How do you judge what is historic?

[nujabes77]

i'm just voicing my opinion on titles and belts and legacy.

i don't have a top 25 nor am i knowledgable enough in over 100 plus years of boxing in 8-17 weight divisions to make one.



old era fighters are as overrated by historians of the sport as the younger fighters are by the younger generation who never saw the old guys.

having less titles back then also doesn't necessarily mean their titles were somehow automatically better.

they had their own issues with blacks not being able to get fights and title shots , boxing not being as global as it is now meaning less competition , corruption of the sport with mafia ties , etc.


people tend to romanticize the past. it's human nature.

but let's not pretend the good , old days didn't have issues as they do now.

different issues but they had them back then as well.


jack dempsey was a champion for 3 straight years without defending his belt just as one example. that's as bad as having 4 champions at a time.

this **** is gold... should be stickied somewhere in the forums

[nujabes77]

quantity doesn't necessarily mean better.

mayweather could fight 200 guys right now and be 200-0.

do you honestly think the guys fighting 1-2 times a month are fighting top 10 , elite competition?

old = overate
new = underate


... not saying it applies to all, in general this is the mentality here in nsb

[GJC]

why would you do that?........

Think the point Jab is making is that to win 3 titles out of ten weight classes with only one champion is as worthy if not more so than than winning 7 titles out of a potential 68Most boxing judges know who is the best fighter in each weight division(or could certainly agree about most of them) so would somebody winning a title against one of the lesser holders qualify as equal to someone who beat "the man". Or mathmatically some has held nearly a third of the avalible titles against someone who has held just over a tenth

[GJC]

they had their own issues with blacks not being able to get fights and title shots , boxing not being as global as it is now meaning less competition , corruption of the sport with mafia ties , etc.

Good point, Tony Zale was the only middleweight champion for 7 years but I doubt if he was in the top 5 in reality.

jack dempsey was a champion for 3 straight years without defending his belt just as one example. that's as bad as having 4 champions at a time.

[/QUOTE]

Another good point.

Basically great fighters are great fighters in any era, Pac would grace any era and I am enjoying him now.
Do think title fights have almost become diminished now and thats has had the knock on effect to non title fights. I do not think that you will have the days again of a Frazier and Ali say fighting a non title fight.
As for moving through the weights I do think that far too much weight gets lent to this, I believe that Duran is an ATG more for his LW reign not for his 4 titles.

[baracuda]

Think the point Jab is making is that to win 3 titles out of ten weight classes with only one champion is as worthy if not more so than than winning 7 titles out of a potential 68Most boxing judges know who is the best fighter in each weight division(or could certainly agree about most of them) so would somebody winning a title against one of the lesser holders qualify as equal to someone who beat "the man". Or mathmatically some has held nearly a third of the avalible titles against someone who has held just over a tenth

like pink already pointed out boxing was not as global as it is now so less competition.... and imagine how many boxers then and now?...we can rightly say more and that is why more belts in each division is necessary dont you think ?......wed be lucky to see champions defend their titles 3x a year now so imagine how many fighters wont be getting a shot if theres only one belt.......

[DonTaseMeBrah]

Taking into consideration all of boxing history, how do you judge what is historic and how do you place a value on it?

Im a big fan of Pacquiao but I tend to look at the bigger picture when placing historical value on achievements. Is winning a title in a 7th division at a time of 4 belts and 17 divisions as great as being the undisputed champion in 3 divisions during a time of 10? Is it as great as beating most of the top fighters from 147 to heavyweight but never being given a chance at the championship?

By todays watered down standards, what Pac may do, What Floyd has done, they are great accomplishments. But there are much greater accomplishments throughout history when you put these under a microscope.

This isn't meant to demean Manny, Floyd or any other great fighter from this era. I just see a lot of people going overboard and putting these guys up with fighters like Langford, Greb, Armstrong and Ross. What they're doing is great, NOW. In a historic sense there have been fighters who have accomplished much, much more, without the baubles that come with 17 divisions and 4 titles.

Opinions?

You have to judge todays fighters w/ todays standards. If henry armstrong, robinson, or any old time great fought today would they have the same records & fights? I dont think so.

What's really bothersome is i think the modern fighters (70s, 80s& present) get a bad end of the stick when it comes to talk of greatness. Its as if something magical happened physically, athletically, & skillwise that happend in the old school years that the new school fighters in their time could not compete.

I beg to ****ing differ.

Athletic evolution. Every old school boxing talking head always forgets this.

In every single sport, the greatest players of their positions have come in modern times.


nba-mikan,cousy,robertson,wilt,russell,kareem,drj, to magic,bird,isiah,hakeem,
shaq,jordan,

nfl-otto graham,bart starr,johnny unitas,to dan marino, joe montana, brady to manning

track & field usain bolt, golf tiger, tennis roger, baseball ruth,tcobb, willie mays to barry, ken griffey, arod, pujols etc, etc.

but only boxing seems immune to this?

why?

i respect the old timers & what they did, but a lot of disrespect to the modern all time greats when compared to old school greats.

athletic evolution. It cannot be denied.

Ill take prime duran,leonard, hagler, hearns, pernell, roy jr, hopkins, pacquiao, tyson over any ballyhooed 20s,30s,40s,50s, great.

[JAB5239]

i'm just voicing my opinion on titles and belts and legacy.

i don't have a top 25 nor am i knowledgable enough in over 100 plus years of boxing in 8-17 weight divisions to make one.



old era fighters are as overrated by historians of the sport as the younger fighters are by the younger generation who never saw the old guys.

having less titles back then also doesn't necessarily mean their titles were somehow automatically better.

they had their own issues with blacks not being able to get fights and title shots , boxing not being as global as it is now meaning less competition , corruption of the sport with mafia ties , etc.


people tend to romanticize the past. it's human nature.

but let's not pretend the good , old days didn't have issues as they do now.

different issues but they had them back then as well.


jack dempsey was a champion for 3 straight years without defending his belt just as one example. that's as bad as having 4 champions at a time.

great post pink!......

Agreed. Good post.

[ßringer]

I try to look at everything under the microscope and draw my comparisons after the fact.

I've found that most people who are willing to look for historical comparisons usually do so either as a fan of the man, and not the sport. Or in the moment ; right after it happens and everybody seems to be swept away by the sheer accomplishment.

That's the way the Historians do it, and they seem an intelligent bunch so I'm much more comfortable using their methods than the methods of the average NSB reader.

As for the initial question ; I don't think there's any doubt that while Pacquiao and Floyd have accomplished some amazing things during their reign that the reigns of old were much more impressive.

There wasn't all of these "Junior this" and "Super that" divisions, with 4 titles in each Weightclass, allowing one to choose the weakest title holder in whichever division he so desired like Pacquiao did with Diaz, and Mayweather did with Baldomir.

Back then, to be the man, you had to beat the man.

Nowadays it's more like you just capture some paper title in a few divisions and you're instantly "the man" without ever even having to fight the real man in any of those divisions.

Impressive as hell, by today's standards. But no so much using history as a measuring stick.

Side note ; I honestly think this "multiple weight Champion" **** these days gets entirely too much praise. People put too much stock into what it reads on paper and not what it actually meant in the ring.

I'd take being a one weight reigning Champion for years over a 2 or 3 weight paper Champion with little to no defenses any day of the week.

[JAB5239]

like pink already pointed out boxing was not as global as it is now so less competition.... and imagine how many boxers then and now?...we can rightly say more and that is why more belts in each division is necessary dont you think ?......wed be lucky to see champions defend their titles 3x a year now so imagine how many fighters wont be getting a shot if theres only one belt.......

I disagree with this. There were many more professional fighters during the 20's, 30's 40's and 50's. I don't know if the number is correct, but I read in Barney Ross' biography that there were 60,000 registered pro's back in his day, and that didn't include guys who fought in mostly smokers. Many many more gyms (at least in the US). That in my opinion would make for much tougher competition.

As far as all the belts today and are they necessary? No, they are not. Only one fighter can be the best in his division. Only one deserves to be called champion. Everything else was spawned as a way to make more money.

[JAB5239]

I try to look at everything under the microscope and draw my comparisons after the fact.

I've found that most people who are willing to look for historical comparisons usually do so either as a fan of the man, and not the sport. Or in the moment ; right after it happens and everybody seems to be swept away by the sheer accomplishment.

That's the way the Historians do it, and they seem an intelligent bunch so I'm much more comfortable using their methods than the methods of the average NSB reader.

As for the initial question ; I don't think there's any doubt that while Pacquiao and Floyd have accomplished some amazing things during their reign that the reigns of old were much more impressive.

There wasn't all of these "Junior this" and "Super that" divisions, with 4 titles in each Weightclass, allowing one to choose the weakest title holder in whichever division he so desired like Pacquiao did with Diaz, and Mayweather did with Baldomir.

Back then, to be the man, you had to beat the man.

Nowadays it's more like you just capture some paper title in a few divisions and you're instantly "the man" without ever even having to fight the real man in any of those divisions.

Impressive as hell, by today's standards. But no so much using history as a measuring stick.

Side note ; I honestly think this "multiple weight Champion" **** these days gets entirely too much praise. People put too much stock into what it reads on paper and not what it actually meant in the ring.

I'd take being a one weight reigning Champion for years over a 2 or 3 weight paper Champion with little to no defenses any day of the week.

Another excellent opinion. Everybody who has posted has made good points backed with sound logic. Nice to see intelligent opinions on this board without the flames or biased attitudes.