Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[bojangles1987]

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.

You're proving TS's point here, because Toney lost to worse fighters than Ouma and Murray. Saying he beats both in the same night is creating a myth based on glorifying past fighters.

[Holystroke3]

My thoughts on this, sports in general not just boxing, are

1. It's comparing a completed story to one that isn't yet finished. We see the totality of the past fighters accomplishments and compare to the present day fighter at this moment

2. The highlights of a past athletes career are what is remembered, whereas we are seeing the entire career of current athletes unfold. So we see a bad game from current athletes but mostly only see the highlights of former athletes.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

My thoughts on this, sports in general not just boxing, are

1. It's comparing a completed story to one that isn't yet finished. We see the totality of the past fighters accomplishments and compare to the present day fighter at this moment

2. The highlights of a past athletes career are what is remembered, whereas we are seeing the entire career of current athletes unfold. So we see a bad game from current athletes but mostly only see the highlights of former athletes.

Not really. We saw fighters of the past at their best AND worst. We haven't seen the current fighters in with the best so they seem unbeatable aka we have only seen the best of them. For a lot of fighters out there now it only goes downhill from where they are at. Look at Amir Khan, I don't see him beating anyone noteworthy in the welterweight division and certainly not any weight class above 147. I predict GGG will only get worse as he fights elite competition. He WONT look good against Jacobs or any of the top guys at 160 for that matter and he WONT look good against Canelo. If he fights guys at 154 and below then that will be a tarnish on his record.

[yngwie]

You're proving TS's point here, because Toney lost to worse fighters than Ouma and Murray. Saying he beats both in the same night is creating a myth based on glorifying past fighters.

Isn't a myth, in fantasy fight you should pick the best version of either fighter, but he picks the worst version of Toney who was a fighter who fought 26 times in 2 years, of course he would have some bad performances, look at the fighters that fight 2/3 a year and still have some bad performances.
Isn't a myth that Toney would have been capable of beaten Murray or Ouma, if you look at how he looked against opponents better than both of them, saying he could do it in the same night was just an hyperbole because he was using many against old fighters, both i don't think he would pick the Golovkin that beat Ouma or the Golovkin that beat Brook, against a more skilled, faster, harder puncher operator in Toney.

[VERSION1 (V1)]

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?

so i guess in ten years you want think that ggg would beat any of the top middleweights

[Canelo and GGG]

Isn't a myth, in fantasy fight you should pick the best version of either fighter, but he picks the worst version of Toney who was a fighter who fought 26 times in 2 years, of course he would have some bad performances, look at the fighters that fight 2/3 a year and still have some bad performances.
Isn't a myth that Toney would have been capable of beaten Murray or Ouma, if you look at how he looked against opponents better than both of them, saying he could do it in the same night was just an hyperbole because he was using many against old fighters, both i don't think he would pick the Golovkin that beat Ouma or the Golovkin that beat Brook, against a more skilled, faster, harder puncher operator in Toney.

i dont remember but i was talking with you about it?
That fantasy fights should be for fun and they cant be accurate,but sure its fantasy so you can pick version of fighter ,itsa myth that older fighter is allways favorite,People just try to bring on ridiculous match upss like GGG-Hagler ,well when GGG is done we can talk,ppl choose unproven fighter to fight ATG and are suprised that ppl choose older fighter come on.

[Blackclouds]

Then it should seem crystal clear why GGG isn't favored in match ups with atg's from the past and why they are "glorified".

GGG is a good fighter he just hasn't been in with anyone to prove he is a great fighter. imo there isn't anyone around today to give GGG an atg resume. Middleweight sucks, Super Middleweight sucks, and Light Heavyweight is ok. Unless GGG plans to skip Super Middleweight and go fight some big names like Kovalev and Ward at Light Heavyweight then I don't see him being considered great after he retires.

golovkin had his chance to fight Ward and passed it up. He doesn't give a flying **** about legacy and never did.

[OnePunch]

golovkin had his chance to fight Ward and passed it up. He doesn't give a flying **** about legacy and never did.

he passed up a garbage deal that would have had him contractually obligated to Ward for over a year, and would have cost him all his middleweight belts. And dont bother denying it because it has been discussed to death already so you can use your search feature for the cliff notes.

But the fact that he "passed" shows that he (or his management) has more sense than 95% of the posters on this board who thought it was a swell offer.......

[yngwie]

i dont remember but i was talking with you about it?
That fantasy fights should be for fun and they cant be accurate,but sure its fantasy so you can pick version of fighter ,itsa myth that older fighter is allways favorite,People just try to bring on ridiculous match upss like GGG-Hagler ,well when GGG is done we can talk,ppl choose unproven fighter to fight ATG and are suprised that ppl choose older fighter come on.

I think, i don't remember.
I'm not fan of bring fights of old atg vs up coming prospect or current unproven champ and all that.
But sometimes surprise me how little respect atg's gets here by a lot people.

[Canelo and GGG]

I think, i don't remember.
I'm not fan of bring fights of old atg vs up coming prospect or current unproven champ and all that.
But sometimes surprise me how little respect atg's gets here by a lot people.

More i watch them the more respect i give them,but im not biased towards them cuse my heros are mostly 90s or current fighters.