Boxing yesteryear versus now

[Froch_uppercut]

Not sure how old all you kids are on here, but as a boxing appreciator of many decades I'd like to point out (and get some feedback on) what is a MASSIVE difference in the attitude of boxing fans from maybe 15 or 20 years ago versus today.

Using tonight's Crawford Khan fight as an example, there are threads and opinions on here that look to state that....depending on the outcome of that fight then UNEQUIVOCAL statements can be made. That is to say, if Khan wins... = there will be people who say "see, I told you, Crawford is no good".

And there are those who, if Crawford wins, will say...."see, I told you, he is amazing."

Neither statement will be true or false simply on the basis of tonight's outcome.

IT NEVER USED TO ****ING BE THIS WAY FOOLS.

Until that cvnt Mayweather made such a big deal about his marketing strategy, ie: to have and protect zero 0 on his record, until then, guys fought the riskiest / best guys in their division as a matter of routine. Ali got beat and rematched guys. Hagler got beat. Leonard got beat. They fuking all got beat and it wasn't like today, where limp wristed ***** fans think a guy is all washed up if he loses ONCE ! It has got to the stage where fans are actually rationalizing fighters avoiding other guys because "it's too risky", What is going on? Why don't fans encourage fighters to fight - instead of excusing them? WTF guys? Why do we fans care if something is too risky? Bring on the best fights, regardless of money or risk or whatever promoter is with whatever network or what the f%$k. I don't even know or care who is with who. Just have a ****ing fight FFS, and do it again if it's a good one.

In N.American sports there are many playoffs where it's a 'best of seven'. Guess what? It is not over after one win. They play again, and there are different outcomes.

I am losing faith in boxing because idiots buy into the myth that a guy is done if he loses, and this makes fighters not take risks, and that means we hardly ever get fights we should get to see, because now that fans are that way, it makes fighters not take risks.

So...tonight...if Khan wins what does it mean? It does NOT mean Crawford is / was never any good all along. And it does not mean Khan is greater than you thought beforehand. And if Crawford wins should that negate or undo all of Khans great body of work (Alexander dominance, Maidana win, and all the rest of his excellent wins)? No, no it doesn't.

The Tampa Bay Lightning are a very good hockey team. They just got swept by Columbus. Doesn't mean they're ****e.

[Eff Pandas]

Don't make so much of what a very vocal but very small minority of dummies think. I think we've always had dummies in the world. I think the biggest difference from today to back in the day is dummies can get more eyes on their dumb opinions then ever.

Go read some AJ Liebling. One of his frequents habits is making note of what classical dummies said during a live fight he was at.

[Cobra Curry]

Not sure how old all you kids are on here, but as a boxing appreciator of many decades I'd like to point out (and get some feedback on) what is a MASSIVE difference in the attitude of boxing fans from maybe 15 or 20 years ago versus today.

Using tonight's Crawford Khan fight as an example, there are threads and opinions on here that look to state that....depending on the outcome of that fight then UNEQUIVOCAL statements can be made. That is to say, if Khan wins... = there will be people who say "see, I told you, Crawford is no good".

And there are those who, if Crawford wins, will say...."see, I told you, he is amazing."

Neither statement will be true or false simply on the basis of tonight's outcome.

IT NEVER USED TO ****ING BE THIS WAY FOOLS.

Until that cvnt Mayweather made such a big deal about his marketing strategy, ie: to have and protect zero 0 on his record, until then, guys fought the riskiest / best guys in their division as a matter of routine. Ali got beat and rematched guys. Hagler got beat. Leonard got beat. They fuking all got beat and it wasn't like today, where limp wristed ***** fans think a guy is all washed up if he loses ONCE ! It has got to the stage where fans are actually rationalizing fighters avoiding other guys because "it's too risky", What is going on? Why don't fans encourage fighters to fight - instead of excusing them? WTF guys? Why do we fans care if something is too risky? Bring on the best fights, regardless of money or risk or whatever promoter is with whatever network or what the f%$k. I don't even know or care who is with who. Just have a ****ing fight FFS, and do it again if it's a good one.

In N.American sports there are many playoffs where it's a 'best of seven'. Guess what? It is not over after one win. They play again, and there are different outcomes.

I am losing faith in boxing because idiots buy into the myth that a guy is done if he loses, and this makes fighters not take risks, and that means we hardly ever get fights we should get to see, because now that fans are that way, it makes fighters not take risks.

So...tonight...if Khan wins what does it mean? It does NOT mean Crawford is / was never any good all along. And it does not mean Khan is greater than you thought beforehand. And if Crawford wins should that negate or undo all of Khans great body of work (Alexander dominance, Maidana win, and all the rest of his excellent wins)? No, no it doesn't.

The Tampa Bay Lightning are a very good hockey team. They just got swept by Columbus. Doesn't mean they're ****e.

And the people said Amen.

We all appreciate Mayweather's skill but he took Ray Leonard's blueprint to the nth degree and it's pussified the game.

20 or so years ago we'd have been looking at a classic series of fights at heavyweight and welterweight in particular.
Spence, Crawford, Thurman, Porter.
Joshua, Wilder, Fury, Whyte, Ortiz. Today everyone wants perfect terms, "a side" and God knows what else before they'll fight someone who might beat them.

The fans have gone from pressing for good fights to "understanding the business" when it suits their favourite promoter. When did we start having favourite promoters?

It's all a bit weird.

[MastaBlasta]

And the people said Amen.

We all appreciate Mayweather's skill but he took Ray Leonard's blueprint to the nth degree and it's pussified the game.

LoL! Haters blame everything on Floyd. LoL, it ain't Floyd's fault no one whooped him, well it kinda is, LoL.

Anyway the guy who said "more dummies can get their misguided views in front of people nowadays" wins. Clowns with dumb opinions always been around ... no one used to listen to 'em. (Not speaking of you CC).

Mayweather a p***y? Only people who wouldn't get in there and get their head counterpunched would say that. I get you don't like him, but he's got 50 + fights with guys intent on messing him up, who would all prolly mess you up. How you gonna call him a p***y??

No manly accountability in this generation.

[ELPacman]

I think the casuals fall for that stuff more than anyone. The true boxing fans know the truth and what's up. I don't ever consider a fighter done after his first loss. In fact I prefer they take a loss to prove what they are truly made of to come back.

A fighter being undefeated all their career should definitely have questions marks behind it because I don't think any fighter would truly go undefeated unless they used strategic moves in doing so.

[Cobra Curry]

LoL! Haters blame everything on Floyd. LoL, it ain't Floyd's fault no one whooped him, well it kinda is, LoL.

Anyway the guy who said "more dummies can get their misguided views in front of people nowadays" wins. Clowns with dumb opinions always been around ... no one used to listen to 'em. (Not speaking of you CC).

Mayweather a p***y? Only people who wouldn't get in there and get their head counterpunched would say that. I get you don't like him, but he's got 50 + fights with guys intent on messing him up, who would all prolly mess you up. How you gonna call him a p***y??

No manly accountability in this generation.

I don't hate Floyd and never called him a *****, I said his success has pussified the game because everyone wants to do what he he's done and are afraid to take an L in process.

I also think that fans have fed into the whole undefeated thing too much and are far too quick to write someone off after a loss, giving another reason for fighters not take risks.

[Cobra Curry]

I think the casuals fall for that stuff more than anyone. The true boxing fans know the truth and what's up. I don't ever consider a fighter done after his first loss. In fact I prefer they take a loss to prove what they are truly made of to come back.

A fighter being undefeated all their career should definitely have questions marks behind it because I don't think any fighter would truly go undefeated unless they used strategic moves in doing so.

This attitude used to be the norm.

[MastaBlasta]

I don't hate Floyd and never called him a *****, I said his success has pussified the game because everyone wants to do what he he's done and are afraid to take an L in process.

I also think that fans have fed into the whole undefeated thing too much and are far too quick to write someone off after a loss, giving another reason for fighters not take risks.

I misinterpreted, my bad. I agree per fans and guys being undefeated ... it's overblown. Per fighters, boxing is still A FIGHT. Like in the street, no one volunteers for a fight they figure they're gonna lose ... so if boxers feel that way and duck, I don't blame them (but I'll prolly laugh and tease about it).

Anyone around for Floyd's WHOLE career knows he started out as a young killer, then had to pull back a bit after serious hand and wrist injuries. He never ducked a challenging fight as I see it, but no one can fight every single person out there. So when some say he "ducked so and so" it's kinda nonsense to me. If there was a big fight out there (in terms of making $) Floyd wasn't ducking. And every fight you take you're risking your "0". Few high caliber boxers ever took a loss and weren't surprised by it ... they feel they are gonna win. As good as Floyd was, he never knew if today he was taking a loss or not ... he just tried not to ... and it worked out for him. The only way you protect an "0" is to stop fighting. Floyd retired twice .... cause he's aged and the fighting/sparring injuries add up. But he put the "0" out there plenty ... people just came up short.

[lopetego]

I agree, it's all Floyd's fault

the glorifying of the "0"

the tolerance for cherrypicking no hopers

the culture of ducking dangerous fights until your opponents are past it

the diva demands and privileges for the cash cow

it's all part of Mayweather's putrid boxing legacy

he even brought crap that wasn't even in the sport before, and now is making everything worse

like the PED testing paranoia, the promoter's war, the networks war, the overpriced PPVs, circus matches

Floyd is truly the root of all evil

[Cobra Curry]

I misinterpreted, my bad. I agree per fans and guys being undefeated ... it's overblown. Per fighters, boxing is still A FIGHT. Like in the street, no one volunteers for a fight they figure they're gonna lose ... so if boxers feel that way and duck, I don't blame them (but I'll prolly laugh and tease about it).

Anyone around for Floyd's WHOLE career knows he started out as a young killer, then had to pull back a bit after serious hand and wrist injuries. He never ducked a challenging fight as I see it, but no one can fight every single person out there. So when some say he "ducked so and so" it's kinda nonsense to me. If there was a big fight out there (in terms of making $) Floyd wasn't ducking. And every fight you take you're risking your "0". Few high caliber boxers ever took a loss and weren't surprised by it ... they feel they are gonna win. As good as Floyd was, he never knew if today he was taking a loss or not ... he just tried not to ... and it worked out for him. The only way you protect an "0" is to stop fighting. Floyd retired twice .... cause he's aged and the fighting/sparring injuries add up. But he put the "0" out there plenty ... people just came up short.

No worries.

I agree that he deserves credit for being essentially two different fighters; Pretty Boy Floyd was vastly different to Money Mayweather.

I also agree that pretty much every fighter will have a name or two missing from their record.

However, I do think that the whole obsession with "a side" and being undefeated has watered down the sport as a whole and Floyd has clearly played a major role in that.
Wilder and Yarde are two examples of things we didn't see pre Mayweather.

Your point about not taking fights we don't think we can win is interesting.
It makes perfect sense, but in many ways men aren't very sensible; I'm sure that many of us have had fights we weren't too sure about through ego or other reasons, at least in our younger days. Some you win, some you lose. Or maybe that's just me lol. (Not trying to come across as some kind of hardman or anything).

Even allowing for the business aspect of boxing, there's a bit too much acceptance of fighters being "sensible", if that's the right word.
The gatekeepers and journeyman of the world know very well that they're not likely to win and they fight for far less money than the champs and the prospects.