Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[!! Shawn]

Because boxing with a much tougher sport back when it was 15 rounds with 6 ounce horse hair gloves, and non attached thumbs. And you fought 10 times a year, and you had a fight a murders row of people to even get a shot at a title.

[Citizen Koba]

The level has most certainly dropped.....

Well I just don't know. I'd like someone to explain exactly how this can be demonstrated in any objective way. If someone can give me an answer that ain't basically the eye test, then I'm more than happy to buy it, but until then I'll stick to my guns, thanks. I still say the overall level is basically the same.

[i got the keys]

Well I just don't know. I'd like someone to explain exactly how this can be demonstrated in any objective way. If someone can give me an answer that ain't basically the eye test, then I'm more than happy to buy it, but until then I'll stick to my guns, thanks. I still say the overall level is basically the same.

I digress.

I shouldn't say certainly, but there are more options now as opposed to back in the days when factoring pay into the sport...

[Citizen Koba]

I digress.

I shouldn't say certainly, but there are more options now as opposed to back in the days when factoring pay into the sport...

Is that a roundabout way of saying the best ain't fighting the best anymore? Well that is a circumstantial argument that holds some weight - basically to get paid a decent amount you basically hadda fight someone good, although quite how and when payscales began to increase ain't something I claim to know much about. On the other hand one consequence of the low pay was that the vast majority of fighters were part-timers below the top level and also often had to fight when injured or not at 100% just to pay the bills. The flip side of fighting more often is of course, more ring experience.

Still not convinced either way, though.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

100% agree my man.

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

Nothing has changed.

Yes, sir. I really would like to see showcase fights not be the freaking main event where the showcase fighter gets a million for that crap though. How is boxing supposed to survive on that?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Because boxing with a much tougher sport back when it was 15 rounds with 6 ounce horse hair gloves, and non attached thumbs. And you fought 10 times a year, and you had a fight a murders row of people to even get a shot at a title.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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.

My point is that given the current environment, fighters are not forced to go through what the fighters of old went through and while that is all well and good for the modern day fighter, they can't be compared on the same scale. They do have it easier these days in many ways. They never have to fight 15 rounds. They don't have to fight as often( 1-2 fights a year is easily the norm nowadays). There are tons of titles to win and call yourself a champion. Back then, there weren't. How can these guys of today even compare when they're not pushed like the old guys were? Not one of them has proven they can go 15 or if they would ever even get a shot at one title when title shots were so hard to come by. And most of them fight 1-2 times a year. That's a joke next to the oldtimers, many of whom fought 5-8 times a year regularly and not always against bums either. Robinson and LaMotta fought 6 times. Today? Trilogy at best and for 12 rounds and always for one of the numerous alphabet titles. Plus, the real true factor for me, is that everybody fought everybody back then. Now, ducking and hiding is very easy to pull off. Back then, guys didn't even have a choice and so more solid match-ups were made and they didn't have to marinate either.

[LoadedWraps]

'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.

25-10 records? I hope you are just exaggerating, I don't think I've seen anyone here say a guy with a 25-10 record from the early days of boxing beats any elite fighter today.

Find and quote this for me.

Mayweather is correctly rated in the 20-30 range. Just because great fighters did great things before your time, and my time, doesn't make them less great.

And of course a fighter today would have a hard time getting GOAT consideration - we've been over this: fighters today fight less, defend titles less often, etc. It's hard to keep up with a guy who fights every month when you fight twice a year or 4 times in 4 years.

[Canelo and GGG]

25-10 records? I hope you are just exaggerating, I don't think I've seen anyone here say a guy with a 25-10 record from the early days of boxing beats any elite fighter today.

Find and quote this for me.

Mayweather is correctly rated in the 20-30 range. Just because great fighters did great things before your time, and my time, doesn't make them less great.

And of course a fighter today would have a hard time getting GOAT consideration - we've been over this: fighters today fight less, defend titles less often, etc. It's hard to keep up with a guy who fights every month when you fight twice a year or 4 times in 4 years.

Thats right road to greatness was tougher back then,Many brutal fights even before getting title shot,hell some ppl never get theyr shot,this guys stamina was something else,also picking opponets is so lame now.But i wouldt say that level of boxing is higher now.

[Madison Boxing]

25-10 records? I hope you are just exaggerating, I don't think I've seen anyone here say a guy with a 25-10 record from the early days of boxing beats any elite fighter today.

Find and quote this for me.

Mayweather is correctly rated in the 20-30 range. Just because great fighters did great things before your time, and my time, doesn't make them less great.

And of course a fighter today would have a hard time getting GOAT consideration - we've been over this: fighters today fight less, defend titles less often, etc. It's hard to keep up with a guy who fights every month when you fight twice a year or 4 times in 4 years.

im not mate, 27-12 rubin carter they were all telling me would beat golovkin on one of my other threads, wasnt just one person saying it either lol