Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

[BKM-]

Agreed but he never faced anyone that passed the skill of Usyk. Or someone who has the combination of speed and power like Wilder. Hell, I think Fury is overrated but he would better than anyone Ali had fought.

Most of Ali's opponents had the basics down, very few HW's at that time didn't have the fundamentals down pat which is unlike today. What they have more of today is the physicality, and that would be a different challenge.

Ali may not have faced that kind of size, but George Foreman despite being smaller was an extremely strong grappler, I doubt you can name me anyone today who had more raw physical grappling strength than prime George. And Ali overcame it.

[Ivich]

In the big league sports, athletes have become bigger, stronger, faster overall. In boxing, a 160 pound middleweight is 160 pounds in 1923 as he would be in 2023. If you follow boxing long enough you can see how boxers of today have become more two dimensional. They have access to more modern training and conditioning methods but it doesn't make them better boxers. Boxers in previous eras fought the best of their era. Hearns fought prime Leonard, Duran, Benitez, Hagler--none of Spence's opponents measure up to that level, and his resume is nowhere near as impressive.

Getting the best to fight the best is also a hell of a lot harder nowadays.

[Dr. Z]

It is accepted in pretty much so all of Sports: NBA, NFL, Soccer, and MLB that athletes are better than their predecessors. But when it comes to boxing, every past fighter is favored over the current crop. Let's sit back and look at this objectively. Let's take Spence and Crawford at WW for example. Now, I think we can all agree that Thomas Hearns is arguably the most talented WW of all time. But let's not forget that Hearns was not unbeatable. P4P I think Hagler and Spence are equals (yes, hagler was more versatile but Spence was a much better inside fighter and had the better defense and jab.). We saw what Hagler did to Hearns at 160. Now imagine Spence vs Hearns at 147 or 154? Can we really say for certain that Hearns would beat Spence? I personally think it's 50/50. Now let's look at Duran. Wo did Duran lost too? Wilfred and Leonard. How did they beat him? Movement, jab, and counterpunching. Crawford has all that and then some especially at 135 and 140. What evidence do we have that Duran would be guaranteed against Crawford?

Now, let's look at one of the most popular fantasy match ups: GGG vs Hagler. Now, I will agree that based on the combination of skills and accomplishments, Hagler is the Greatest MW of all time outside of maybe Monzon. But can we honestly say that he faced a natural MW as skilled as GGG? I don't think so. The best natural MW he faced was Mugabi. He lost to Leonard and some thought that he lost to Duran (Draw IMO). Now, name a "natural Mw" that he faced that was as good as GGG and Canelo? He never faced anyone as great as those two a MW.

Sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard are considered P4P top 3 but both struggled with slick fighters who were less than Floyd, yet Floyd is always the underdog.

Ali is one of the greatest HW but in today's era he would be too small and he never faced a fighter as good as Usyk or Fury. I could go on and on but why is the boxing community so nostalgic when it is pretty evident that fighters today, to a certain extent, are as good as fighters from the past?

In all sports today athletes are bigger , stronger , more athletic and faster for the most part.

But lower weights that feature the same size fighters weighing in and not with re-hydrating are even. That is if the moden guy does not use PED's.

You hit on a favorite topic of mine.

[TheIronMike]

It is accepted in pretty much so all of Sports: NBA, NFL, Soccer, and MLB that athletes are better than their predecessors. But when it comes to boxing, every past fighter is favored over the current crop. Let's sit back and look at this objectively. Let's take Spence and Crawford at WW for example. Now, I think we can all agree that Thomas Hearns is arguably the most talented WW of all time. But let's not forget that Hearns was not unbeatable. P4P I think Hagler and Spence are equals (yes, hagler was more versatile but Spence was a much better inside fighter and had the better defense and jab.). We saw what Hagler did to Hearns at 160. Now imagine Spence vs Hearns at 147 or 154? Can we really say for certain that Hearns would beat Spence? I personally think it's 50/50. Now let's look at Duran. Wo did Duran lost too? Wilfred and Leonard. How did they beat him? Movement, jab, and counterpunching. Crawford has all that and then some especially at 135 and 140. What evidence do we have that Duran would be guaranteed against Crawford?

Now, let's look at one of the most popular fantasy match ups: GGG vs Hagler. Now, I will agree that based on the combination of skills and accomplishments, Hagler is the Greatest MW of all time outside of maybe Monzon. But can we honestly say that he faced a natural MW as skilled as GGG? I don't think so. The best natural MW he faced was Mugabi. He lost to Leonard and some thought that he lost to Duran (Draw IMO). Now, name a "natural Mw" that he faced that was as good as GGG and Canelo? He never faced anyone as great as those two a MW.

Sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard are considered P4P top 3 but both struggled with slick fighters who were less than Floyd, yet Floyd is always the underdog.

Ali is one of the greatest HW but in today's era he would be too small and he never faced a fighter as good as Usyk or Fury. I could go on and on but why is the boxing community so nostalgic when it is pretty evident that fighters today, to a certain extent, are as good as fighters from the past?

Hagler annihilated Mustafa Hamsho, the same Hamsho that would annihilate a prime future Two Weight World Champion in Bobby Czyz.

GGG's best win is Daniel Geale.....GTFO

[QueensburyRules]

It is accepted in pretty much so all of Sports: NBA, NFL, Soccer, and MLB that athletes are better than their predecessors. But when it comes to boxing, every past fighter is favored over the current crop. Let's sit back and look at this objectively. Let's take Spence and Crawford at WW for example. Now, I think we can all agree that Thomas Hearns is arguably the most talented WW of all time. But let's not forget that Hearns was not unbeatable. P4P I think Hagler and Spence are equals (yes, hagler was more versatile but Spence was a much better inside fighter and had the better defense and jab.). We saw what Hagler did to Hearns at 160. Now imagine Spence vs Hearns at 147 or 154? Can we really say for certain that Hearns would beat Spence? I personally think it's 50/50. Now let's look at Duran. Wo did Duran lost too? Wilfred and Leonard. How did they beat him? Movement, jab, and counterpunching. Crawford has all that and then some especially at 135 and 140. What evidence do we have that Duran would be guaranteed against Crawford?

Now, let's look at one of the most popular fantasy match ups: GGG vs Hagler. Now, I will agree that based on the combination of skills and accomplishments, Hagler is the Greatest MW of all time outside of maybe Monzon. But can we honestly say that he faced a natural MW as skilled as GGG? I don't think so. The best natural MW he faced was Mugabi. He lost to Leonard and some thought that he lost to Duran (Draw IMO). Now, name a "natural Mw" that he faced that was as good as GGG and Canelo? He never faced anyone as great as those two a MW.

Sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard are considered P4P top 3 but both struggled with slick fighters who were less than Floyd, yet Floyd is always the underdog.

Ali is one of the greatest HW but in today's era he would be too small and he never faced a fighter as good as Usyk or Fury. I could go on and on but why is the boxing community so nostalgic when it is pretty evident that fighters today, to a certain extent, are as good as fighters from the past?

- - Only modern monkeys think they are better because their generation break world records routinely, primarily because of rule changes, equipment changes, training advances, steroids, and typical hubris of "my generation knows more than previous generations"

That would predict that the world in general would be a much nicer place when in fact the opposite is true as mankind continues to set murder, mayhem, and environmental destruction records.

What grade they age you out of?

[Willie Pep 229]

It is accepted in pretty much so all of Sports: NBA, NFL, Soccer, and MLB that athletes are better than their predecessors. But when it comes to boxing, every past fighter is favored over the current crop. Let's sit back and look at this objectively. Let's take Spence and Crawford at WW for example. Now, I think we can all agree that Thomas Hearns is arguably the most talented WW of all time. But let's not forget that Hearns was not unbeatable. P4P I think Hagler and Spence are equals (yes, hagler was more versatile but Spence was a much better inside fighter and had the better defense and jab.). We saw what Hagler did to Hearns at 160. Now imagine Spence vs Hearns at 147 or 154? Can we really say for certain that Hearns would beat Spence? I personally think it's 50/50. Now let's look at Duran. Wo did Duran lost too? Wilfred and Leonard. How did they beat him? Movement, jab, and counterpunching. Crawford has all that and then some especially at 135 and 140. What evidence do we have that Duran would be guaranteed against Crawford?

Now, let's look at one of the most popular fantasy match ups: GGG vs Hagler. Now, I will agree that based on the combination of skills and accomplishments, Hagler is the Greatest MW of all time outside of maybe Monzon. But can we honestly say that he faced a natural MW as skilled as GGG? I don't think so. The best natural MW he faced was Mugabi. He lost to Leonard and some thought that he lost to Duran (Draw IMO). Now, name a "natural Mw" that he faced that was as good as GGG and Canelo? He never faced anyone as great as those two a MW.

Sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard are considered P4P top 3 but both struggled with slick fighters who were less than Floyd, yet Floyd is always the underdog.

Ali is one of the greatest HW but in today's era he would be too small and he never faced a fighter as good as Usyk or Fury. I could go on and on but why is the boxing community so nostalgic when it is pretty evident that fighters today, to a certain extent, are as good as fighters from the past?

You asked "Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities"

You asked an interesting question but then went right to comparing the prowess of past to present fighters.

A topic we have beaten to death on this board.

You really were not asking why fight fans are more nostalgic, were you?

You were just using the question as yet another opportunity to challenge the old timers, and argue that the current fighters are just as good as the old timers. Maybe!

Maybe they are, but did I mention we have beaten this topic to death?

How about your actual question, WHY are WE more nostalgic?

It's about Us! The posters.

The question is not about how good past and current fighters compare to each other, (or at least it wasn't until you baited me into thinking it was.)

So has anyone got an opinion on why we are more nostalgic, or are all sport fans just as nostalgic?

[Slugfester]

You asked "Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities"

You asked an interesting question but then went right to comparing the prowess of past to present fighters.

A topic we have beaten to death on this board.

You really were not asking why fight fans are more nostalgic, were you?

You were just using the question as yet another opportunity to challenge the old timers, and argue that the current fighters are just as good as the old timers. Maybe!

Maybe they are, but did I mention we have beaten this topic to death?

How about your actual question, WHY are WE more nostalgic?

It's about Us! The posters.

The question is not about how good past and current fighters compare to each other, (or at least it wasn't until you baited me into thinking it was.)

So has anyone got an opinion on why we are more nostalgic, or are all sport fans just as nostalgic?

Here's my opinion. Of course that is all it is.

A fan's relationship with boxing is more intimate than most sports. There is a lot of intimacy between two boxers in a ring together. The fighting area is small, not a 120 yard field. That increases intimacy again. Sports with individual people competing in the contest are more intimate than team sports from the beginning anyway. You watch 1 or 2 people in a ring together at once because they are always together, not 22 people scrambling all over a field.

People are more nostalgic over things they felt intimate with. But there is another part^___boxing is more primal than all other sports except MMA. Yet boxing is highly civilized and ritualistic. We don't even hit each other below the belt. Cavemen did not play basketball or tennis, but they did brawl and brawl good. I'll give anyone that right off the top.

MMA is a street fight. It is a bit too brutal for the civilized part of us. It is the way cavemen actually did fight (other than the bites), except you probably couldn't tap out. We cultured beings would rather settle our disputes anyway, but in civilized yet brutal fashion, if the latter becomes necessary.

______________________________________


Yet the biggest reason is even simpler: you can't miss something until it has gone away or is about to. Those other sports are not on their way down, they are on the way up. It is boxing which is diminishing in fan interest and revenue. It is natural for boxing devotees to miss their Golden Age, where it would be unnatural for devotees of those other sports to be grieving nostalgically. Nostalgia is a cousin to grieving, I think. What do they have to grieve about yet? They are flourishing. Eventually soccer will eat football, and they will know how we feel.

[Anthony342]

I'd say baseball is pretty nostalgic and about history too.

[DeeMoney]

The weight class point, that Dempsey alluded to, is a big point. The main difference, in many sports, between modern athletes, and those of years gone by, is size. But for most boxers, size is an equalized variable.

I’d add on that boxing as a sport relies so heavily on stamina, and that older fighters had longer fights in general (15 rounds). So older boxers were preparing in a way to better prepare them for their style of fighting.

I think these two aspects allows for one to argue that boxers from different post war eras, at least in capped weight classes, could compete with modern fighters. Looking at the NFL, its hard to say that teams from pre mid 80s could compete today (linemen were too small). Ditto with NBA pre 1970s.

Though in both cases I could ser a number if individuals transitioning eras; Wilt would be a stud today or in any era. And that leads to another point: improved athleticism has done more to move the mid level athletes up, in essence creating more depth- but often times the greats are near their peak levels naturally. So when we talk about the fighters from 60 years back, we are mostly comparing the cream of the crop. Who could compete with those today.

A couple of ancillary points- I think Hagler vs GGG is a bad example. Prime Hagler was late 70s, when the Cold War competition had pressed athletic development enough that it was close to modern levels. Different from say the mid 50s.
Also, Baseball fans are just as nostalgic. Probably because for some important tasks size, strength, and speed are not required to be world class to compete. Ergo its not far fetched to argue that a prime Ted Williams could be successful in the modern game.

[The D3vil]

Dude, we're currently watching fat, unathletic slob Nikola Jokic dominate the NBA and y'all still pushing that "today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster" nonsense.

Tyson Fury's a fat slob & dominating HWs left & right.

When are y'all gonna learn that big muscles & fast-twitches aren't everything.

Fact is 160lbs is 160lbs, so there's no reason Sugar Ray Robinson or Marvin Hagler couldn't fight 160lbers today.

Also, fighters in the past fought a lot more & fought 15 rounds which made them more conditioned

There also used to be a lot more professional fighters.

Boxing if anything, has regressed in the past few decades, which is why guys like Floyd Mayweather & Manny Pacquaio could be dominant welterweights when there's no way they would have in any other era.