The Past vs the Present - different arguments

[Anthony342]

Yeah, but sometimes, they're right. Like, for instance, the best dance music was between 1950-1989, with a few exceptions. And rock music has gone way downhill. These days, not many people know the few talented rock bands around today, even if they're in the top 40 or have their songs featured in commercials. The average person these days mostly likes that manufactured teeny bopper crap. And way too many remakes has watered down and declined the quality of movies today. At least with TV, there are a few good choices with cable, DVD releases and streaming these days though.

[them_apples]

i stated in another post I am not even from the past era. I am 27 years of age. I can watch footage from the past and it's clear to see these guys were more serious and came from harder backgrounds. You can also find huge loopholes in fighters records today.

If a fighter is the A side today he will pick an opponent he is guaranteed to beat and set the terms to ensure it stays that way. the B side will show up simply because they get a nice pay cheque.

I can think of a dozen fighters from the past with such high talent levels, it would have been easy to keep their opponent level in the C class range for years and watch them rack up a 50-0 record and call it a day. They took huge risks back then because they were less educated, tougher and had a lot more balls.

[Bundana]

This romantic idea that back in the day, boxers were these proud, brave warriors who wanted to test themselves against the toughest opposition... it's just a myth!

Ducking your most dangerous opponents isn't exactly a new thing - it's an artform as old as boxing itself:

"To-day a champion ignores all challengers and waits months, or years, without taking the slightest risk of losing a title to a formidable rival.

Each challenger is as carefully inspected as an insurance applicant, his weak and strong points tabulated and the risks matched and balanced and summed up before the champion even deigns to answer his challenge. It wasn't like that in the old days".

... Robert Edgren, 21 Jan 1917, The Fort Wayne Journal.

Yes, even 100 years ago they thought boxing sucked... and were longing for the "good old days"!

[ShoulderRoll]

"Golden Age gyms were rich with knowledge, experience, and creativity. However...hundreds of fight clubs and gymnasiums--boxing's universities--began to disappear in the years following World War II. Scores of qualified teachers...retired or were forced to leave the sport because they were no longer able to earn a decent living.

As the gyms closed and the ranks of quality trainers continued to thin out, a decades old oral tradition of trainers passing knowledge to a new generation became disrupted. In their absence mistakes went uncorrected, important lessons were never taught, and valuable information was lost. Eventually the level of skills declined as mediocre fighters became mediocre trainers."

-from the book "The Arc of Boxing: The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science"

[ShoulderRoll]

I kind of disagree on the football point though. I remember reading a quote from former Eagles legend Chuck Bednarik that said that everyone praised Deion Sanders because he played both offense and defense, but said in his day, everyone did that and as a result, players of the past were much tougher. Plus you had to have a player completely pinned down for a tackle to count.

That's true. Back in the day players had to play two ways. They were certainly tough. I don't know if any of them were ever as good at playing on offense and defense as Deion Sanders was, though.

And the schemes in football have become very refined and complex. It is a relatively new sport where you can clearly see growth and evolution and change happening from decade to decade.

Boxing is much older and I don't think you see the same type of technical improvements occuring.

[joeandthebums]

If a fighter is the A side today he will pick an opponent he is guaranteed to beat and set the terms to ensure it stays that way. the B side will show up simply because they get a nice pay cheque.

Previous eras weren't too dissimilar from this current practice.

I can think of a dozen fighters from the past with such high talent levels, it would have been easy to keep their opponent level in the C class range for years and watch them rack up a 50-0 record and call it a day.

Today's equivalent would probably be 49-1, or a few losses once true level is found.

Sadly boxing has turned a single loss into the sign of a supposedly lower grade of talent and that may just be our sport's biggest problem. That and our inability as fans to reward those that ignore this trend.

Of course the most profitable boxer of the modern era Mayweather has further reinforced a loss as an almost insufferable indignity.

[Eff Pandas]

Isn't it funny, how oldtimers always believe that THEIR time was the best - and that the present sucks?

The majority of people ALWAYS think there time was the best time for nearly everything it seems like lol.

Nothing wrong with that cuz ultimately the question is rhetorical & no one can actually know the real answer.

You can speculate on it & come up with opinions & theories all day, but you can't have some time machine tournament in a vacuum to discover the truth. Its all a rhetorical bs debate.

[StarshipTrooper]

Isn't it funny, how oldtimers always believe that THEIR time was the best - and that the present sucks?

How is that any different than you believing YOUR time is the best? Aren't you being just as biased as those you're calling out?

[Joe Beamish]

Boxing has changed so much that you're comparing entirely different sets of skills across the decades. I'd love to see how Joe Gans would do against Floyd Mayweather. But I'm pretty sure each guy would win at his own game, and lose in the other guy's game. The sport has changed too much, and so has the culture surrounding boxing. The number of fights per year, the number of rounds in a fight, the gloves, the ring: whole different ballgame.

[Ray Corso]

"Nothing wrong with that cuz ultimately the question is rhetorical & no one can actually know the real answer".

Your wrong you can know the answers if you know the Methodology and Technical aspects of the sport. You don't know so in your mind it can't be understood!
There are right & wrong ways in everything we try to accomplish. If your smart and know how to study under a valid teacher you will learn to recognize pluses & negatives!

Anyone can see a fighters effort, when a fighter like Rios or Madiana or the Russian Rocky fight it's easy to see their skills are not on a high level but their motivated and their toughness can get them some successes.

Now try to learn about movement, power, balance, eye/hand coordination, focus, dedication etc..........
Learn the art and you can give an intelligent observation that lil Floyd Mayweather with a dozen fights at Welterweight would get destroyed by Sugarman if it was 1946 or 2010.

You watch how tentative Tyson Fury is and against a prime Mike Tyson he would get blown out in 2 rounds!
Evander wasn't shy he excepted Mikes challenge, Fury would NEVER do that. So he gets blasted out!

You can't learn boxing by watching TV, you need a teacher so you can learn when and when not to. You need to recognize limitations on offense & defense!
It takes 10 years to become a good fighter even if you have GREAT skills!
Imagine anyone on this board thinking they know more than someone who actually performs in the business.

Ray