Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[GodOfBoxing]

More TIME down. Longer delay. "New" always must battle! Someday the active will have been retired 100 years too and THE LEGEND GROWS!
[actually, I think Armegedon is CLOSE, though! "Era of Gay marriage and Hillary Clinton's and stuff"]

[Mr.MojoRisin']

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 fighters of the past had to do more to get a shot at the title. There were more fighters, better contenders, etc. Fighters fought every month also so that makes a big difference.

If you rate a fighter simply by there record then you must think Marciano is the best heavyweight ever and that Mayweather is tbe. A record tells a tiny part of the story. Rate a fighter from the best they beat not the worst that went the distance with them.

It seems you aren't very familiar with the history of the sport which is ok considering not a lot of people in this section are.

[Madison Boxing]

Because fighters of the past had to do more to get a shot at the title. There were more fighters, better contenders, etc. Fighters fought every month also so that makes a big difference.

If you rate a fighter simply by there record then you must think Marciano is the best heavyweight ever and that Mayweather is tbe. A record tells a tiny part of the story. Rate a fighter from the best they beat not the worst that went the distance with them.

It seems you aren't very familiar with the history of the sport which is ok considering not a lot of people in this section are.

very familiar with boxing history mate, dont go out of my way to read up on it but i know enough...

[Mr.MojoRisin']

very familiar with boxing history mate, dont go out of my way to read up on it but i know enough...

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.

[Elroy The Great]

the rough and tumble, no holds barred life of the way back when era. it fits the modern day fight fans ideal of what a boxer should be. no ''ducking'', no bs politics, no ''p'e'ds''....purity.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

cavemen were pure too. didnt make them better people. and it wasnt pure. the mob ran boxing harder than the alphabets do. the rules were savage and rarely used. a ton of BUMS littered the sport. guys fighting 15 times a year ?!?!?!?

our top guys would most likely crush those top guys (with very few exceptions).

[KLockard23]

Boxing was a REAL MAN'S sport back then. The best actually fighting the best, guys actually wanting to kick ass and win in spectacular fashion, etc. Not like some of the pansies you get today who simply want huge paydays for fighting bums and only take a risky fight every now and then, or people like Maryweather calling himself TBE for his potshotting-and-run style. Not to say there isn't some great talent out there today, but most of the current crop simply don't match up to the badass motherf**ers of yesteryear.

[Aggroblakh]

This thread makes me wish I was alive when boxing was one of the most popular sports in North America and a World Heavyweight title fight actually meant something.

[i got the keys]

good post & question. I feel fighters of the past are held at a higher standard because the ones we have to day (not all), are more protected & are allowed to cherry pick to some extent. I mean nowadays you measure someone by their entire record, which is silly. Example someone mentioned before that sugar ray leonard got beat by camacho (a former jr featherwgt) people failed to realize a lot of the greats did get beat but that was after they were already retired , as was the case with leonard in this fight same as tyson last two loses. Fighters areheld to a higher standard if they were never beaten. If we take into account that if said fighter decides to take less & measured risk, of course they'll remain undefeated. As i stated many of times example michael spinks could've retired undefeated after he beat holmes for the heavywgt title. But he decided to challenge himself & fought mike tyson & the rest is history. All in all that was his only lost! Is things like that ....

100
.............................

[i got the keys]

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?

I don't think people in the modern day can really fathom what the fighters in the early days had to go through. Think of the racial tension. That alone is a mark of a champion. Fighters went into knowingly hostile territories and continued to do their work.

When it's all said and done, realistically, the modern day fighters don't know the hell those of the past had to go through.

Like....it's IMPOSSIBLE for me or anyone else to try and compare a current welterweight to a guy like Henry Armstrong. If you don't know him, look him up. Over 200 FIGHTS!

Athletes of today have advanced in many things....but looking at some of the greats of the past doing what they did can't explained on a forum........

[BoliviaChiLEsp]

I noticed that.

As they say before: nostalgia.