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

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gate keeper
    Contender
    Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
    • Apr 2017
    • 486
    • 68
    • 1
    • 12,408

    #51
    Originally posted by BodyBagz
    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.
    I've never ever heard a single person talk about the good ol days of boxing during Ray Robinson's era. Sometimes you guys want to argue so badly, you just make things up. And yea, even if you're fighting a whole bunch of club fighters, it's still tough to have the record Ray Robinson had. Club fighters won't land hits often if you're good but they'll still land sometimes and fighting that often means you're body is going up in mileage relatively quickly. You can't say any good modern boxer could do that easily too because they never had to do anything close to that, at least not pro in mostly 8 or more round fights. So at best, we just don't know. But no one says Ray Robinson is good solely because they believe he can beat a prime Mayweather. Just because you guys don't understand how to appreciate the statistical reality that indicates of how great a fighter was, stop assuming that's everyone else doesn't and just has an agenda. And i mean literally almost everyone, including boxing historians and organizations, they all got the same idea and said "oh i know, let me say Ray Robinson was a good boxer just so me or organization sounds smart". As in the only reason Ray Robinson or anyone before the tape is considered good, is only because people want to sound smart. It's a silly and childish argument.

    Comment

    • BodyBagz
      The Stuff Of Nightmares
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Apr 2020
      • 29772
      • 6,045
      • 6,437
      • 108,454

      #52
      Originally posted by Gate keeper
      I've never ever heard a single person talk about the good ol days of boxing during Ray Robinson's era. Sometimes you guys want to argue so badly, you just make things up. And yea, even if you're fighting a whole bunch of club fighters, it's still tough to have the record Ray Robinson had. Club fighters won't land hits often if you're good but they'll still land sometimes and fighting that often means you're body is going up in mileage relatively quickly. You can't say any good modern boxer could do that easily too because they never had to do anything close to that, at least not pro in mostly 8 or more round fights. So at best, we just don't know. But no one says Ray Robinson is good solely because they believe he can beat a prime Mayweather. Just because you guys don't understand how to appreciate the statistical reality that indicates of how great a fighter was, stop assuming that's everyone else doesn't and just has an agenda. And i mean literally almost everyone, including boxing historians and organizations, they all got the same idea and said "oh i know, let me say Ray Robinson was a good boxer just so me or organization sounds smart". As in the only reason Ray Robinson or anyone before the tape is considered good, is only because people want to sound smart. It's a silly and childish argument.
      This is how to make paragraphs...
      Press ''enter'' after, say, 50 words.

      Comment

      • NORMNEALON
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Mar 2018
        • 1348
        • 52
        • 182
        • 35,130

        #53
        Originally posted by Make U Cry
        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.
        I do see what you are saying about the fighters without any footage of them . But I think people can become quite knowledgable on fighters of the past whether they were alive then or not if footage is available . You can get a sense of how good a fighter like langford was from his record some what ( he never got to fight alot of the top names due to racial boundaries ) and like u stated he also fought alot of exhibition type fights which was very common in the days.

        even with footage of some of those old timers the sport has evolved so much since then that it's very hard to gauge what they could have accomplished today becuase the fighting styles were so different and there was alot more grappling etc, no neutral corner , really a much cruder sport .


        That being said sports evolve and boxing as we know it was at its early stages and there wasnt alot of stick and move flashy type modern boxers , they started to appear more in the late 20s early 30s . But as with anything sports evolve , I think as fans it's cool to study the history and learn the roots of the sports we love . But I do that for myself not to make myself look smart in boxing debates on the NSB forum lol . Not all of us are trolls etc we just want to talk boxing .

        I think the reason the hall of fame doesnt go before 1943 anymore is becuase of how much the sport has changed etc . But really fighters from the 40s and beyond can be studied beyond google , boxrec , and wiki media by watching the fights . True fans of the sport will watch lots of old footage especially fighters.

        That being said I agree when guys for the sake of arguing are just googling stuff to argue that is silly but I choose not to interact with posters like that. There are actually a few guys on this forum who know alot about fighters of the past, and I love absorbing what I can of their knowledge when the topics come up .

        Comment

        • Removed Now
          Banned
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Dec 2017
          • 6255
          • 149
          • 74
          • 150,986

          #54
          Originally posted by Make U Cry
          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.
          You really going to disrespect Robinson like that to buff up Pacquiao’s name?

          Damn. Forget Robinson Pacquiao is not even better than Duran .

          Comment

          • Ray*
            Be safe!!!
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Jul 2005
            • 44867
            • 1,654
            • 1,608
            • 558,890

            #55
            I see that a lot, for example Lennox Lewis gets massive praise now. And how he would destroy these era of HW, am one of those believers too. Due to this pandemic I have been watching HBO and their coverage of the HW from Lewis’s era. Oh my gosh!!! Everyone hated Lewis!!! Even his trainer Emmanuel steward, the American media literally destroyed him pre everyone of his fights, I couldn’t believe it.

            But now we all talked about him like he was a god that walked the HW earth, he was called boring, uninterested, too relaxed like a typical Jamaican on the beach, not serious enough, too passive etc.

            I was watching his head to head on a card that Moorer was fighting and he got destroyed in there too. So my point is we forget quickly how critical the past was to every single era, Ali was criticised as well in his era but then overly appreciated years after.

            Just like people now appreciate Mayweather, just like people then appreciate Sugar Ray Leonard before him. And then we tend to use that to have a go at the new era and claim how they wouldn’t have been able to hold a touch to the old school...

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP