Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[bojangles1987]

The S and C training argument would hold much more weight with me if I actually saw guys in boxing who were conditioned to the standards of other top sports.

Look at HW boxing and then look at Rugby or NFL. There is no comparison in the level of athleticism and conditioning there really isnt.

The best sports scientists in the world are not in boxing thats for sure. Whoever thought that AJ bulking to that size would be good for him needs to be shot really.

Very true. I can watch any NFL game and see athletes that put everyone in HW boxing today to shame. Hell, the New England Patriots have two players that play the same position who are bigger athletic freaks than any American heavyweight, and it's not even remotely close. You sure as **** won't see anyone on the same physical planet as Lebron James, Russell Westbrook, or prime Dwight Howard.

[lopetego]

I bet most of those old legends were roided to the gills and taking some sort of PEDS

like rampage jackson once said: ¨it was better back in the day, people didn't care if we were on something¨

[Canelo and GGG]

One understated reason is that other sports have no restrictions on the size of players. Human beings are bigger, stronger, and faster today than they were 50 years ago. That athletic difference shows. That's not totally true of boxing outside the heavyweight division. Fighters may rehydrate to bigger weights these days, but a middleweight is still a middleweight. A welterweight is still a welterweight. There's no obvious difference in athletic ability compared to old school fighters.

The popularity of these sports also means a constant stream of top notch athletes and coaches that dedicate their time to developing the best skills and the best strategies. So you'll see that as well in sports like football or basketball. There's almost none of that with boxing because there are fewer fighters and fewer trainers, which means less competition to inspire hard work in developing skills and strategies.

Yea i get it less competition but what about stamina,with modern methods it should be better,and back then fighters fought more often on higher tempo,more rounds,i get than some guys use roids and go for streanght over stamina but there are fighters who work hard on cardio and still dont fight in good tempo.

[Tom Cruise]

Very true. I can watch any NFL game and see athletes that put everyone in HW boxing today to shame. Hell, the New England Patriots have two players that play the same position who are bigger athletic freaks than any American heavyweight, and it's not even remotely close. You sure as **** won't see anyone on the same physical planet as Lebron James, Russell Westbrook, or prime Dwight Howard.

Yep. Everyone always brings up Olympic records being broken all the time as well, as if there are any Usain Bolts in boxing, or the coaches with the knowledge and skill to get them to that level athletically.

I watch guys in Rugby like the George and Sam Burgess who are 264 and 256lbs respectively, play 80 minutes (15min break) flat out high intensity with strength, power speed, skill etc etc. Where the hell are those guys in boxing?

[Citizen Koba]

Gameplans and strategies today are vastly improved because of rule changes and the years spent trying to beat previous strategies. Players are running very complicated schemes these days compared to previous eras, and most teams run schemes developed to beat old school schemes. It's just the general evolution of coaching and gameplans over the years.

EDIT: Okay, I assumed this question was about basketball, not boxing. If it was about boxing, disregard what I said here.

I was talking about boxing.

But the question remains. I don't know, there's this thing called confirmation bias and we're all prone to it, myself included. My eyes tell me that the skill level is pretty much the same as it ever was, but that might be just me convincing myself of what I already believe. Your eyes tell you skill levels have declined, and you seek out reasons that support that hypothesis but confirmation bias effects you too.

How do we devise some way of actually proving this one way or another?

[Citizen Koba]

Yep. Everyone always brings up Olympic records being broken all the time as well, as if there are any Usain Bolts in boxing, or the coaches with the knowledge and skill to get them to that level athletically.

I watch guys in Rugby like the George and Sam Burgess who are 264 and 256lbs respectively, play 80 minutes (15min break) flat out high intensity with strength, power speed, skill etc etc. Where the hell are those guys in boxing?

It's been many years, but I've played Rugby both as a forward and a back and also sparred Boxers (at boxing although I came from Taekwondo / Judo background). OK the level is much lower in both cases, but believe me the level of intensity is not remotely close. In rugby - in fact in all team sports of my experience there's always plenty of time to recover when you're off the ball, but it's more than just that. IDK. It's like 2 or 3 mins in the ring felt as knackering as half an hour on the field.

[LetOutTheCage]

Man look GGG has not proven himself against elite comp so why would people pick him against fighters who have???

I can agree with this, though I would add that it's not just GGG who is unproven. Many of the so called top Welterweights and Light Middles aren't really proven either. You just cant compare some of these modern fighters to past greats because they have up until now done nothing to justify the comparison.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

You do have to figure in that the old guys fought a lot more often with many of them having over a hundred fights and there were only 8 titles to win in 8 divisions and they had to go fifteen rounds. No current fighter has had to win in those circumstances. The old guys always get an edge up on ratings because of that. Boxing could go back to that one day but it will be a while if it ever does. The sport has been watered down and it does play a role. It's sad really. These guys aren't going to get a fair shake history wise.

[Citizen Koba]

You do have to figure in that the old guys fought a lot more often with many of them having over a hundred fights and there were only 8 titles to win in 8 divisions and they had to go fifteen rounds. No current fighter has had to win in those circumstances. The old guys always get an edge up on ratings because of that. Boxing could go back to that one day but it will be a while if it ever does. The sport has been watered down and it does play a role. It's sad really. These guys aren't going to get a fair shake history wise.

There is also an argument that many of the top fighters in the day were at times fighting literal journeyman, part timers or guys that were sometimes fighting to pay for their next weeks food and board. The kind of guys that we simply would not see fighting in televised fights today. The bulk of these 100 or 200 fights were against literal nobodies and many of these guys - like Monzon for instance - and their opponents were smokers or drank heavily and would be fighting carrying injuries, just because they had to keep fighting to pay the bills. It's only relatively recently that purses have increased to the level where the majority of fighters have the luxury of fighting only when in close to top condition.

[BM dnobagaV]

There's a reason being known as a boxer gives you a certain status. People generally recognize that the sport is insanely difficult, up near the top. I mean, it's 3 continuous minutes of you fighting another human being. Well.... for Geale it was 4 against Golovkin