Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[Redd Foxx]

Another way to look at it is how I describe music to kids. You have decades of "modern" styled music and centuries of music in general to choose from. Do you really think that all the good songs were written in the past couple of years?

Don't be frustrated because your favorite active boxer isn't better than the hundreds that came before him.

[Joe Beamish]

Read Doug Fischer's Ring mail bag today. You'll learn something about the fighters from the 1800s and early 1900s.

[////]

Hipsterism

Few historical fighters would hold a candle, there wasn't anywhere near the same level of dedicated training and most guys were part timers, the sport was extremely ******uous drawing from a small talent pool in 3 or 4 countries, some of which as it turns out aren't really cutting it against the world.

Everyone knows this deep down but they want to seem "hardcore" or like they have an "eye for things" so they worship some random historical fighter.

[NaijaD]

Toney vs GGG would be a fought fight.... Toney would have to be at his best to win and he's notorious for not always being in top shape.

Julian Jackson hit harder than Golovkin facts, just because he failed to KO a bum in his 50th or so fight at the age of 36 does not detract from the devastating knockouts he scored over the numerous champions and contenders he faced. He put people to sleep, I mean LIGHTS OUT!! .... not just failing to beat the ten count, some of those guys were out for minutes. Most punchers have one maybe 2 devastating KOs, Jackson had a collection of those. Golovkin does not punch hard enough to do that to people.

In my opinion Golovkin is better than Jackson and would be favourite to beat him in a mythical match up but leave the talk of punching power alone, The Hawk trumps GGG in that department.

And stop pretending to be this historian of the sport, anyone reading your daily moronic threads can see you're a new fan from a country mile away.

[Madison Boxing]

Hipsterism

Few historical fighters would hold a candle, there wasn't anywhere near the same level of dedicated training and most guys were part timers, the sport was extremely ******uous drawing from a small talent pool in 3 or 4 countries, some of which as it turns out aren't really cutting it against the world.

Everyone knows this deep down but they want to seem "hardcore" or like they have an "eye for things" so they worship some random historical fighter.

yeah think thats my take on things really too, probably is nostalgia in some peoples cases but i think a lot of the people raving about guys in the past probably werent even around at that time lol, but want to appear more knowledgable.

[boliodogs]

One group of boxers from the past that may actually be underrated is the heavyweights of the past. Fans think because today's heavyweights are so much bigger they would easily beat the best heavyweights of the past. Some of today's heavyweights aren't really all that big. They just weigh a lot because they are very fat for a boxer. Giant heavyweight boxers have always been around and often got beat by much smaller heavyweights. Their extra size came with being slower, clumsier and often not having a good chin. Dempsey at 185 beat Willard who weighed 245 and Louis at 200 beat Carnera who weighed 260 pounds of rock hard muscle.

[HeadShots]

Dude...you are the only one thinking about race. I like the fact that the Euros are doing so well in boxing, it's good for the sport. I don't care about that. You seemed very bitter & insecure. Why go there?

you are going to tell me black people aren't tribal? it's very simple, kovalev vs ward is a 50/50 fight. go watch that mayweather gym video. they have no affiliation with ward, guess who they are all supporting.

[HeadShots]

Toney vs GGG would be a fought fight.... Toney would have to be at his best to win and he's notorious for not always being in top shape.

Julian Jackson hit harder than Golovkin facts, just because he failed to KO a bum in his 50th or so fight at the age of 36 does not detract from the devastating knockouts he scored over the numerous champions and contenders he faced. He put people to sleep, I mean LIGHTS OUT!! .... not just failing to beat the ten count, some of those guys were out for minutes. Most punchers have one maybe 2 devastating KOs, Jackson had a collection of those. Golovkin does not punch hard enough to do that to people.

In my opinion Golovkin is better than Jackson and would be favourite to beat him in a mythical match up but leave the talk of punching power alone, The Hawk trumps GGG in that department.

And stop pretending to be this historian of the sport, anyone reading your daily moronic threads can see you're a new fan from a country mile away.

The best part is when McCallum TKOed Jackson to the body half way through their fight in his prime.



GGG is a better body puncher than even McCallum along with his 1 punch KO's.


Jackson's power is limited.

[DJ_Quaaludes]

As others have noted, it is primarily nostalgia that fuels what you are noticing.

However, there is a little more at play than just that. In my opinion the talent pool is less now then it was in Boxing's past. While certain areas seem to be doing better in terms of 'popularity' (UK, Eastern Europe, etc), Boxing is no longer the prestigious sport overall that it used to be. Very few (in America especially) top level athletes choose boxing as a sport they want to excel in.

Also, business motivations have appeared to have reached a point where the best rarely fight the best, as 'protecting the record' has become many a fighter's mantra. It becomes difficult to gauge just how good a modern fighter is. See the numerous threads about GGG, Kovalev, Ward, etc and you'll note how easy it is to pick apart many of the top modern fighter's resumes.

[BigAlexSand]

I don't see it any way but facts. They are considered past greats because of their amazing reigns in the sport, which they dismantled the best of the best. Boxing today; is much more tainted more so than in the past. Saying that, their are past greats that yes wouldn't fair against the current age but that it's because they themselves show signs of potential greatness.

Personally I admit to my bias toward the past greats, I love them and what they did. I do though can say with confidence some wouldn't fair well against certain but few current champs of this age.