Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[bojangles1987]

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?

I agree that the top levels of boxing are as skilled as ever. It's the average skill level that is declined, and that's mostly do to boxing's declining popularity and number of fighters. Look at heavyweight now compared to 15 years ago. Then look at it 30 years ago. Someone like Charles Martin would never pick up a trinket belt. Breazeale would never be a contender. Pulev, Chisora, guys like that would be destroyed, Wilder as well.

Guys at their level were not top heavyweights. Their complete lack of basic fundamental skills like their footwork, head movement, and parrying is highly evident if compared to fights between heavyweight contenders (not champions, contenders) from 20-30 years ago.

It's true across the board. Andre Ward is a well schooled inside fighter, but the reason he dominates inside is because of how helpless and untrained everyone he goes against is inside. He dominates through the basic fundamentals of inside fighting, not because he's doing anything special. Same with Golovkin cutting off the ring. He's the best in the sport because of very basic fundamentals that he excels at.

There's no way to statistically prove fighters are less skilled, but I know I can watch contenders from the past and see a level of skill that champions today mostly lack. Inside fighting, parrying, cutting off the ring, head movement, these things are the building blocks of being a boxer and used to be expected among top level fighters. Now we think it's special when we see it.

[b00g13man]

Christ, when I read fighters of the past, I thought he meant fighters in the 60's or some ****. Not Julian Jackson LMAO

The boxrec generation.

[Citizen Koba]

I agree that the top levels of boxing are as skilled as ever. It's the average skill level that is declined, and that's mostly do to boxing's declining popularity and number of fighters. Look at heavyweight now compared to 15 years ago. Then look at it 30 years ago. Someone like Charles Martin would never pick up a trinket belt. Breazeale would never be a contender. Pulev, Chisora, guys like that would be destroyed, Wilder as well.

Guys at their level were not top heavyweights. Their complete lack of basic fundamental skills like their footwork, head movement, and parrying is highly evident if compared to fights between heavyweight contenders (not champions, contenders) from 20-30 years ago.

It's true across the board. Andre Ward is a well schooled inside fighter, but the reason he dominates inside is because of how helpless and untrained everyone he goes against is inside. He dominates through the basic fundamentals of inside fighting, not because he's doing anything special. Same with Golovkin cutting off the ring. He's the best in the sport because of very basic fundamentals that he excels at.

There's no way to statistically prove fighters are less skilled, but I know I can watch contenders from the past and see a level of skill that champions today mostly lack. Inside fighting, parrying, cutting off the ring, head movement, these things are the building blocks of being a boxer and used to be expected among top level fighters. Now we think it's special when we see it.

I hear ya man, but then I think of guys like Henry Akinwande or Frank Bruno (about as far back as my personal memories reach) who snagged trinkets and wonder. Could it not be that it's simply a lot of the guys we regard now as greats looked amazing because a lot of their competition consisted of guys that either were **** average or had grown to notoriety by splattering journeymen? As the saying goes (to paraphrase) it's easy to look good when your opposition ain't.

I mean, I could actually make an argument for either case, but I remember plenty of fights from the 80s where the skill levels were just appalling - I think it's more that it's the big fights and the top fighters that stick in our memories. But then I kinda doubt myself, like maybe I'm doing nostalgia in reverse somehow?

Certainly we know that guys fought more often, but also that they fought more no-hopers, at some periods in the sport (especially the depression and post-war) there were huge influxes of guys who just liked a bit of a scrap and needed to earn some money to feed themselves. Also we know that many of these guys were smokers or drank heavily, would come into fights carrying injuries as a result of simply fighting so often but needing to keep the money coming in. So were these champions really much better or merely fighting worse opposition? Like I say, I just don't know, but my gut and my eyes tell me there ain't that much difference.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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.

It's an argument. If you think all that's changed, I have to disagree. Lots of guys fight bums on TV now and they fight far less than they used to. Many of the guys are literal journeyman as you say. That hasn't changed really and never will. These showcase fights are fights against bums. Sure, they may have decent records and sometimes they don't. Guys aren't getting paid that much more either unless you're signed with the right promoter. And guys smoking and drinking hasn't stopped either. Pacquiao admitted he smoke and drank plenty before he conversion to Christianity. Many people have said Timothy Bradley likes to pull a cork. I think this is pretty much the point. It's really style over substance. We'll offer you guys who look like supermen in the ring with dazzling records and boatloads of title belts for their entourage to hold up on the way to the ring. Lots of glitz and glamour. In the ring though, you're generally getting crap "Showcase" fights. Kind of like waxing and polishing up a Pinto to a fine shine. It's still a piece of shyt.

[LoadedWraps]

In all the mythical match ups, or discussions, the modern day fighters are pretty much always considered not a patch on the fighters they are compared to. You then examine there record and theyve lost/gone the distance with absoltue bums yet the top fighters from modern era have no chance against them. For example, recent discussions ive seen are with julian jackson v ggg in terms of power, jackson didnt knock out a guy with a 9-16 record, yet thats okay, imagine if GGG now fought and went distance with someone like that? Another one is toney v GGG, toney struggled against tibieri and lost to thadzi (28-8) yet GGG has no chance against him. This isnt a GGG discussion and the purpose of the thread isnt to debate them particular examples, but they are most recent ive seen.
why is it that fighters from past eras are viewed to be so indestructible, and losses can be brushed aside, yet if someone from this era struggles or loses they get absolutely slaughtered?

Because they often were better.

It's not nostalgia, it's a fact.

In the past, the golden eras, there were more fighters, fighting more often, with less tools and knowledge to achieve ideal conditioning and nutrition. Fighters had to flat out put in way more work to achieve the same/comparable success to fighters of today. They defended their titles much more often. The biggest determining factor, is the sheer volume of talent around back then as opposed to today.

It's common sense really. If what I just stated doesn't lead you to deduce the same, well then there is nothing really more to say really. It isn't a debate, it's just ignorance on your part or others if you have neglected to look into the history of boxing.

[i got the keys]

It's an argument. If you think all that's changed, I have to disagree. Lots of guys fight bums on TV now and they fight far less than they used to. Many of the guys are literal journeyman as you say. That hasn't changed really and never will. These showcase fights are fights against bums. Sure, they may have decent records and sometimes they don't. Guys aren't getting paid that much more either unless you're signed with the right promoter. And guys smoking and drinking hasn't stopped either. Pacquiao admitted he smoke and drank plenty before he conversion to Christianity. Many people have said Timothy Bradley likes to pull a cork. I think this is pretty much the point. It's really style over substance. We'll offer you guys who look like supermen in the ring with dazzling records and boatloads of title belts for their entourage to hold up on the way to the ring. Lots of glitz and glamour. In the ring though, you're generally getting crap "Showcase" fights. Kind of like waxing and polishing up a Pinto to a fine shine. It's still a piece of shyt.

100% agree my man.

How else would prospects be prospects if not fighting guys that they know they will beat....

Nothing has changed.

[Citizen Koba]

It's an argument. If you think all that's changed, I have to disagree. Lots of guys fight bums on TV now and they fight far less than they used to. Many of the guys are literal journeyman as you say. That hasn't changed really and never will. These showcase fights are fights against bums. Sure, they may have decent records and sometimes they don't. Guys aren't getting paid that much more either unless you're signed with the right promoter. And guys smoking and drinking hasn't stopped either. Pacquiao admitted he smoke and drank plenty before he conversion to Christianity. Many people have said Timothy Bradley likes to pull a cork. I think this is pretty much the point. It's really style over substance. We'll offer you guys who look like supermen in the ring with dazzling records and boatloads of title belts for their entourage to hold up on the way to the ring. Lots of glitz and glamour. In the ring though, you're generally getting crap "Showcase" fights. Kind of like waxing and polishing up a Pinto to a fine shine. It's still a piece of shyt.

So. same old same old then? Do you feel the overall level has dropped then? Myself I think it's probably roughly the same, certainly at the top level. My post was to counterpoint someone who believed that the skills of the previous era were visibly better and that boxing ability was on a downwards trajectory - which people have been saying for about the last 100 years (at least). Me, I don't see it. Reckon guys are about the same as ever, Different strategies and fads in training of course, but I've no reason to think that the guys of the past wouldn't mix on roughly equal footing with the best of today or vice versa.

[i got the keys]

So. same old same old then. Do you feel the overall level has dropped then? Myself I think it's probably roughly the same, certainly at the top level.

The level has most certainly dropped.....

[Madison Boxing]

Because they often were better.

It's not nostalgia, it's a fact.

In the past, the golden eras, there were more fighters, fighting more often, with less tools and knowledge to achieve ideal conditioning and nutrition. Fighters had to flat out put in way more work to achieve the same/comparable success to fighters of today. They defended their titles much more often. The biggest determining factor, is the sheer volume of talent around back then as opposed to today.

It's common sense really. If what I just stated doesn't lead you to deduce the same, well then there is nothing really more to say really. It isn't a debate, it's just ignorance on your part or others if you have neglected to look into the history of boxing.

'looking into the history' is exactly what made me do the thread. Will get some muppet who was never champ with a 25-10 record or something like that and people will say, oh they would have destroyed the modern day fighters. Think mayweather with his 49-0 should be rated a lot higher than he is, but no, many people on here barely have him top 30. I think because of nostalgia, whatever a fighter does in the modern era, they will never be considered the GOAT, its more fashionable to make out that these current day fighters are nothing compared to the guys from the past.

[Madison Boxing]

I hear ya man, but then I think of guys like Henry Akinwande or Frank Bruno (about as far back as my personal memories reach) who snagged trinkets and wonder. Could it not be that it's simply a lot of the guys we regard now as greats looked amazing because a lot of their competition consisted of guys that either were **** average or had grown to notoriety by splattering journeymen? As the saying goes (to paraphrase) it's easy to look good when your opposition ain't.

I mean, I could actually make an argument for either case, but I remember plenty of fights from the 80s where the skill levels were just appalling - I think it's more that it's the big fights and the top fighters that stick in our memories. But then I kinda doubt myself, like maybe I'm doing nostalgia in reverse somehow?

Certainly we know that guys fought more often, but also that they fought more no-hopers, at some periods in the sport (especially the depression and post-war) there were huge influxes of guys who just liked a bit of a scrap and needed to earn some money to feed themselves. Also we know that many of these guys were smokers or drank heavily, would come into fights carrying injuries as a result of simply fighting so often but needing to keep the money coming in. So were these champions really much better or merely fighting worse opposition? Like I say, I just don't know, but my gut and my eyes tell me there ain't that much difference.

great post. Thats exactly what im trying to get at but youve worded it better than i have. Its made out that these old timers fought killer after killer. Many of the fighters they fought and beat would be considered 'bums' now, many of them didnt take the sport serious and it was easy for fighters who were more dedicated to beat them. Pro didnt definitively mean pro back then, it wasnt taken serious by some. There are great fighters from them days of course, but i think people from this era are shat on, people from those eras are glorified, but cherrypicking and mismatches have always been a part of boxing