Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[yngwie]

Because they where fighters in all the meaning of the word.
We have lots of talent out there, but fighters before really fought, all the time against the best and liked to win in fashion, 15 round they were trading punches even when they where winning 13-1 or 14-0, why the greats are always winning in fantasy fights?
Which welter today combined the speed/power/footwork/defense/toughness/chin of Ray Leonard? and add to the mix the likes of Hearns.
You are being selective at the performances of the fighters, James Toney was as inconsistent as they come, pick the worst performance of Toney against the best of Golovkin, Toney would have murdered Ouma and Murray on the same night.
Jackson didn't knock out a 9-16 fighter, but that after 56 fights and way past his prime, considering he was already past his prime by the time he moved to middleweight.
Chad Dawson stopped Ian Gardner and Golovkin didn't, so that means Chad Dawson would have murdered Golovkin. Get your facts straight and do your research.
Tell me which fighter today would stand toe a toe in a fight he is winning, in the last round, against puncher, like Morales did against Pacquiao or like Mosley did against Dela Hoya, and those aren't really old timers.
But fighters today really don't have the mind to be up there with the greatest.
You know why they win decisions against bums?, because they where fighting 5/6 times a year and you wouldn't look good all the time fighting that frequently, off-nights exist.
Old timers created the path so today fighters can go win a close ud in 12 and take millions for that.

[juggernaut666]

It comes down to back then it was hard to disprove ones skill levels with limited footage . Boxing was still trying to build the sport up pre 60's eras so they were less critical of a guy with 10/20 losses who fought for titles or Champions losing to really not much skills . It carried into the other modern eras so you can blame the likes of hired boxing "EXPERTS" and "ANALASYT"S" who coincided with publications like ring magazine that played down better fighters to have reasoning to write articles about boxings history at the same time write in the present.

In the end its the gullibility of the boxing FANS themselves that keep this belief alive , just go visit the fantasy fight section of these invincibility of the 160 /200 pound HW champions !

[CaneloMaidana]

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?

It's because Golovkin is a coward. Scum like you will say Golovkin is better than Toney. Well why doesn't that little girl Golovkin move up

[Madison Boxing]

It's because Golovkin is a coward. Scum like you will say Golovkin is better than Toney. Well why doesn't that little girl Golovkin move up

have a day off mate...

[Chuckguy]

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 all had heart unlike the poosies today that want to get paid millions but don't want to risk the 0.

[CaneloMaidana]

have a day off mate...

Answer you bigot. If Golovkin is better than Duran, Floyd and Hearns why does he refuse to do what they did?

[Madison Boxing]

Answer you bigot. If Golovkin is better than Duran, Floyd and Hearns why does he refuse to do what they did?

hagler the best middleweight of them all never moved up, no need to

[CaneloMaidana]

hagler the best middleweight of them all never moved up, no need to

Hagler was not the best middleweight off all time. Robinson was. Langford above him too.

[NYC8224]

Hagler was not the best middleweight off all time. Robinson was. Langford above him too.

Whats wrong with staying at your weight and beating everybody there you clown? Why should GGG move up, because YOU want him to? Who gives a **** what you want him to do? Gtfoh

[soul_survivor]

Lets put it this way, so you see a 5'8'' Mayweather who had a physical match up with Maidana or a 5'6'' Pacquiao who is a tiny welterweight beating a 5'10'', tested, hardened, tough, power punching Leonard?