BOXING - Past VS Modern

[ßringer]

For the record ; I'm paying much closer attention to this 2000-2010 era.

It's been a hell of a ride, too.

I wish everybody could feel about boxing the way we all do, well at least in the "mainstream" anyway.

There's been so many amazing moments in just the last 10 years that didn't even get a mention in mainstream press.

[0Rooster4Life0]

Thank You So much all.

Im glad you like the video,



P.S , as for not including the 20s, Originally i did, but then i thought about it, i had past vs modern, Modern being 80s till now, and it isnt a huge spread, so i thought if i put the 20s till 70s it was a to big of a spread , so i made the gap smaller. it has nothing to do with being less "Black fighters". im not like that. i just thought i should explain myself.




Once again Thank You ,
and sorry for the quality, Youtube makes it look worse.





Rooster

[Kinetic Linking]

oh alright I get it. I guess you could have modern vs. past vs. ancient.

That would give you an interesting perspective, making the 30s through 60s look like a strangely, especially ****ty era in history period rather than simply a sign of general inferiority of the past.

[mickey malone]

Real talk, right?

For me, during the 90's ; I was watching the era unfold, but I was also very focused on the 70's and 80's.

I got into this sport when I was close to 11, back in '95.

And I spent a lot of time watching the 70's and 80's guys do their thing. Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Pryor, Arguello, Benitez, Gomez, Sanchez, Frazier, Ali, etc.....

And I was blown away by how good those guys were.

Meanwhile, I had some guys competing in my first "live" era, that I didn't really take much note of until after the fact.

Crazy how things work out.

For a bloke of 23, you got no worries... Trust me....

Your posts are full of good attitude, while helping others... Knowledge to!
There's a lot of disabled posters out there, taking advantage at the mo.. Nice to see them being supervised, by someone like your good self... Regards MM

[7punchcombo]

1970s son!!!!!!!!

[StarshipTrooper]

For a bloke of 23, you got no worries... Trust me....

Your posts are full of good attitude, while helping others... Knowledge to!
There's a lot of disabled posters out there, taking advantage at the mo.. Nice to see them being supervised, by someone like your good self... Regards MM

Yeah I agree: Bringer is one of the best posters on Boxing Scene and I feel we're damn lucky he started posting in Boxing History.

Poet

[#1Assassin]

1970-1990 was the best time for boxing. fighters had the ability to train the way they should and hadnt gotten spoiled like todays era. the US amateur system getting messed up really hurt the sport aswell as the ppvs and boxing has taken a few steps back.

[CCobra]

I think each and every era has had it's own set of pro's and con's.

If I had to pick an absolute favorite, it would most likely be the 70's, 80's, or the mid 50's to late 60's.

I'm only 23, I haven't seen much of anything past '52 or '53 aside from most of Joe Louis' fights. So I'm really not able to comment on much prior to that.

I will say this though ; looking back, I think the 90's is a highly underrated era.

I really didn't realize how lucky I was to be able to watch it until around 2005.

Is that how it goes with every era? You don't realize how special it was until years after?

That would be correct. Back in the era of Dempsey, when he was being paid more in one fight than the president of the United States of America was in 4 years of office, some were outraged. Called it the death of boxing where prizefighters are out only to maximise their economic gain and not fighting for the love of the sport anymore (sound familiar?) but once that era had ended it was appropriately called the golden age of Boxing. People don't realise how special things were until it was gone. It's only now people are starting to appreciate the 90s for what it was and that is a good era of Boxing, it wasn't spectacular (in comparison to the era that had just gone - the 80s) but it was a good era.

[StarshipTrooper]

That would be correct. Back in the era of Dempsey, when he was being paid more in one fight than the president of the United States of America was in 4 years of office, some were outraged. Called it the death of boxing where prizefighters are out only to maximise their economic gain and not fighting for the love of the sport anymore (sound familiar?) but once that era had ended it was appropriately called the golden age of Boxing. People don't realise how special things were until it was gone. It's only now people are starting to appreciate the 90s for what it was and that is a good era of Boxing, it wasn't spectacular (in comparison to the era that had just gone - the 80s) but it was a good era.

I dunno: I thought the '90s were pretty good while they were still going on, and the '00s are good in certain weight classes. That's the thing: Every weight class has it's ups and downs. It just happens that the Heavyweights are down in the '00s. They were up in '90 and could be up in the '10s who knows? These things run in cycles.

Poet

[Kinetic Linking]

that's true, boxing has a reputation for being highly cyclical in general, moreso than other sports. It kind of makes sense if you think about the nature of the sport. It's seriously violent and destructive, often causing long term damage to its stars. It never dies of course, but remains highly volatile.