Are Today's Fighters Held to Higher Standards than Fighters of the Past?

[Tom Cruise]

I think it was much more difficult to get to the top in the past than it is now. How many fighters from the black and white era were there like Joshua who turned over already a star and are already a massive name without having fought anyone.

SRR had fought multiple greats before he had even fought for a title. It was years before he had the recognition that he has today. Most of the top fighters from those eras you hear about today toiled away in obscurity for years fighting killer after killer for virtually no money (especially black fighters like Moore or Charles). Compare that to today where prospects are picked up by fans after a few fights and many highly touted ones are guided through the levels with careful matchmaking

I get the point about fighting less means less opportunity to fight the best. But all fans generally ask is that you fight the right opponent at the right time. Ray Leonard for example has a modern resume in terms of no. of fights, but he took the fights mattered at the time when they most called for (maybe with the exception of Hagler).

Basically no. It is much easier for fighters today in almost every way. Its not nostalgia imo. When you really look deeper into the great resumes you realise just how special they were.

[soul_survivor]

lol absolute nonsense, is pbp the new larry ?

[Tom Cruise]

As time goes on i do think the way people view your resume changes.

The solid top 10 contender types are forgotten for the most part, while the 'names', no matter what stage of their career they were in, will be remembered.

So a Clottey type win for Pac might fade into insignificance to the boxrec warriors of the future, but the ODLH win will be held up as an example of his greatness.

Basically the context of the fights gets forgotten and only the names remain.

[Joe Beamish]

Past fighters had to fight more fights, with more rounds, to compete for only one belt per division, in fewer divisions.

So, no.

[juggernaut666]

If you lost a handful of fights in the past the attitude was you'll get 'em next time kid or your day will come . If you lose one fight today you're a bum ! End thread.

[Joe Beamish]

If you lost a handful of fights in the past the attitude was you'll get 'em next time kid or your day will come . If you lose one fight today you're a bum ! End thread.

No, the few fighters today that are held to the "0" standard (the mayweather standard, we'll say) win many fights by outpointing guys who look untouched afterwards. Back in the day you had to kick somebody's ass.

[juggernaut666]

No, the few fighters today that are held to the "0" standard (the mayweather standard, we'll say) win many fights by outpointing guys who look untouched afterwards. Back in the day you had to kick somebody's ass.

Thats not what the thread is asking ,and your penalising Mayweather bc he has actual skills method of winning anyway which is BOXING ? lol

Boxers today are held to a higher standards , when anyone loses its a complete scratch and takes years USUALLY to make up for it .This wasn't the case in past eras ,this should be common sense but apparently again its not and rather mind boggling yet again and cant believe anyone following boxing voted no..smh!

[-Kev-]

Great post, good points, I agree. Boxing fans are more cynical now.