Black and White syndrome

[SCtrojansbaby]

It seems most on here think the older the fighter the better he is.

Every great fighter from the 90s is better then ever great fighter from the 00s and every great fighter from the 80s is better then every great fighter from the 90s and every great fighter from the 70s is better then every great fighter from the 80s and so on.

I think it is because the less fights you have actually seen of the fighter make you think he is better then the guy you have seen fight 20x

[BigStereotype]

I don't really agree. Some people are like that, but then some people are the opposite. For the most part, I feel like we just try to judge objectively who was best. You'll see Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones, Manny Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales and Marquez on most ATG lists and you'll see them interspersed pretty evenly with Muhammad ALi, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey and Henry Armstrong.

[Holtol]

There are many good boxers these days. But in 150 years of boxing there have been some very special boxers. And no doubt there has been a generation in boxing that produced the best boxers, but I don't know which generation it is.

[The Surgeon]

I try to be as impartial as i can and feel i do a good job.
Its true tho that generally speaking a fighters stock rises a bit once he has retired and the dust has settled.

[Scott9945]

My observation is that it is human nature for boxing fans to have the fondest memories of the top fighters when they just became fans. If you became a fan in the late 80's, Tyson is your gold standard. If you became a fan in the early 70's, it may be Ali or Duran.

Having followed the sport for a very long time now, I have always heard that the fighters from the past were much better than they are now. The first time I heard that was about Ali in the late 60's, and I hear the same about the Klitschko's now. Hopefully hindsight gives us better perspective, although past champions often go from underrated to overrated.

[sonnyboyx2]

It seems most on here think the older the fighter the better he is.

Every great fighter from the 90s is better then ever great fighter from the 00s and every great fighter from the 80s is better then every great fighter from the 90s and every great fighter from the 70s is better then every great fighter from the 80s and so on.

I think it is because the less fights you have actually seen of the fighter make you think he is better then the guy you have seen fight 20x

It is true that boxers from other decades are better than boxers of the last 20yrs with the exception of Pacquiao & Mayweather, there is virtually not a single boxer who can compete other than those two with fighters from pre 1990 and even those two are not recognised as the best in their respective weight-classes in terms of All time Greatness... it is my opinion that the champions we have had in every weight class over the last 20yrs would struggle to be contenders in some era's of the sport, also we have so many Championship belts on offer that we have 4 or 5 boxers in each weight division calling themselves the champion as well as in the sport today these champions do not have to fight the best in their weight class like in other era's of the sport.

[BigStereotype]

It is true that boxers from other decades are better than boxers of the last 20yrs with the exception of Pacquiao & Mayweather, there is virtually not a single boxer who can compete other than those two with fighters from pre 1990 and even those two are not recognised as the best in their respective weight-classes in terms of All time Greatness... it is my opinion that the champions we have had in every weight class over the last 20yrs would struggle to be contenders in some era's of the sport, also we have so many Championship belts on offer that we have 4 or 5 boxers in each weight division calling themselves the champion as well as in the sport today these champions do not have to fight the best in their weight class like in other era's of the sport.

Barrera, Morales and Marquez could compete in any era at featherweight. Any era. I think that Cotto circa 2007 could be pretty successful, too. He had so much potential that got beaten out of him by Margarito. Speaking of, Margarito's got such a rough and tumble style that he could be a high contender any time. He probably wouldn't be the champion in a one-belt era, but he could compete. Assuming his success was him and not wraps. Whitaker, B-hop, Roy Jones, Evander Holyfield...there are plenty of indisputable ATG's from the last 20 years.

[sonnyboyx2]

Barrera, Morales and Marquez could compete in any era at featherweight. Any era. I think that Cotto circa 2007 could be pretty successful, too. He had so much potential that got beaten out of him by Margarito. Speaking of, Margarito's got such a rough and tumble style that he could be a high contender any time. He probably wouldn't be the champion in a one-belt era, but he could compete. Assuming his success was him and not wraps. Whitaker, B-hop, Roy Jones, Evander Holyfield...there are plenty of indisputable ATG's from the last 20 years.

i disagree about Morales & Barrera being able to compete in any featherweight era although they are good fighters.. Hopkins, Jones & Holyfield yes they could compete but to say they would be champions is a step too far IMO...with all the titles on offer today in the sport it shows that the sport in in decline when we can only come up with 4 or 5 fighters from the last 20yrs.... The champions we have had over the last 10yrs in the sport are as poor as i can ever remember...

Holyfield - how would he fare in the 1970s at 200lb
Bhop - How would he fare in the 1950s at 160lb
Jones - How would he do in the 1940s & 80s at 175lb

[BigStereotype]

Holyfield - how would he fare in the 1970s at 200lb
Bhop - How would he fare in the 1950s at 160lb
Jones - How would he do in the 1940s & 80s at 175lb

Holy certainly wouldn't be champ in the 70's, but he'd be a fan-favorite in any era. He'd win his share through sheer guts, I think.
B-Hop in the 40's and 50's would have been beautiful. Painfully so, for the other fighters. He'd set some kind of ball punching record. Can you imagine the ball punching festival that would have been Hopkins vs. Zivic? But in all seriousness, B-hop's nullifying style would be pretty effective any time. I don't think he would be Robinson, but he would have made Sugar Ray look bad. Nobody looks good against Bernard.
I don't know a lick about light heavies from the 40's, but I think Roy still would have been Roy in the 80's.

[CarlosG815]

i disagree about Morales & Barrera being able to compete in any featherweight era although they are good fighters.. Hopkins, Jones & Holyfield yes they could compete but to say they would be champions is a step too far IMO...with all the titles on offer today in the sport it shows that the sport in in decline when we can only come up with 4 or 5 fighters from the last 20yrs.... The champions we have had over the last 10yrs in the sport are as poor as i can ever remember...

Holyfield - how would he fare in the 1970s at 200lb
Bhop - How would he fare in the 1950s at 160lb
Jones - How would he do in the 1940s & 80s at 175lb

Roy Jones would be champion in any era he fought in. Holyfield and B Hop are good fighters and have a good chance to become champion. Roy Jones is without a doubt on the level or beyond any champions from the past... From 160 to 175...