Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[Jim Tom]

I'd say it kind of is. If you're comparing best of eras you're talking about Floyd and Manny not (forgive me) Queef and Cherry Garcia, and still you're comparing the best of one generation with the best from many. I do however agree that comparing the best with the best is not a bad way to start. Now how do you go about proving whether say Floyd would have beaten Sugar Ray at Welter. H2H. Myself I'd claim Sugar Ray cos I'm a big fan, but if I'm honest I can't say with any degree of certainty.

Floyd fought over 20 years and I had not considered him to be a current fighter as tbh he hasn't been at his best for a very long time. Even Manny Pacquiao while he is still fighting it would be more like saying Roy Jones and Hopkins are current fighters just because they have decided to hang in there. My point was taking the current crop of this eral and try to say match them with guys in the 50s. Would they end up as champions the way they are now? Move on to the 60s, do the same with the 70s, 80s, etc.

[Zaroku]

It seems that in the past, with less titles, less weight classes, the top guys had to fight each other to make money.

Ployd, de la fishnets, Manny, would never have had as many titles etc.

So many changes to the boxing game. 15 rounds, not 12.

[Citizen Koba]

Floyd fought over 20 years and I had not considered him to be a current fighter as tbh he hasn't been at his best for a very long time. Even Manny Pacquiao while he is still fighting it would be more like saying Roy Jones and Hopkins are current fighters just because they have decided to hang in there. My point was taking the current crop of this eral and try to say match them with guys in the 50s. Would they end up as champions the way they are now? Move on to the 60s, do the same with the 70s, 80s, etc.

Ha ha. This could turn into a bit of an undertaking! I'm still not convinced that this will be a fair comparison, the legendary status of some guys from the past makes an objective critique of their actual abilities difficult (the rose coloured specs syndrome), and a direct H2H comparison is actually impossible. Furthermore a lot of the guys fighting now may come to be famous or better regarded (or worse) as their careers progress - it's easy to look back at guys of the past when all is done - and say 'he was great' especially guys from an era when boxers earned far more widespread and popular acclaim and big fights captured the attention of the whole world.

And when does the current 'era' start and end? If we're comparing 'right now' to a decade in the past - which could incude fighters who grew to prominence in the adjacent decades - again it's apples and oranges.

Tell you what, here are the Rings' top guys for one year, 1966 - 50 years ago. It's not really a satisfactory way of doing things to my mind, but it's a good place to start.There's a few standout names even at a glance, but the majority of the names on the lists will keep me busy on Boxrec and Youtube for the next week, and still leave me none the wiser as to who would actually beat who amongst their peers of today.


http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_1966

Still. Not a bad way to work on increasing my knowledge of boxing history.

And here's the 2015 Ring ratings, the latest available.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_2015

Feel free to join in if you like but I'll do this anyway just for my personal satisfaction. Don't think it'll actually bring me any closer to actually being able to prove whether skills have declined or not, but it'll be some fun.

[Jim Tom]

Ha ha. This could turn into a bit of an undertaking! I'm still not convinced that this will be a fair comparison, the legendary status of some guys from the past makes an objective critique of their actual abilities difficult (the rose coloured specs syndrome), and a direct H2H comparison is actually impossible. Furthermore a lot of the guys fighting now may come to be famous or better regarded (or worse) as their careers progress - it's easy to look back at guys of the past when all is done - and say 'he was great' especially guys from an era when boxers earned far more widespread and popular acclaim and big fights captured the attention of the whole world.

And when does the current 'era' start and end? If we're comparing 'right now' to a decade in the past - which could incude fighters who grew to prominence in the adjacent decades - again it's apples and oranges.

Tell you what, here are the Rings' top guys for one year, 1966 - 50 years ago. It's not really a satisfactory way of doing things to my mind, but it's a good place to start.There's a few standout names even at a glance, but the majority of the names on the lists will keep me busy on Boxrec and Youtube for the next week, and still leave me none the wiser as to who would actually beat who amongst their peers of today.


http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_1966

Still. Not a bad way to work on increasing my knowledge of boxing history.

And here's the 2015 Ring ratings, the latest available.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_2015

Feel free to join in if you like but I'll do this anyway just for my personal satisfaction. Don't think it'll actually bring me any closer to actually being able to prove whether skills have declined or not, but it'll be some fun.

Those are some very good links right there and very informative actually. I will be trying to watch all the guys I don't know on you tube and I'm sure it will take forever. I was actually surprised Nicolino Locche was fighting in 1966. I seriously thought he was from the 1940s.
In a way I do note where you are coming from, because we have never heard of some these guys before but still sometimes even when I see some guys Tyson used to knock out and other fighters from the bygone era I marvel because they were complete boxers. These guys could move their heads and counter punch, they could tie up their opponents and use the ropes for defence, they could move in the ring with grace and could suck up difficult periods. When I look even at these current heavyweights, they have no skills man. THB the only skilled heavyweight is like David Haye but even Haye I dont see how he could last against even average guys like Herbie Hide.

[IronDanHamza]

He must be the greatest of all time if he did what he has done without ever being in shape a day in his life eh?

No because that's the excuse for the numerous times he looked like total **** and lost to unranked journeyman in his prime.

"Cut from that old school cloth" .... Never in shape. Makes sense!

One of the main things old school fighters were were always in shape and always dedicated and disciplined and could fight for 15 rounds EASILY.

There were times in James Toney's prime where he was gassed after a few rounds.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I don't see what people don't get. They fought 15 rds, there were more fighters around which means more talent, everyone had to fight the top contenders to get a shot at the title, and every contender was good enough to be champ.

Hell, Sugar Ray Robinson beat Sammy Angott who was the lightweight champion at the time and whole bunch of other good fighters of the time and was still the underdog against Maxie Shapiro! You have guys today who are 20-0 or 30-0 and have fought absolutely nobody! Today undefeated means absolutely nothing other than you are a duck.

[!! Shawn]

No because that's the excuse for the numerous times he looked like total **** and lost to unranked journeyman in his prime.

"Cut from that old school cloth" .... Never in shape. Makes sense!

One of the main things old school fighters were were always in shape and always dedicated and disciplined and could fight for 15 rounds EASILY.

There were times in James Toney's prime where he was gassed after a few rounds.

So how long are you going to be deliberately dense and pretend I wasn't talking about skillset, and frequency of fighting?

[Kigali]

I don't see what people don't get. They fought 15 rds, there were more fighters around which means more talent, everyone had to fight the top contenders to get a shot at the title, and every contender was good enough to be champ.

Hell, Sugar Ray Robinson beat Sammy Angott who was the lightweight champion at the time and whole bunch of other good fighters of the time and was still the underdog against Maxie Shapiro! You have guys today who are 20-0 or 30-0 and have fought absolutely nobody! Today undefeated means absolutely nothing other than you are a duck.

They're just trying to cut down the fighters from the past(the Black ones) to elevate their current man-crushes.

[Canelo and GGG]

They're just trying to cut down the fighters from the past(the Black ones) to elevate their current man-crushes.

you mean Can crashers?

[IronDanHamza]

So how long are you going to be deliberately dense and pretend I wasn't talking about skillset, and frequency of fighting?

Regardless of what you're referring to it's ridiculous to say that a guy who was never in shape was "cut from that old school cloth" and even implied and acted like he was the most qualified person to fit that description in recent memory.

Hence he response.