Is the "Old vs New" debate unique to boxing?

[Bundana]

I follow several other sports, but none with the same passion that I do boxing... so I'm wondering:

Do you guys know of any other sport, where hardcore fans get into heated discussions on internet sites like this - about whether or not the old-timers were better than the best we have today? Or is boxing the only sport, where we see this?

[Zaroku]

I follow several other sports, but none with the same passion that I do boxing... so I'm wondering:

Do you guys know of any other sport, where hardcore fans get into heated discussions on internet sites like this - about whether or not the old-timers were better than the best we have today? Or is boxing the only sport, where we see this?

Basketball!

[NChristo]

Ye happens all the time with Basketball (Kobe vs Jordan, Wilt vs Shaq etc) n it gets even more heated then with boxing discussions for the most part, see it a lot with football / soccer as well.

[billeau2]

I follow several other sports, but none with the same passion that I do boxing... so I'm wondering:

Do you guys know of any other sport, where hardcore fans get into heated discussions on internet sites like this - about whether or not the old-timers were better than the best we have today? Or is boxing the only sport, where we see this?

heres what makes fight sports unique. if you trace most athletic pursuits one can see a time where money, and prestige entered and there was a swell of interest. Eventually the athletes got better.

baseball was a game played by reprobates for a good deal of its history.
Football was a club sport. etc. What tends to happen is athletes experience progress, more money comes and changes happen. its hard to say what any sport would have looked like if the best athletes had originally been playing the sport. There has also been progress in athletes as well. There are more top athletes because there are more people, better nutrition as a whole, not necessarily in any one place, and there are more opportunities.

Today we live in a global world, and its important to understand that situation before looking at athletic progress in a vacuum. In the early days of basketball, there was virtually no way for a person to locate, and train the tallest people in the world. Today? even the far villages know the NBA. So, we have more tall people in the world today and they are easier to locate.

There has also been athletic progress. Football and baseball today is a game dominated by athletes who take supplements, train specifically for their positions and have all the resources to do this. So we can see a pot bellied Wilbur Wood, who was a knuckleballer for the White Sox and compare him to Clemens...well, different type of individual.

under all these conditions its safe to say virtually all sports have gotten better athletes at this point in time. Fighting is a little but different though...While human beings have been playing football for less than a few centuries, people have been fighting for all the time they have been on earth. Fighting has always been perfected by human kind, we have japanese Arts that have been perfected in the battlefield that are still taught today, we have people punching and wrestling, things people have done forever.

because of our intimate connection to fighting, what often goes as progress, evolution (a horrible word to use in this context) are in fact, adapting fighting skills to a particular environment. You take a gracie jiu jitsu guy and put him in a ring he is comfortable, put him against 3 guys on the street, he cannot use those techniques...his art is not suited for it.

boxing has changed based on rules, glove size, etc. but there is no evidence that better athletes and fighters are entering boxing know...on the contrary! There are more things to do than become a heavyweight champion. unlike sports boxing was always ubiqitious. So you always had foreign born fighters, and the toughest roughest guys could always try to be the champ. This is unprecedented in other sports. They have become more popular for sure....but its not the same.

So the truth is that while there might be minimal physiological changes that impact boxing, they pale by comparison to the other factors mentioned above. The result is that the talent pool for fighters has decreased and not increased substantially. The proof is in the pudding. if one looks at the skills and training of a fighter today, one simply does not see the skills exhibited in the ring. boxing is more related to fighting than an athletic endevour...and bottom line is, people have been fighting a looooong time.

[soul_survivor]

I follow several other sports, but none with the same passion that I do boxing... so I'm wondering:

Do you guys know of any other sport, where hardcore fans get into heated discussions on internet sites like this - about whether or not the old-timers were better than the best we have today? Or is boxing the only sport, where we see this?

I don't think any legitimate boxing fan will make a blanket statement such as "fighter A is better than fighter B because fighter A fought 50 years ago".

However, in the era of one or 2 world championships, competition at the highest level was far better than it is today and there were fewer opportunities of champions to duck opponents or to take years and years to make a lucrative, highly anticipated bout.

However, there are many sports who do hold sportsmen from previous eras to a high or higher standard in other regards. That's understandable, as nostalgia makes every thing seem better.

[joeandthebums]

Slight tangent; on every boxing forum on the net there is a "classic" or "history" section, do any other sports have these as a staple?

[Anthony342]

Baseball is huge on history. Not always which player was better or matchups though, but sometimes. More about which eras were better, which teams were best, etc.

Basketball's big on it too, as there are plenty of one on one matchups in the sport during games.

NFL football somewhat, especially when a great player is talked about, they'll compare him to one of the same position of past eras.

In all cases, some will say a modern or more recent is the GOAT, some will say one from the past. Boxing is unique in the sense that not many think someone better than Robinson has come along. Yet in baseball, you can say say outfielder is better than a Dimaggio or Mantle, like Griffey, some say Bonds in football Montana is the consensus GOAT QB, although many old timers still love Johnny Unitas. For receivers, probably Jerry Rice, running backs, most likely Jim Brown, maybe Walter Payton and Lawrence Taylor would usually be the pick for outside LB. Then in baseball, you'll have picks like Schmidt or maybe Gehrig for infield, pitchers like Ryan, Clemens or Maddux get high praise, so there's a good mix of old and new.

The thing unique to boxing is that a lot more historians and die hard fans lean towards the earlier eras, with a few exceptions, like a Tyson, Holyfield. De La Hoya, Jones, Mayweather or Pacquiao, maybe Andre Ward in the future.

[Ray Corso]

Great talents appear in all era's in every sport. Today many fans use the word Great to identify very Good or just Good when in reality the competition is average or below. I understand the the reason why it's over used so much because the fan of every current era doesn't want to be left out of the "Great discussion"!
In boxing "fantasy" matches are dreamed up to identify whose the greatest.
Fans think the imaginary winner is how to decide greatness. Often a common opponent who might overlap era's is considered too.
Unless your a student of the game you can't judge and evaluate true talent level and skills without knowing techniques. When you see positive results from proper techniques that should out weigh successes using poor techniques. Winning is the main goal but guessing who could win a match with50 years seperation is just guessing unless your opinion is based on real facts
coupled with real experience.

Baseball fans argue the whose best between Barry Bonds & Babe Ruth!
To me its Ruth, Ruth could also pitch lights out and still holds records in World Series as a pitcher! I'd like to see Barry Bonds play the outfield using Ruth's glove!
Now after saying that does it sound like I'm putting Bonds down? Some may think so but I'm not, I just think that Ruth was that much more valueable.
Wlad held the belt a very long time and defended it also. Joe Louis did the same accomplishments. I believe Louis is the more talented boxer because of his over all skill level. Does that mean I'm bashing Wlad? To me Wlad is one dimensional and has many more flaws. I base the Ruth vs Bonds and Louis vs Wlad on what I know of the sports skill levels and the talent I'm seeing.
If Ruth would strike out Bonds does that influence me, no! Can Wlad des. Louis in 10 rds. is that the deciding factor? Not for me, I'm looking at the total package with all the eliments involved. The era's competition factors in
and then the individuals contribution to the game is also important to me.

Ray Corso

[Elroy1]

There IS a small contingent of nut baggery in all other sports as well of course pioneered by the old timers of the sport in question carping on about "back in our day" etc etc,,,

However in every other instance besides boxing it is completely un tolerated in serious discussion and crushed and ridiculed as it rightfully should be,

In boxing, where nut baggery is widespread and rife like a cancerous disease it displays to the outside world how boxing fans are the dumbest of all the fan bases of any sport.

Sports fans of other codes view this as stemming from the fact that we are all brain damaged from being punched in the head too hard and often and that definitely plays a part but the REAL reason behind it is more subtle...

The MAIN reason nut baggery is more rife in boxing than any other sport is because boxing in development terms in basically a very NEW sport. All these other sports have been subjected to constant development and evolution since their inception but because of the nature of boxing- it's brutality, it was ALWAYS viewed by the general populace as a "mugs" game. The nut bag historians will tell of tales how revered the champs were and how the people loved boxing so much but that is of course through the eyes of a boxing FAN, not a general person.

As a result, boxing as a technical SPORT in development stalled with only minor alterations since the advent of gloves right through until the 1980's.

The 1980's marks the birth place of modern boxing. It was here that we can see that boxers looked qualitatively different than any other era. Skills and defence were developed, suddenly there were athletic and agile boxers. Fighters hit upon the idea that they could move their head, feet and body and come to avoid punches instead of just taking them on their head, and training modes began to reflect that which is actually required of a boxer and not that which hampers performance.

In short the 1980's was the first time sports science was actually applied to boxing and when boxing started to actually become a "professional" sport.

The implications here is that boxing FANS have to play "catch up" now where as fans of other sports have had plenty of time to smoothly adjust.

That is why nut baggery is more prevalent in boxing than any other sport.

There are those of course who KNOW the truth but still choose to promote the MYTH as it serves their agenda.

For this reason boxing continues to be swept up in archaic ideas that do enormous damage to boxing as a sport and even threaten its very existence.

Only with the eradication of nut baggery as in all other sports can we truly move forward.

Thankfully the sport NOW has a very sizable group of intelligent and awakened fans that fight to push back the darkness one candle at a time.

[Ray Corso]

......."In short the 1980's was the first time sports science was actually applied to boxing and when boxing started to actually become a "professional" sport"


By all means who are responsible for this "new" sports science intro?
What is sports science in reference to boxing?


...."Sports fans of other codes view this as stemming from the fact that we are all brain damaged from being punched in the head too hard and often and that definitely plays a part but the REAL reason behind it is more subtle"..

What? hahaha "other codes" seriously! Utter dribble by "the" dribbler!


....".The 1980's marks the birth place of modern boxing. It was here that we can see that boxers looked qualitatively different than any other era. Skills and defense were developed, suddenly there were athletic and agile boxers. Fighters hit upon the idea that they could move their head, feet and body and come to avoid punches instead of just taking them on their head, and training modes began to reflect that which is actually required of a boxer and not that which hampers performance"..


Who ushered in this "new defense" along with "foot movement" hahaha.....
guess you never saw Pep or B. Leonard or Canzanera how about Tunney or Conn..................kid your over your head!

So by all means address these questions about your "1980 science"!

Ray