Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[madsweeney]

Biggest reason I give older fighters more credit is the conditions they fought in. 15 round fights, same day weigh ins, technologically primitive training equipment and most importantly, rate of fights. Many of our top guys are rather delicate and require the better part of a year to recuperate from a single fight, do you really think they'd last in eras where the top fighters had to fight multiple times in a month? Lets also not forget, many of these were pioneers in their trademark tactics/skills, not copy-cats like modern fighters.

Modern fighters are likely able to be better due to advanced training, nutrition and medical care. On top of that, they have all the past fighters to learn from. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

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

You act like that's my fault lol

[IMDAZED]

Christ, when I read fighters of the past, I thought he meant fighters in the 60's or some ****. Not Julian Jackson LMAO

[New England]

for starters, all fighters from the past are not glorified. history remembers the great ones. so from this era you have everybody and a few greats. from the past you typically just talk about the greats. does anybody on this forum REALLY know all about the top LW contenders of the early 1930's without looking at boxrec? of course not.


let's also consider how boxing has changed. go take a look at ali's record and find me a winning, top earning fighter who took on challenges like that. i will wait.


is it really so hard to grasp the idea that ray robinson, who fought almost 4 times as much as floyd mayweather, has an insurmountably better resume?

or to say that a guy with great, great boxing skills who also had the best chin ever and arguably the best left hook ever [robinson] is a more rounded fighter and should be favored to beat floyd mayweather, a boxer who didn't have the power or the temperament [or the skill, for that matter] to get juan manuel marquez or andre berto out of there?



is it really that hard to grasp those concepts? what do you want me to clarify? ray robinson had 5 fights with an all time great middleweight WHILE HE WAS STILL A WELTERWEIGHT, and weighed as little at 144 lbs. other than one loss to lamotta, robinson went until 1951 until he lost, to randy turpin, a hall of famer and a middleweight. this was in an era where guys "stayed busy" to make money, and may fight several times in a month. what he did was much, much more historically significant than floyd mayweather. different eras completely. if you don't understand that it is on you to learn about the sport until you do.

[Kigali]

Biggest reason I give older fighters more credit is the conditions they fought in. 15 round fights, same day weigh ins, technologically primitive training equipment and most importantly, rate of fights. Many of our top guys are rather delicate and require the better part of a year to recuperate from a single fight, do you really think they'd last in eras where the top fighters had to fight multiple times in a month? Lets also not forget, many of these were pioneers in their trademark tactics/skills, not copy-cats like modern fighters.

Modern fighters are likely able to be better due to advanced training, nutrition and medical care. On top of that, they have all the past fighters to learn from. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

none of that makes sense.

[Jc8804]

Nostalgia. Everything looks better when you look back on it. Like people complaining about how bad music sucks today and how it was better when they were younger. There has always been horrible music. Also these people running around saying make america great again. Ask them when was America great and they'll say when they were kids. All age groups. So when they say it was great when they were a child you're talking about people in there 20's saying America was great in the 00's. People in their 30's saying America was great in the 90's People in their 40's saying America was great in the 80's. Selective memory is nostalgia.

Music , boxing , nba is all watered down today.
Its all better back then because the artists/fighters were more hungry and consistent and more original while todays nba players , boxers and artists are watered down pampered and all have new rules to follow which make their jobs easier.

There is less heart and toughness along with
Along with basic fundamentals. For instance musicians alter their voices in the studio and can be pretty and sell records. Nba athletes can just be athletic nowadays with average skill. Boxers can cherry pick competition and fool casual fans that they are the real deal with nothing but showcase fights .

Its easier to be famous per say. Back in the 30s-90s you had to be the real deal and original and go through the gaunlet and prove yourself. Today thats not the case.

[bojangles1987]

Biggest reason I give older fighters more credit is the conditions they fought in. 15 round fights, same day weigh ins, technologically primitive training equipment and most importantly, rate of fights. Many of our top guys are rather delicate and require the better part of a year to recuperate from a single fight, do you really think they'd last in eras where the top fighters had to fight multiple times in a month? Lets also not forget, many of these were pioneers in their trademark tactics/skills, not copy-cats like modern fighters.

Modern fighters are likely able to be better due to advanced training, nutrition and medical care. On top of that, they have all the past fighters to learn from. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

Advanced nutrition and care should make fighters better, but it doesn't. A large part of that has to do with 12 round fights instead of 15. However, even in 12 round fights you don't see the pace set that many past fighters routinely managed while fighting much more often.

As for training, you simply need look at the ever decreasing skill level to see how boxing training has declined. Boxing is a huge outlier from other sports in that its skill level has decreased noticeably.

[bojangles1987]

Music , boxing , nba is all watered down today.
Its all better back then because the artists/fighters were more hungry and consistent and more original while todays nba players , boxers and artists are watered down pampered and all have new rules to follow which make their jobs easier.

There is less heart and toughness along with
Along with basic fundamentals. For instance musicians alter their voices in the studio and can be pretty and sell records. Nba athletes can just be athletic nowadays with average skill. Boxers can cherry pick competition and fool casual fans that they are the real deal with nothing but showcase fights .

Its easier to be famous per say. Back in the 30s-90s you had to be the real deal and original and go through the gaunlet and prove yourself. Today thats not the case.

The NBA is indisputably better today than it has ever been. Strategically and athletically. It is a perfect example how most sports have evolved far past the strategies of previous eras.

Boxing is a very rare example of otherwise.

[i got the keys]

200 fights and 190 of them were probably against bums who didnt train lol

You don't understand my man......no worries....

[Citizen Koba]

The NBA is indisputably better today than it has ever been. Strategically and athletically. It is a perfect example how most sports have evolved far past the strategies of previous eras.

Boxing is a very rare example of otherwise.

I think the level of skill is about the same at the top end as it ever was. How can you actually demonstrate that this is not the case?