Why are fighters from the past glorified so much?

[Citizen Koba]

My point is that given the current environment, fighters are not forced to go through what the fighters of old went through and while that is all well and good for the modern day fighter, they can't be compared on the same scale. They do have it easier these days in many ways. They never have to fight 15 rounds. They don't have to fight as often( 1-2 fights a year is easily the norm nowadays). There are tons of titles to win and call yourself a champion. Back then, there weren't. How can these guys of today even compare when they're not pushed like the old guys were? Not one of them has proven they can go 15 or if they would ever even get a shot at one title when title shots were so hard to come by. And most of them fight 1-2 times a year. That's a joke next to the oldtimers, many of whom fought 5-8 times a year regularly and not always against bums either. Robinson and LaMotta fought 6 times. Today? Trilogy at best and for 12 rounds and always for one of the numerous alphabet titles. Plus, the real true factor for me, is that everybody fought everybody back then. Now, ducking and hiding is very easy to pull off. Back then, guys didn't even have a choice and so more solid match-ups were made and they didn't have to marinate either.

Ah, well, that's a slightly different matter. My comments were originally addressed towards a poster who claimed the skill level of fighters had dropped. Yes, undoubtedly it was a tougher sport, and less forgiving of weakness, even 20 or 30 years ago, let alone 80 or 100. Of course in most walks of life less suffering is generally regarded as a good thing, but then we're boxing fans aren't we?

However the mythical golden age in which 'everybody fought everybody' and guys didn't 'duck' or 'hide' (if you choose to use such language) never really existed. Delve into the history section and ask some of the guys there - Sam Langford springs to mind as a guy who was massively ducked off the top of my head, but I'm aware there are many, many stories of fighters avoiding one another. Why do you think Apollo Creed had to pick a no-hoper like Rocky ffs? Ok - a lil joke, but the point stands, fighters have never wanted to take fights they think they might lose and always wanted paying right - though the financial bar was set much, much lower at some points in history of course.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Ah, well, that's a slightly different matter. My comments were originally addressed towards a poster who claimed the skill level of fighters had dropped. Yes, undoubtedly it was a tougher sport, and less forgiving of weakness, even 20 or 30 years ago, let alone 80 or 100. Of course in most walks of life less suffering is generally regarded as a good thing, but then we're boxing fans aren't we?

However the mythical golden age in which 'everybody fought everybody' and guys didn't 'duck' or 'hide' (if you choose to use such language) never really existed. Delve into the history section and ask some of the guys there - Sam Langford springs to mind as a guy who was massively ducked off the top of my head, but I'm aware there are many, many stories of fighters avoiding one another. Why do you think Apollo Creed had to pick a no-hoper like Rocky ffs? Ok - a lil joke, but the point stands, fighters have never wanted to take fights they think they might lose and always wanted paying right - though the financial bar was set much, much lower at some points in history of course.

Oh no doubt. I've read Sam Langford's biography. he was the king of ducked in his day for sure. Ducking and dodging has always happened of course. It's human nature.

However, today, it just seems to be so easy. Back then, to be called champion, you had to literally(in most cases) beat the man to be the man. Nowadays, there are so many titles that you don't have to anymore at all. If I can grab up a belt and defend it and make good money at it, why would I try against the other champions unless a lot of money was involved? Some guys will always duck and some are just fearless, but come on. You see all of the emphasis on the "0" these days. Too many guys want to preserve that with no substance. In those days, at least you had to fight the man to claim to be champion. These days? Everyone's a champion.

[Citizen Koba]

Oh no doubt. I've read Sam Langford's biography. he was the king of ducked in his day for sure. Ducking and dodging has always happened of course. It's human nature.

However, today, it just seems to be so easy. Back then, to be called champion, you had to literally(in most cases) beat the man to be the man. Nowadays, there are so many titles that you don't have to anymore at all. If I can grab up a belt and defend it and make good money at it, why would I try against the other champions unless a lot of money was involved? Some guys will always duck and some are just fearless, but come on. You see all of the emphasis on the "0" these days. Too many guys want to preserve that with no substance. In those days, at least you had to fight the man to claim to be champion. These days? Everyone's a champion.

On this I can only agree, but then what are the options? It's really a niche sport these days anyway, start paying guys less and fewer will go into the pro-sport, although doubtless there'll always be some who choose to make a living with their fists. Myself I'd like to see more structure, a unified governing body and fewer weightclasses, AIBAs foray in the pro-sport would have my full backing if they weren't a bunch of crooked bastards themselves, but at least we'd have regular tourneys, possibly a league and ideally pay scales related more directly to performance.

It's a topic a little off the original premise of the thread but one well worthy of further discussion.

[Jim Tom]

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.

I agree with you about Nostalgia but reason people think America was great is because at the time they were kids and they didn't need to pay bills and were in school and generally those are the best days of one's life. We can not however deny the fact that generally there was a bigger sense of community in the old days and kids could play outside without the fear of disappearing and pervets.

As for the fighters it is actually true the old time fighters were better. They mastered the technics and were really proper technicians. See how they throw their jabs, hooks and body shots. There's a sense of perfection and their defence was also very good. Mind you they didn't have supplements and fights were 15 rounds. Now most so called good fighters are not throw back fighters. GGG for this era is ok but against Old Time greats they would box his ears off. Very few current fighters could make it then, just check how the likes of Ali used to fight, his movement alone who can replicate that? Look at Larry Holmes' jab, there's no comparison, to really think a flat footed fighter like Canelo is a champion or a chinless person like Khan once one is ridiculous.

[!! Shawn]

I agree with you about Nostalgia but reason people think America was great is because at the time they were kids and they didn't need to pay bills and were in school and generally those are the best days of one's life. We can not however deny the fact that generally there was a bigger sense of community in the old days and kids could play outside without the fear of disappearing and pervets.

As for the fighters it is actually true the old time fighters were better. They mastered the technics and were really proper technicians. See how they throw their jabs, hooks and body shots. There's a sense of perfection and their defence was also very good. Mind you they didn't have supplements and fights were 15 rounds. Now most so called good fighters are not throw back fighters. GGG for this era is ok but against Old Time greats they would box his ears off. Very few current fighters could make it then, just check how the likes of Ali used to fight, his movement alone who can replicate that? Look at Larry Holmes' jab, there's no comparison, to really think a flat footed fighter like Canelo is a champion or a chinless person like Khan once one is ridiculous.

The last true throwback fighter we had was James Toney. Hopkins is too a lesser extent. But Toney was cut from that old school cloth.

[IronDanHamza]

The last true throwback fighter we had was James Toney. Hopkins is too a lesser extent. But Toney was cut from that old school cloth.

Oh yes a fighter that has literally never been in shape his entire life "cut from that old school cloth baby"

[Citizen Koba]

I agree with you about Nostalgia but reason people think America was great is because at the time they were kids and they didn't need to pay bills and were in school and generally those are the best days of one's life. We can not however deny the fact that generally there was a bigger sense of community in the old days and kids could play outside without the fear of disappearing and pervets.

As for the fighters it is actually true the old time fighters were better. They mastered the technics and were really proper technicians. See how they throw their jabs, hooks and body shots. There's a sense of perfection and their defence was also very good. Mind you they didn't have supplements and fights were 15 rounds. Now most so called good fighters are not throw back fighters. GGG for this era is ok but against Old Time greats they would box his ears off. Very few current fighters could make it then, just check how the likes of Ali used to fight, his movement alone who can replicate that? Look at Larry Holmes' jab, there's no comparison, to really think a flat footed fighter like Canelo is a champion or a chinless person like Khan once one is ridiculous.

Yeah man. But for something to be 'true' you actually have to prove it in some way - well, at least if you want other people to accept it as true, that is, we all have our own versions of truth, of course.

Sure Larry Holmes had a great jab, recognised as one of the best in the long history of the sport, but how does cherry picking a few examples from 100+ years of boxing (or at least 60 or 70 years of filmed bouts) show that the overall skill level has declined. I could take your Holmes and offer you a Rigondeaux or a Vasyl Lomachenko or a Floyd Mayweather who have displayed skills (to my eye) the equal of any I have seen, and I started watching boxing in the late 70s. The 'now' you're comparing to reaches back what 3 years, 4? 5? Of course if you've got 70 odd years of great fighters to choose from there's some who'll do some things better - sheer volume and statistical probability account for that. And for all the greats there was a ton of guys who really, really weren't. I should know, I watched enough of them.

OK. My stance is that the overall level of skill hasn't changed that much. Were they tougher, did they have to endure more? Well, yeah, probably. Were the strategies different? sure. But H2H would a spread of fighters from say 1966 (only picked cos 50 years is a nice round number... ha ha - just Googled 1966 and came up with the 'boxers safety act' - which is of course pertinent but something of a tangent) reliably beat a spread from 2016? I don't think so. I reckon some would win some would lose - at 12 rounds of course, at 15 you'd have to favour the guys with experience of fights that long.

Go on. Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

[Weltschmerz]

You see all of the emphasis on the "0" these days. Too many guys want to preserve that with no substance.

It's an image...

[Jim Tom]

Yeah man. But for something to be 'true' you actually have to prove it in some way - well, at least if you want other people to accept it as true, that is, we all have our own versions of truth, of course.

Sure Larry Holmes had a great jab, recognised as one of the best in the long history of the sport, but how does cherry picking a few examples from 100+ years of boxing (or at least 60 or 70 years of filmed bouts) show that the overall skill level has declined. I could take your Holmes and offer you a Rigondeaux or a Vasyl Lomachenko or a Floyd Mayweather who have displayed skills (to my eye) the equal of any I have seen, and I started watching boxing in the late 70s. The 'now' you're comparing to reaches back what 3 years, 4? 5? Of course if you've got 70 odd years of great fighters to choose from there's some who'll do some things better - sheer volume and statistical probability account for that. And for all the greats there was a ton of guys who really, really weren't. I should know, I watched enough of them.

OK. My stance is that the overall level of skill hasn't changed that much. Were they tougher, did they have to endure more? Well, yeah, probably. Were the strategies different? sure. But H2H would a spread of fighters from say 1966 (only picked cos 50 years is a nice round number... ha ha - just Googled 1966 and came up with the 'boxers safety act' - which is of course pertinent but something of a tangent) reliably beat a spread from 2016? I don't think so. I reckon some would win some would lose - at 12 rounds of course, at 15 you'd have to favour the guys with experience of fights that long.

Go on. Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I hear you man but lets take the best of this era and compare them to the old timers. You don't need to go very far because some of these fighters we all know them. You mentioned Rigondeux and Lomanchenko. Would they beat Naseem Hamed, Kelly from the 90s? Lets take the welterweights right now, Garcia, Thurman, Khan, Brook- would they beat Mosley, Dela Hoya from the 90s and early 2000s or shall we go down to the likes of Sugar Ray Robinsons, Leonard, Armstrong, Naples, Griffiths? Would the current Cruiserweights beat the likes of Holyfield, and how about the heavyweights? How many of them could fight in the 1960s and 70s or less still would they beat Lennox Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield or even Bowe? I dont think so man. Even now if you want a good boxing coach get yourself an old school coach.

[Kigali]

I agree with you about Nostalgia but reason people think America was great is because at the time they were kids and they didn't need to pay bills and were in school and generally those are the best days of one's life. We can not however deny the fact that generally there was a bigger sense of community in the old days and kids could play outside without the fear of disappearing and pervets.

As for the fighters it is actually true the old time fighters were better. They mastered the technics and were really proper technicians. See how they throw their jabs, hooks and body shots. There's a sense of perfection and their defence was also very good. Mind you they didn't have supplements and fights were 15 rounds. Now most so called good fighters are not throw back fighters. GGG for this era is ok but against Old Time greats they would box his ears off. Very few current fighters could make it then, just check how the likes of Ali used to fight, his movement alone who can replicate that? Look at Larry Holmes' jab, there's no comparison, to really think a flat footed fighter like Canelo is a champion or a chinless person like Khan once one is ridiculous.