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

[Boxing_1013]

Ah. I'd have Messi over him and Ronaldinho over the pair of them.
And your'e right, no one tops Maradona 😊

I don't really see the logic there but all 4 were great players

[tritium_arma]

It's partly nostalgia. Only in more objective sports like running, where a faster time means a better runner, can do people recognize the present as better. Most other sports people overrate the past.

[Larry the boss]

different eras of boxing man

[JK1700]

Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

[Thunderstruck]

I’m shocked how people over rate today’s fighters .You take Canelo for example a great skilled fighter no doubt but also a fighter with the most update technology in diet and training who fades in 12 round fights.Then I’ve seen people pick him over Hagler monzon zale Lamotta like it was a mismatch.These were warriors that fought fast paced 15rounds.If you want to know how great Ray Robinson was there is a video of Clay doing the I’m not worthy bow before Liston fight introductions of fighters .

[Thraxox]

I'm looking at some of footage of Armstrong and Sam Langford and came to the conclusion that if they fought a shot Pacquiao, Manny would beat the **** out of them.

Hell, some would still Argue that Rocky Marciano can beat Wladimir Klitschko.

[BodyBagz]

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.

Those types of fans want to portray themselves as purists with all of the ''good ol days'' crap.

How in the fu ck is a guy going to fight 10x A MONTH and not have a bunch of part timers on the resume ?!?!?

Speaking of resumes, those fans NEVER BRING THEM UP. They depend on how sportswriters wrote them up.

[just the facts]

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.

It was fairly tough to even get a title shot.

[aboutfkntime]

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.

It was fairly tough to even get a title shot.

yep

this thread was actually a great idea

it will clearly identify the shlttiest, most ignorant, fanboys

[Marchegiano]

Nostalgia and romanticization of the past are very different. You're charging fans with romanticization while calling it nostalgia because you're ****ing ******. No one on this forum was around for the glory days of Langford....ffs...ergo...no nostalgia possible....ffs.

Do we over glorify the past? I dunno, maybe, but I do think it's rather interesting how proof changes depending of the situation.

How do you prove boxer A should be ranked higher than boxer B? By watching the two and judging? We call that the eye test don't we? And we make fun of those who do it don't we? We tell them the eye tests means nothing and to look at resume, except, when they happen to be from a time before film all of a sudden resume is thrown out the window for the trendy response "have you seen them fight?"


In the end, no one wants to learn **** on boxing forums and when a teacher teaches they do not teach the one they are speaking to but rather the ones who will read correspondences and make judgements for themselves.

In this case, y'all sound as ignorant as you are. People may ask you your opinion, but, anyone seeking any answers to anything of any importance will come to me way before they even consider some punk ass who hardly knows enough about the past to properly even ***** about it.