Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[SterlingStained]

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?

Its quite simple,


TO
PRESERVE
HISTORY.



That's why nba players like bill russell are glorified and unfairly ranked as the greatest of all time despite sucking as a singular talent. but since he was a "team player" in a loaded team with a buncha hall of famers in a 5-10 team league in the early 60s, and won a buncha championships, he is regarded as the greatest center of all time despite 10 centers being infinitely better than him talent wise.


that's why you can find 1,000 artists IN AMERICA ALONE LET ALONE THE WORLD, to recreate the mona lisa and other famous works of legendary artists like da vinci, rembrandt, picasso, monet, etc etc... and ask them to create their own version of those famous works, but the famous work that was older will always be worth more and seen more of in reverential terms.... Think about it, if great artists of today can re create any great work of yesteryear, why isnt if they create an original piece, their piece isnt as valuable and isnt as thought of as reverential and legendary...


to preserve history.



that's why people say babe ruth is one of the greatest baseball players of all time, but if you magically transported prime babe ruth into the mlb playoffs going on right now, that fat ass would go 0 for nothing.

that tub of lard wouldnt crack AAA if he played today.



to preserve history.


pretty much explains the answer to your thread brosephene.


"harry greb is da greatest even doe i aint never seen him fight before doe... derp..... no fight footage doe.... but there was a splendiferous slap boxing old school video doe... no fight footage doe..."

"but he is top 10 all time in my concieted all time unofficial who gives a crap ranking doe?"

"newspaper decisions doe"

[TOBYLEE1]

There are talented boxers now and there will be in the future.

In the past there were less titles, less weights and 15 round fights.

The top fighters had to fight each other more often because they didn't get paid as much.

Now you have all these divas that think that they are entitled to big pays just because they are popular, they think they are worth more than they actually do or took one risk fight that they actually won.

[Combat Talk Radio]

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?

All I can say is, if you put a prime Mike McCallum in the ring with GGG, you would not be seeing G walk through those punches.

It's all in perspective. The fighters of the past had the benefit of roids without repercussions, shady deals, mob backends, etc. Most of the older fighters literally came from the projects where they were perfectly fine going into the ring and throwing it all out there. That's why when Broner talks about "cornflakes and water", people laugh at him.

The old guard had it totally rough, so they had more to prove in there.

It's simple. Because they have dark skin.

Skin's got nothing to do with it.

Joe Calzaghe not only retired undefeated, he beat three of the best black boxers in history on his way out the door. Say what you will about his "slap boxing" style - he got it done, and frankly, can pat himself on the back and say that he effectively retired "Simply The Best".

Steve Collins beat two of the best black fighters TWICE each, decisively.

While Ali was on the decline, Chuck Wepner was able to showcase at least some skill.

Then there's the infamous Tyson/McBride fight.

So no, it has nothing to do with color. There's always been white fighters of talent. The problem is that the current crop of fighters didn't have it nearly as hard as the past.

[sugar ray lenrd]

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.

Dude,
There is nothing wrong with tribal (assumptions) rooting for their own, that's what sells. Mexican root for Mexicans, Blacks root for Blacks, Eastern Euros root fo Eastern Euros, Puerto Ricans for Puerto Ricans, Asians for Asians...I don't have a problem with that, however i do have a problem with the racial mockerings & name callings. At the end of the day you will have many blacks rooting for GGG also. As a trainer I find these little name calling childish. I train fighters of all ethnic backgrounds & when I'm in their corner they are my children that I have a responsibility for them to come out in good condtion after the fight. You should see how they root for each other against their own kind be it race, ethnicity or color.

It's boxing = Think Boxing

[BEEHOP]

I honestly used to think Wlad Klitschko was elite and possibly a top HW, but that Tyson Fury fight changed it for me. Skill level wise he may still be, but he has no heart. I can't imagine too many all time greats let their belts get taken without doing anything. He pretty much gave up, because he wasn't able to dominate.

[Madison Boxing]

Its quite simple,


TO
PRESERVE
HISTORY.



That's why nba players like bill russell are glorified and unfairly ranked as the greatest of all time despite sucking as a singular talent. but since he was a "team player" in a loaded team with a buncha hall of famers in a 5-10 team league in the early 60s, and won a buncha championships, he is regarded as the greatest center of all time despite 10 centers being infinitely better than him talent wise.


that's why you can find 1,000 artists IN AMERICA ALONE LET ALONE THE WORLD, to recreate the mona lisa and other famous works of legendary artists like da vinci, rembrandt, picasso, monet, etc etc... and ask them to create their own version of those famous works, but the famous work that was older will always be worth more and seen more of in reverential terms.... Think about it, if great artists of today can re create any great work of yesteryear, why isnt if they create an original piece, their piece isnt as valuable and isnt as thought of as reverential and legendary...


to preserve history.



that's why people say babe ruth is one of the greatest baseball players of all time, but if you magically transported prime babe ruth into the mlb playoffs going on right now, that fat ass would go 0 for nothing.

that tub of lard wouldnt crack AAA if he played today.



to preserve history.


pretty much explains the answer to your thread brosephene.


"harry greb is da greatest even doe i aint never seen him fight before doe... derp..... no fight footage doe.... but there was a splendiferous slap boxing old school video doe... no fight footage doe..."

"but he is top 10 all time in my concieted all time unofficial who gives a crap ranking doe?"

"newspaper decisions doe"

yeah, agree for sure, think people like to think that makes them some boxing guru when they say a modern day fighter is no better than some guy from the 20's who's name theyve just read on some old espn greatest fighters list. genuinely think theres nothing a modern day fighter could do to get considered the GOAT or even close.

[Madison Boxing]

I honestly used to think Wlad Klitschko was elite and possibly a top HW, but that Tyson Fury fight changed it for me. Skill level wise he may still be, but he has no heart. I can't imagine too many all time greats let their belts get taken without doing anything. He pretty much gave up, because he wasn't able to dominate.

yea, wlads had a great career but hes always lacked that killer instinct and the mentality to make him truly elite

[Madison Boxing]

Dude,
There is nothing wrong with tribal (assumptions) rooting for their own, that's what sells. Mexican root for Mexicans, Blacks root for Blacks, Eastern Euros root fo Eastern Euros, Puerto Ricans for Puerto Ricans, Asians for Asians...I don't have a problem with that, however i do have a problem with the racial mockerings & name callings. At the end of the day you will have many blacks rooting for GGG also. As a trainer I find these little name calling childish. I train fighters of all ethnic backgrounds & when I'm in their corner they are my children that I have a responsibility for them to come out in good condtion after the fight. You should see how they root for each other against their own kind be it race, ethnicity or color.

It's boxing = Think Boxing

theres everything wrong with it...

[nacho daddy]

Everyone think the athletes they grew up watching are superior thats just how it is. No one can tell me Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana even though he probably is. That's how just how it is. That's just one example off the top of my head.

tom brady said that Joe Montana was the best QB

[sugar ray lenrd]

theres everything wrong with it...

There's everything wrong with what?