Do people tend to overrate throwback fighters because of biased views?

[Wolfie*]

Or they have a legitate case for thinking that way? Floyd opened up this dialogue saying pretty much that Ali is overrated by many. I'm not saying that obviously because I never thought Ali was overrated but Floyd brought up how people do tend overrate fighters from history. Do you think he has a point? I think many boxing "historians" do have their biases towards a certain area that bring up good memories for them like hearing or watching fights with their dad so those memeories might distort their views on the best fighters ever. There are other ways as well that contribute to their biases. What do you think?

[El-blanco]

I think historians and people in general do have a bias when discussing previous eras. It's natural. The thing is, it's impossible to compare, or rate guys , across decades. There is so many factors. Could guys like Floyd or PAC handle the rigorous schedule of the old timers? How good would the old timers look with modern science and training methods? It's impossible to say and anyone saying otherwise is full of ****.

[Boxing1836]

The old guys fought the best more often

[Suckmedry]

I think historians and people in general do have a bias when discussing previous eras. It's natural. The thing is, it's impossible to compare, or rate guys , across decades. There is so many factors. Could guys like Floyd or PAC handle the rigorous schedule of the old timers? How good would the old timers look with modern science and training methods? It's impossible to say and anyone saying otherwise is full of ****.

Lol at repeating one of the biggest myths surrounding this debate. Modern science and training methods is bs there's no great new innovations in Boxing training going quite far back

[The Gambler1981]

I agree, that is not to say that great fighters from the past are any better or worse really, just great fighter are great and are a product of their time.

It is kind of hard to really compare across eras, so I could feel a guy like Floyd feeling he is as good or better than everyone before him, yet I think it is such a hard question to really answer that.


Plus a lot of BS just gets lost to history, it might get brought up but it would be like bringing up how Ray Robinson was a terrible person outside the ring, or there was a whole group of fighters he wanted nothing to do with because they brought no money due to their skin color. People don't rally want to hear that, that want him to be a mystical fire breathing beast that perfecting fist fighting 50 years ago.

[TheMexHurricane]

Or they have a legitate case for thinking that way? Floyd opened up this dialogue saying pretty much that Ali is overrated by many. I'm not saying that obviously because I never thought Ali was overrated but Floyd brought up how people do tend overrate fighters from history. Do you think he has a point? I think many boxing "historians" do have their biases towards a certain area that bring up good memories for them like hearing or watching fights with their dad so those memeories might distort their views on the best fighters ever. There are other ways as well that contribute to their biases. What do you think?

Of course, and it's simply because of race, but there's nothing wrong with that tho. For example, there is an intense anti-Mexican bias, mostly by whites, but not because of racism(and whites are by nature racists, as are Mexicans and blacks and everybody else), but more because of wanting to establish that their race is best. They make it personal but they don't mean to or realize it because they're being instinctive. They just get carried away because of male competitiveness. I've said it a # of times, and I think it's worth repeating, that males of all races instinctively compete with males of all other races to establish superiority to ensure that their genes, instead of the other guys' genes, gets passed to the next generation. I try to focus more on another just as basic instinct, and that is to try to think about how Mexican fighters can make as much $ as possible. I try not to think about race but I have to alot of times fight the nature of the male inside me. As an example, I believe that Canelo would lose to Cotto but I believe that he should fight him ASAP b4 he loses on the biggest payday out there for him the way Juanma did vs Gamboa. As another example, Danny Garcia passed on a fight vs Floyd. That was one of the most foolish decisions by a fighter in a very long time. And then Garcia literally lost it all vs Herrera but was fortunate to get the decision. So........ everybody says that they "love" the fighters of their race, but what they really mean is that they love that they make them feel good about themselves and their race. Given a choice, 99.99% of fans would rather their fighter fight vs somebody they could beat for a little bit of $ vs making a ton of money in a fight in which they'll lose. And then the fans forget about the fighters they "love" when they're not winning anymore. That's why fighters should fight for their $ instead of their fans, albeit secretly.

[jas]

You can go on YouTube and watch them....and come up with your own opinion

[lefthook2daliva]

no more than children wanna think they invented the *******

[firstborn]

no more than children wanna think they invented the *******

Lol........WTF?

[emre belozoglu]

yes definetly