All Legacies Are Being Tarnished

[Tony Trick-Pony]

When comparing Pacquiao to Chavez, Sr. or Mayweather to Marciano or any great modern fighter to a great classic fighter, it's very hard to get past how the current state is helping to tarnish legacies. With so many titles and so many divisions, the modern fighters are catching a break as far as numbers, but overall, there accomplishments are looking rather piss pour in terms of holding a full title and ruling a division.

You take Pacquiao who was 8 divisions if you count the lineal titles and well, he got to ask for catchweights and of course, he got them. But can you really compare this to Henry Armstrong, who held the undisputed world title at featherweight, lightweight, welterweight and nearly got the middleweight as well(he did, according to who you ask)? I mean, no catchweights, only one world title to win and so many fewer divisions.

In this current era, whatever a fighter does is still easy to scrutinize when compared with the old guys since the system was much different, simple and really more respectable. If a fighter is champion of a division, it's very nice and easy when he's the only champion. Plus, thee would be more meaningful defenses. Yes, I know all about Joe Louis and the bum of the month club, but that was who was out there. Had better opposition been around, he would have fought them and in a talent-packed era, you'd get more value since they'd all have to fight just one champion.

So, really, when you think about it, aren't the current crop of fighters, going back the past two decades, really hurting legacy wise? The measuring stick has changed so much that it's getting very difficult to compare.

I hope this might give some insight into those who may assume that some fans automatically go for the old fighters over the modern ones. Even if it were true, it's hard not to with the conditions those guys fought in, compared to those of today.

[E-Thug]

Post this in the History thread. You're more likely to get a civilised discussion. On NSB you'll just get *******s, *****s and whatever pathetic cults exist spitting their dummies out because you said this era is lacking

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Post this in the History thread. You're more likely to get a civilised discussion. On NSB you'll just get *******s, *****s and whatever pathetic cults exist spitting their dummies out because you said this era is lacking

Haha. I can see that happening, sir. Maybe I should!

But come on. It's hard not to knock this era on politics.

[Zaroku]

So many more weight divisions and sanctioning bodies, PAC, DLH, etc, don't measure up.

In the future, we my have 64 weight classes and guys with 20 titles.

But young fan boys can't move past hero worship.

History section and I am all in.

[tangalog2200]

When comparing Pacquiao to Chavez, Sr. or Mayweather to Marciano or any great modern fighter to a great classic fighter, it's very hard to get past how the current state is helping to tarnish legacies. With so many titles and so many divisions, the modern fighters are catching a break as far as numbers, but overall, there accomplishments are looking rather piss pour in terms of holding a full title and ruling a division.

You take Pacquiao who was 8 divisions if you count the lineal titles and well, he got to ask for catchweights and of course, he got them. But can you really compare this to Henry Armstrong, who held the undisputed world title at featherweight, lightweight, welterweight and nearly got the middleweight as well(he did, according to who you ask)? I mean, no catchweights, only one world title to win and so many fewer divisions.

In this current era, whatever a fighter does is still easy to scrutinize when compared with the old guys since the system was much different, simple and really more respectable. If a fighter is champion of a division, it's very nice and easy when he's the only champion. Plus, thee would be more meaningful defenses. Yes, I know all about Joe Louis and the bum of the month club, but that was who was out there. Had better opposition been around, he would have fought them and in a talent-packed era, you'd get more value since they'd all have to fight just one champion.

So, really, when you think about it, aren't the current crop of fighters, going back the past two decades, really hurting legacy wise? The measuring stick has changed so much that it's getting very difficult to compare.

I hope this might give some insight into those who may assume that some fans automatically go for the old fighters over the modern ones. Even if it were true, it's hard not to with the conditions those guys fought in, compared to those of today.

this is a very good thread that should remain in this section....

it may be looked upon as only going back to history but the comparison between the olden golden days and the present situation should not be taken to put down any one fighter or even glorify one era over the other....

we should look more deeply on the why? or reasons we could attribute the differences to.......

again, good post!

[soul_survivor]

When comparing Pacquiao to Chavez, Sr. or Mayweather to Marciano or any great modern fighter to a great classic fighter, it's very hard to get past how the current state is helping to tarnish legacies. With so many titles and so many divisions, the modern fighters are catching a break as far as numbers, but overall, there accomplishments are looking rather piss pour in terms of holding a full title and ruling a division.

You take Pacquiao who was 8 divisions if you count the lineal titles and well, he got to ask for catchweights and of course, he got them. But can you really compare this to Henry Armstrong, who held the undisputed world title at featherweight, lightweight, welterweight and nearly got the middleweight as well(he did, according to who you ask)? I mean, no catchweights, only one world title to win and so many fewer divisions.

In this current era, whatever a fighter does is still easy to scrutinize when compared with the old guys since the system was much different, simple and really more respectable. If a fighter is champion of a division, it's very nice and easy when he's the only champion. Plus, thee would be more meaningful defenses. Yes, I know all about Joe Louis and the bum of the month club, but that was who was out there. Had better opposition been around, he would have fought them and in a talent-packed era, you'd get more value since they'd all have to fight just one champion.

So, really, when you think about it, aren't the current crop of fighters, going back the past two decades, really hurting legacy wise? The measuring stick has changed so much that it's getting very difficult to compare.

I hope this might give some insight into those who may assume that some fans automatically go for the old fighters over the modern ones. Even if it were true, it's hard not to with the conditions those guys fought in, compared to those of today.

erm.....Armstrong had catchweight fights.

[gamesworn]

When comparing Pacquiao to Chavez, Sr. or Mayweather to Marciano or any great modern fighter to a great classic fighter, it's very hard to get past how the current state is helping to tarnish legacies. With so many titles and so many divisions, the modern fighters are catching a break as far as numbers, but overall, there accomplishments are looking rather piss pour in terms of holding a full title and ruling a division.

You take Pacquiao who was 8 divisions if you count the lineal titles and well, he got to ask for catchweights and of course, he got them. But can you really compare this to Henry Armstrong, who held the undisputed world title at featherweight, lightweight, welterweight and nearly got the middleweight as well(he did, according to who you ask)? I mean, no catchweights, only one world title to win and so many fewer divisions.

In this current era, whatever a fighter does is still easy to scrutinize when compared with the old guys since the system was much different, simple and really more respectable. If a fighter is champion of a division, it's very nice and easy when he's the only champion. Plus, thee would be more meaningful defenses. Yes, I know all about Joe Louis and the bum of the month club, but that was who was out there. Had better opposition been around, he would have fought them and in a talent-packed era, you'd get more value since they'd all have to fight just one champion.

So, really, when you think about it, aren't the current crop of fighters, going back the past two decades, really hurting legacy wise? The measuring stick has changed so much that it's getting very difficult to compare.

I hope this might give some insight into those who may assume that some fans automatically go for the old fighters over the modern ones. Even if it were true, it's hard not to with the conditions those guys fought in, compared to those of today.

There is nothing new with catchweight. Catchweight were used by several fighters before Pacquiao was even born. Did you know Chavez vs Pernell was a 145 catchweight?

Maybe 20 years from now, if no fighters achieve what Pacquiao achieved in 8 division. Historians will put more value to it compare to now

Pacquiao also tied Bob Fitzsimmons, and Henry Armstrong for having 3 lineal/championship title in 3 divisions of the Original 8.

[clapcreative]

This is historic post so take it serious

[Dr Rumack]

Most definitely. As standards have fallen, so has the difficulty of fabricating the appearance of greatness. That's not to say the likes of Mayweather and Pacquiao weren't great fighters, but the reality is the guys in previous eras had it much, much tougher than they had it.

I always tell people to look at Ray Leonard's record from 1979 to 1982 - http://boxrec.com/boxer/269 - and remember that this was a guy who as superstar before he even turned pro.

Look at the route he had to take to establish his legacy. It's impossible to imagine any modern day American fighter with that sort of fame backing him having such a tough road today. Completely impossible.

But these days they all still want to talk about themselves as great champions, and their fans want to say that the old guys are overrated.

[The Big Dunn]

Boxing, as all sports in general, have changed dramatically as they are run more like corporate businesses and less like pure sport. Legacies of modern fighters will be affected.

When SRL was king you earned more money for the best fights. Now, in the era of the network deal, you can make a huge purse for just fighting anyone, so long as you fill your contractual obligation.

SRL used his "A side" power the same way ODH and Floyd did, that hasn't changed. Fights still "marinated". It's just that Leomard would make great money, then when a Benitez came around he get more, then when a Hearns came around he got even more.

In the era of guranteed network deals, its not a good investment strategy to have your fighters fight risky fights. If a network signs someone to a 3 or 4 fight deal what that really means is its 1 really tough fight and 2 or 3 "showcase" fights used to draw up interest for the big fight they want.

One can't establish a great legacy when 66-75% of your fights are easy showcase fights that function as an infomercial.