i think our perception is skewed by what we read on here.

9y ago

hhs661

Internet age. I'm sure Jordan, Ali, Tyson, and many other great athletes would've gone through the same if not worse if there was some sort of social media like tool being used like there is against today's athletes. I can only imagine JCC, Sr getting pass after pass on his way towards 100 victories w/ the opposition he faced and the gift he received vs Sweet Pea. Hell, not even DLH got the backlash that fighters today get for his retirements, his more than controversial decisions. Just imagine what it would've been like for Riddick Bowe or Mike Tyson after the Holyfield fight. As big as those were.. they'd be nonstop discussions everywhere if it were around the peak of the internet/social media age we live in today

9y ago

Canelo_and_GGG

That's true. Smaller gloves, 15 round fights, fighting more often, less safety standards in play, etc. If give fighters from all generations credit,if they have solid achivments(i respect everyone who steps in 2 ring but achivments are diffrent thing)For example Morales and Barrera are held as ATG/Legeds and they made there names in 2000s same for Floyd or Pac,From active fighters Ward and Canelo are most accomplished. I dont mind that they fought other ATGs many times its even better ,like back then Floyd and Pac would have like 4-5 time during careers and it could produce some epic moments,and its not like they fought 1 guy many times and nott others,it many fighters resume from tthat time you can find hole generation,i mention it cuse somebody said thatt floyd would get **** on if he fought Pac many times,its not true,i mean if he would fight only Pac proobably yes but it wasnt a case.

9y ago

Canelo_and_GGG

No although i will say that the ability of past fighters gets exagerrated in mythical match ups. But these days you can be champ without fighting anyone. Wilders been champ for a while, coming up to 40 fights and his best win is stiverne. When fighters beat someone good they dine out on it for years. Fighters arent tested like they used to be, many of them are guided carefully to paper titles and avoid all challenges. Im not saying they took on all comers back in the day, but it wasnt as bad as now. Its incredibly rare for a boxer to have 2 hard opponents a year, not uncommon actually for world level fighters not to even have 1 hard opponent per year. You cant compare them in H2H,maybe if you give both same drugs ,training etc,cuse if they would fight that would mean they are in same generation. Sports evolve,even sport eterteiment,just look what today wrestlers can pull off,i know its nott sport butt you can see it the best on this case,maybe Soccer/Football cuse level of play improved massivly.but that doesnt mean that Hulk Hogan or Diego Maradona are not greats

9y ago

PBP

I respect them for fact how hard boxing was back then and how many opponets you needed to defeat to make it big,many fights,and boxing was brutal back then i mean BRUTAL. That's true. Smaller gloves, 15 round fights, fighting more often, less safety standards in play, etc.

9y ago

Canelo_and_GGG

30s and 40s/prior is little footage, 50s and 60s is minimal footage, thereafter you can see almost all of their fights if you are willing to sit down and analyze them. I respect them for fact how hard boxing was back then and how many opponets you needed to defeat to make it big,many fights,and boxing was brutal back then i mean BRUTAL.

9y ago

PBP

what do you mean "fighters of the past",this which we have no footage?or 50s,60s,70s,80s too? 30s and 40s/prior is little footage, 50s and 60s is minimal footage, thereafter you can see almost all of their fights if you are willing to sit down and analyze them.

9y ago

Outwest_Exp_355

It's the message board/social media world we live in.

9y ago

Canelo_and_GGG

9y ago

The_Gambler1981

To me, to visually watch and score a fight live and remember it has more of an impact than reading a newspaper clipping from 1935 that states that a decision was controversial. There are advantages to having more exposure nowadays but like you said, it's a double edged sword. They even have old sparring footage on YouTube now. Yea that is one of the big issues with judging guys from a long time ago, there might be footage of guys but how many complete fights are there. SO how much does even the best historian really know compared to today where you know almost every detail. Take Ray Robinson you think if there were internet message boards in the 50's he wouldn't get **** for fighting LaMotta 6 times when he wouldn't fight anyone from the black murderers row once. Or his haggling over his value threatening to walk out on fight the day of if his demands weren't met. Then his personal issues which honestly make a lot of current issues look minor. I am not the only one that knows this stuff but I would be in a very small minority that actually cares enough to bring up that sort of stuff when his name pops up, and the only reason I know that stuff a bit is I came up before the proliferation of video so I am well read on boxing. How many people are going to be well read and actually take it to heart going forward that always had video of everything? Even if you go back to the 70's and 80's or 90's those fights were on TV but how many people had access to those videos whenever they wanted to watch them, so people can know a lot more. However, less people actually understand boxing or want to really understand boxing. It is kind of sad because people should be able to be better fans of the sport.

9y ago

PBP

Knowledge is a double edged sword, a guy can rise quicker because it is easier to see that guy. However, the more you see a guy the more you know about their flaws. Once you start seeing flaws you bring them up because that is how that guy will eventually go out but that could be 20 fights down the road or the very next fight. There is no mystery in boxing anymore and everyone wants to act like an expert rather than actually enjoying the sport. It makes sense though because it is hard work to be a hardcore boxing fan so you are pretty much an expert if you get to that point and then follow the sport at that level for a number of years. To me, to visually watch and score a fight live and remember it has more of an impact than reading a newspaper clipping from 1935 that states that a decision was controversial. There are advantages to having more exposure nowadays but like you said, it's a double edged sword. They even have old sparring footage on YouTube now.

9y ago

The_Gambler1981

9y ago