Why are old-timers completely overrated???

[TheIronMike]

Boxing seems to have fully evolved into it's current meta in the mid 40's.

It peaked skill wise in the 70's/80's.

Stamina, speed, power, movement...all peaked in during that period

[Gate keeper]

Please spare me this "new fighters are so great" bs. You can only compare fighters based on similar conditions regarding performance. In other words if they're generally performing under the same obstacles. Outside of that, there is no linear way to compare them.

Furthermore fighters back in the day fought way more often and couldn't just pick which opponent they want to test them as easily. Mayweather is considered an ATG and is probably least proven fighter in that category that you could mention. Dela Hoya is more proven than him. Mayweather to my knowledge has never fought a single mandatory or a fighter in his prime. But he gets more credit than people that have. F outta here.

And no, I don't care how many world champions he beat. Every division will almost always have a world champion but can go months or years without a truly elite fighter. Or may only have one or two elite champions at a time. A world title by itself is almost meaningless without the context of the competition at the time. That's why a fighter is proven by beating elite fighters near their prime and mandatories at least if there's no other way to demonstrate they're fighting truly random styles. Again something Mayweather, an ATG, has never done.

And no matter how low ranked a fighter is, they can always make you at least look bad on the right day and with the right style. All ATG's in the past had to deal with fighters like that, whether through a mandatory or otherwise. They got rocked or buzzed by nobodies. So did Andre Ward vs Daniel Boon, that's what happens when you truly fight random styles. And it happens all combat sports too btw. This new concept in boxing of lower ranked fighters being so effortlessly beatable it's not even worth it, is just a silly marketing gimmick that gullible fans buy in to. Imagine if fighters today had to fight as often and as random opponents as back then? You just assume they'd win every fight effortlessly? You're giving them credit for something they haven't proven they could do and not enough credit to those who actually did it.

And look how close Mayweather vs Dela Hoya was when Dela Hoya was nearly retired. What if Dela Hoya had been 2 or 3 years younger? What if Mayweather actually fought a slick mandatory he didn't get to pick? Or elite fighters, like Dela Hoya, but in their prime? Would he have looked so amazing? Cause he didn't against a nearly retired Dela Hoya. I mean by today's standards Tank is on his way to being an ATG. Canelo would've easily been as great or greater than Mayweather had he not made the mistake of actually fighting elite fighters near their prime - the only times he looked bad btw.

I'd give way more credit to fighters of the past like Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard than fighters today. It's not even close. The only throw back fighter today is Tyson Fury. The rest engage is this silly new marketing gimmick in one way or another.

[juggernaut666]

I like how you make a new thread here instead of responding to the one in the History Section.
Johnson and Dempsey are Over rated, if anything Langford is under rated by most though, look at his resume and how he beat ranked Heavies despite starting as a Lightweight.

Langford fought several guys 2 or 3 times ,he’s fought one guy 17 times I think ? Obviously the roster then wasn’t as many but both eras aren’t subjective to the same criteria as the older eras are rewarded when the current ones are penalized, Loses , rematches and quality are a,ways over looked when you review past time fighters and that’s about it .

If we really used the same measurements of fighters like Langford,fighters would fight top guys more but it’s a much bigger sport now and the fans themselves penalize guys losing so why take risky fights today if it potentially ruins your career , the problem is us not the sport it’s why MMA fans understand the fight game more than you guys on here ? They also don’t attack each other and argue like females-over a specific fighter . Well it’s not your fault it’s what boxing fans pass down it is what it is . Not speaking about you it’s a generalization this forum is proof of it . Lol

[MONGOOSE66]

It's a joke.

They did well in their era but there judgement is mainly on newspaper articles and stories that got past on and on..

Watch footage of the fighters:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oUqhJzgSj4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Eha9nEcrMqQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iQIx3Thz9Fc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There is hardly any footage on Greb yet he ranked higher than Floyd. OK fair enough but read the first comment on that video. "This guy's punches are almost too fast for the eye too see and they're coming in all directions. He would have been a huge challenge for Monzon and Hagler no doubt"

Be serious, please.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JUdoGBkeqWQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Delusional

Though I agree with you to a point. You have to remember something that most on here know sheeit about. Those old fights WERE NOT 12 round fights. It’s like comparing a gold winning sprinter to marathoner. I’ll use something you can understand like comparing basketball to golf. Two very different games.

[Regge]

100% old timers are severaly overrated. Most would be club fighters In the modern era.

[buddyr]

fighters of the past fighting on same day weigh-ins, at least 10-15 times a year, in eras of 10 weight classes and one belt are considered overrated, but todays superstars fighting TWICE a year at the most against guys some of us have never seen fight or heard of are the best ever. That doesn't make sense to me, but hopefully it does to someone..

[Gate keeper]

100% old timers are severaly overrated. Most would be club fighters In the modern era.

And exactly what metrics are you using to come to that determination?

[-Kev-]

Boxing doesn’t seem to be measurable like other sports, it’s very opinion based. Even the outcome of a fight, barring a KO, is opinion based. Determined by 3 old men/women. Even knock downs can be opinion based. A referee can call a legit KD a “slip” and this happens even now, in 2023.

In a sport like basketball, NBA, it’s very measurable. No one on Earth can argue against the fact that players from the 80s+ are way better than the all-white NBA players. Because it’s measurable.

With boxing, it’s measured more by words and rankings than something that’s actually measurable.

[Roadblock]

Though I agree with you to a point. You have to remember something that most on here know sheeit about. Those old fights WERE NOT 12 round fights. It’s like comparing a gold winning sprinter to marathoner. I’ll use something you can understand like comparing basketball to golf. Two very different games.

That's BS, 12 or 15 rounds make little difference to championship-level fighters, they are in shape and pace themselves to go the distance whatever that distance is, its all relative to output, are you saying the guys that did 40 rounds were superhuman lol, they were slugs throwing a few punches per round lumbering around for 20 rounds, the fighters today are in better shape and more explosive than pre-70s fighters, it's all to do with conditioning the human boy scientifically, that's the reason all records keep getting broken by modern athletes.

[Gate keeper]

That's BS, 12 or 15 rounds make little difference to championship-level fighters, they are in shape and pace themselves to go the distance whatever that distance is, its all relative to output, are you saying the guys that did 40 rounds were superhuman lol, they were slugs throwing a few punches per round lumbering around for 20 rounds, the fighters today are in better shape and more explosive than pre-70s fighters, it's all to do with conditioning the human boy scientifically, that's the reason all records keep getting broken by modern athletes.

It's nowhere near that simple. In my opinion there's a huge difference between 12 and 15 rounds. You can only pace yourself so much, especially in a tough fight. Eventually you're just going to have to push yourself in a way that you can't fully plan or calculate. It's not like these guys are just punching speed bags for 15 rounds. They're trying to hit and avoid getting it by other world class fighters. That's going to get harder and harder to do as the rounds go on and not just in a physical way but also a mental one.

What if you're in a real tough fight with a huge puncher or a guy who's faster than you or if your hand is broken? 15 rounds, much more often then 12, is going to force you to go the distance in a way that requires pure metal by which i mean mental strength. It's not something you can really train by exercising. I remember Ali said he felt like he was going to die in the later rounds in Ali vs Fraiser III. But guess what, did he stop the fight? No, he kept pushing on even if it meant possible death. I'm not saying I recommend that but not all fighters are going to have that mental fortitude. Imagine Broner or Anthony Joshua performing well under pressure in a tough fight for 15 rounds. Or even Canelo who's mentally strong but does not have as much stamina. He's going to start making mistakes in the later rounds which we've already saw with 12. At the world stage there's a huge difference between 12 vs 15 round fights that I believe would weed out a lot of today's fighters.

And records in certain sports mean nothing since they're always relative to the competition and ref culture in terms of what refs let you get away with. I mean look at the amount ko's Wilder and GGG have. They were probably on the verge of breaking records. But the second they stepped up in competition, the ko's stopped. As long as a fighter avoids stepping up, they can probably break any record they want. And fighting their little one or two fights a year against fighters of their choice is completely different from fighting more often against opponents you have less control over picking.