Why do certain "fans" here overrate old time boxers?

[Make U Cry]

Most of you can’t name 5 guys SRR beat without using Wiki or Boxrec search

Stop it already.

[Boxing_1013]

Ur a fake ass boxing historian.

Using wiki search to look up old fighters and then pretending ur an expert LOL.

Pathetic.

Easy lol...I hurt his feelings a couple months ago and tbh I don't think he has recovered since...because I questioned how great Azumah Nelson and Jeff Fenech really were, relative to good fighters today like a Daniel Jacobs or Martin Murray...he took it very very personally

[Silas]

It's all about level of competition at the end of the day.

Robinson fought everyone: Zivic, LaMotta, Armstrong,Basilio, Graziano, etc. A whole pile of Hall of Fame fighters, and even if he lost, he typically came back and got revenge. From footage and writings, we know the dude was a magnificent fighter. Remember that he started his career 40-0

Floyd compared to Sugar Ray? No comparison.

And plenty of these older fighters had insane records:

Willie Pep was 134-1-1 at one point, and that was against serious competition, not the club-fighters Chavez ran his record up against.

Marcel Cerdan didn't "lose" a fight, save for a couple disqualifications (and he was ahead on points) for 14 years! The dude was a beast and destroyed everyone, until a shoulder injury caused him to lose his title.

Joe Louis dominated his division like no one before or since

[TheMyspaceDayz]

Sounds like a classic case of believing everyone must be as dull as oneself. Nah, kiddo. Some people actually do watch old fights and know what they are talking about. I’ve seen countless black n white fights in their entirety. If you don’t understand boxing’s history then you will hit a glass ceiling earlier than a historian will and remain an unwise, narrow minded casual.

[Boxing_1013]

I agree with a lot of this. Especially the part about footage of old fighters.

However in regards to Ray Robinson and his 19 losses. They largely came later in his career. The man was 121-1-2 when he won the middleweight title. I think of a lot of those losses the same way I do later Roy Jones losses.

Pretty sure Ray Robinson fought way more than the average pro fighter does today and was susceptible to way more damage. He only lasted as long as he did because of his skill. And he received multiple records and accolades from that time as well. By comparing his losses to Pacquiao, you're comparing two radically different eras and circumstances. Not to mention your summation of losses and draws conveniently leaves out how much it occurred before or after his prime.

And you will always have boxing fans criticizing any little thing to tear down a fighter they don't like. But real objective fans don't care that much about losses or draws, that's just a gimmick that came out from Mayweather's run. Guarantee you there's no objective fan that says Pacquiao is not an ATG solely because of 7 losses but then says Ray Robinson is. It's a silly argument.

Sugar Ray was 132-2-2 when he fought for the Light Heavyweight Championship of the world (giving up twenty pounds on the scales too)

The weigh ins were same day of the fight, 15 rounds, and fighting 20 times a year. The guys today won't even get in the ring unless they're the exact weight to the ****ing pound.


but let's say he's trash because he took losses in his forties.

Good points about SRR...but how many of those fights were really against live bodies? As great as Joe Louis was, remember he started the bum of the month club...some past greats like those 2 guys, they are legends in my book and deserve high praise, for paving the way and for dominance in their era.

But I don't think their level of competition was as high on average as most pros today...it was just a different sport and more amateurish the farther back you go...as evidenced by the fact that almost all of these boxers had part time jobs apart from boxing.

And another kind of unrelated point about SRR - the same day weigh ins make it hard to really compare eras, at least respective to certain weight classes...when he was at WW, he would have been at 135 today probably...at MW he would have been at WW today.

There was one champion and eight divisions, so it was almost impossible to become a world boxing champion. There were eight champions total at a time instead of 68.

So every champion was awesome instead of today when people can win titles in four divisions without fighting anyone, or make 13 consecutive title defenses without fighting anyone, etc.

Very fair point here

[madsweeney]

It makes sense, past eras were a crapload more active, fought longer, lived harder lives, and were the innovators. Pretty easy to argue that if those fighters had modern nutrition, knowledge, and boxer protections they'd be even better than they were.

[madsweeney]

Most of you can’t name 5 guys SRR beat without using Wiki or Boxrec search

Stop it already.

Doubt you'll run into anyone that was actively watching boxing in the 50's here...so yea, most people wont have the same memory of boxers before they were born than active in their lifetimes. Guess Wilt Chamberlin sucks cuz I started watching basketball in the 90's

[siablo14]

Some "fans" will wiki people like Sam Langford and use them as proof of why a modern great like Pacquiao couldn't be a top ATG.

Langford barely has any film footage available...... of his "300 fights" only a small% are recorded on paper as legitimate fights......

Fighters from that era also often fought the same person 10+ times, Langford has 12+ losses to a guy named Harry Willis.......

Ray Robinson had like 19 losses 8 draws and they're all ignored, yet they hold on to Pacquiao's 7.

Many of SRR “fans” who call him goat can’t name 5 guys he beat without google.

Guys like Armstrong fought hundreds of no-name bums, his "fans" could not name 3 guys he beat without wiki search.....

Most of the guys from 100+ years ago have little to 0 film footage available yet some fans rave about them being absolutely better than any modern fighter.

If you disagree, then YDKSAB. Lol really?


I guarantee you most of the so called fans of old time fighters have never sat through a single one of their fights in entirety.

IMO most of these "fans" of ancient fighters are just pretending to sound knowledgable/superior and using these old guys names to further their own Agenda.

Happens in football too. No one can better Pele or Maradona.

[Gate keeper]

Most of you can’t name 5 guys SRR beat without using Wiki or Boxrec search

Stop it already.

I doubt there are a lot of people here saying Ray Robinson is their favorite fighter and so and so was their favorite fight. However, there are still statistical calculations you can perform to determine how much of an outlier he was compared to the average fighter back then. And he was a huge outlier in multiple categories, much more so than the best fighters today. Hence his records, accolades and notoriety among objective boxing fans. If I'm not mistaken, the creation of the P4P list was inspired by him. You're the only one who seems to think you had to be there to judge if he was a good fighter or not.

[Boxing_1013]

It's all about level of competition at the end of the day.

Robinson fought everyone: Zivic, LaMotta, Armstrong,Basilio, Graziano, etc. A whole pile of Hall of Fame fighters, and even if he lost, he typically came back and got revenge. From footage and writings, we know the dude was a magnificent fighter. Remember that he started his career 40-0

Floyd compared to Sugar Ray? No comparison.

And plenty of these older fighters had insane records:

Willie Pep was 134-1-1 at one point, and that was against serious competition, not the club-fighters Chavez ran his record up against.

Marcel Cerdan didn't "lose" a fight, save for a couple disqualifications (and he was ahead on points) for 14 years! The dude was a beast and destroyed everyone, until a shoulder injury caused him to lose his title.

Joe Louis dominated his division like no one before or since

Good post...and on the bold...that's kind of the issue, isn't it...Louis invented the Bum of the Month club...and I just don't know how any of us can really rate the competition of past great fighters...have to give the great ones props for dominating their era...but you have to think a lot of those Ws for past greats were vs less-than-stellar competition.