Boxing fans live in the past too often

**RodBarker** · 05-14-2009, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by blackirish137

yea, we do. more so than any other sport, we're constantly putting down our current guys when comparing them to the fighters of the past.

I do it too, so Im a little bit of a hypocrit saying this. Im certainly not saying that we should not appreciate past fighters or anything, but I think we get too caught up trying to find ATGs. just because a guy isnt one of the greatest ever at his weight class doesnt mean hes a bum. the variety of styles in boxing is one of the best parts about it, and no two fighters are alike.

Im just saying that we should stop being so concerned about a fighter's ATG ranking, and just appreciate how good a fighter is or will become.
besides, chances are that youre completely overrating or underrating them if theyre still fighting.

I think the biggest problem is most of the guys in here are very young , dont really understand behind the scenes of boxing especially weight and they are very easily led by hype and good story writing , too much tall poppy syndrome as well .

**FreshPrince** · 05-14-2009, 08:17 PM

That's because Albert Pujols ****s all over Ted Williams head to head, Shaq would man handle Wilt Chamberlain, Ladanian Tomlinson would run circles around frickin Doak Walker. But Sugar Ray Robinson would beat the **** out of Floyd Mayweather and Ali would make Wladimir Klitschko look like he is trying to jab a ghost.

**Guest** · 05-14-2009, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by blackirish137

yea, we do. more so than any other sport, we're constantly putting down our current guys when comparing them to the fighters of the past.

I do it too, so Im a little bit of a hypocrit saying this. Im certainly not saying that we should not appreciate past fighters or anything, but I think we get too caught up trying to find ATGs. just because a guy isnt one of the greatest ever at his weight class doesnt mean hes a bum. the variety of styles in boxing is one of the best parts about it, and no two fighters are alike.

Im just saying that we should stop being so concerned about a fighter's ATG ranking, and just appreciate how good a fighter is or will become.
besides, chances are that youre completely overrating or underrating them if theyre still fighting.

In the heavyweight division you almost have to. You see these killer fights like Bowe-Holyfield, etc but I would agree some of the lower class wars are as good as they've always been sometimes better.

**BmoreBrawler** · 05-14-2009, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by blackirish137

yea, we do. more so than any other sport, we're constantly putting down our current guys when comparing them to the fighters of the past.

I do it too, so Im a little bit of a hypocrit saying this. Im certainly not saying that we should not appreciate past fighters or anything, but I think we get too caught up trying to find ATGs. just because a guy isnt one of the greatest ever at his weight class doesnt mean hes a bum. the variety of styles in boxing is one of the best parts about it, and no two fighters are alike.

Im just saying that we should stop being so concerned about a fighter's ATG ranking, and just appreciate how good a fighter is or will become.
besides, chances are that youre completely overrating or underrating them if theyre still fighting.

We do. One of the best things about Boxing is the history it has. Same goes with Baseball. I do agree that people are too focused on comparisons but I enjoy it still.

**Steak** · 05-14-2009, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by FreshPrince

That's because Albert Pujols ****s all over Ted Williams head to head, Shaq would man handle Wilt Chamberlain, Ladanian Tomlinson would run circles around frickin Doak Walker. But Sugar Ray Robinson would beat the **** out of Floyd Mayweather and Ali would make Wladimir Klitschko look like he is trying to jab a ghost.

boxing is much more complicated than basketball. if it depended so much on physical gifts, then why is it that guys like Pacquiao can grow up in complete poverty and still ending up being world champions? I mean, surely Pacquiao wasnt a living a perfectly healthy life as a child.

also, world champions ages can range from 17 to 46. in what other sport do you see that? there is so much that matters in boxing, that having physical advantages is really only a small advantage.

**Guest** · 05-14-2009, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by blackirish137

boxing is much more complicated than basketball. if it depended so much on physical gifts, then why is it that guys like Pacquiao can grow up in complete poverty and still ending up being world champions? I mean, surely Pacquiao wasnt a living a perfectly healthy life as a child.

also, world champions ages can range from 17 to 46. in what other sport do you see that? there is so much that matters in boxing, that having physical advantages is really only a small advantage.

Weirdly enough you see that in golf, and sometimes baseball.

Never in hoops or football or soccer (futbol)

**Steak** · 05-14-2009, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by jreckoning

Weirdly enough you see that in golf, and sometimes baseball.

Never in hoops or football or soccer (futbol)

in golf and baseball, its more coordination, timing and use of body weight than anything else.

those are keys in boxing. but interestingly enough, so are stamina, physical strength, speed...really everything.

guess thats why you can get guys that are all skill and nothing else like Nicolino Locche, and then guys that are all raw strength and speed and nothing else like Ricardo Mayorga but can still both become world champs.

what a wonderful sport. so many ways to succeed, so many ways to be beaten.

**Guest** · 05-14-2009, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by blackirish137

in golf and baseball, its more coordination, timing and use of body weight than anything else.

those are keys in boxing. but interestingly enough, so are stamina, physical strength, speed...really everything.

guess thats why you can get guys that are all skill and nothing else like Nicolino Locche, and then guys that are all raw strength and speed and nothing else like Ricardo Mayorga but can still both become world champs.

what a wonderful sport. so many ways to succeed, so many ways to be beaten.

Like my late uncle (and an excellent pro) once said "you don't always have to be in shape to kick someone's ass"....

**James 420** · 05-14-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by FreshPrince

That's because Albert Pujols ****s all over Ted Williams head to head, Shaq would man handle Wilt Chamberlain, Ladanian Tomlinson would run circles around frickin Doak Walker. But Sugar Ray Robinson would beat the **** out of Floyd Mayweather and Ali would make Wladimir Klitschko look like he is trying to jab a ghost.

Pujols couldn't carry Williams's jock, he missed four years in WW2 and still hit 521 homeruns, what was he a career .364 hitter. Baseball is the only sport where you can fail 65 to 70 percent of the time and still get in the Hall of Fame. The only place Shaq and Wilt are comparable is free throws,since Wilt used to broad jump from the foul line and dunk it so the NBA changed the rules. At least one year he averaged 50 points a game, although neither one could handle Bill Russell. The rest of your list is alright though.

Boxing fans live in the past too often