Why do people always pick the past fighters will beat modern fighters?

There will always be those will "old-school" or "new-school" bias, but in most, if not all, of the examples you gave above, the past fighters ARE better than the more modern ones.

For instance, picking Sugar Ray Leonard over Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather is not old school bias. It's the fact that a 1979-82 Leonard at WW was one of the most complete and versatile fighters you will ever see, and both Floyd and Manny are physically smaller and better at lower weights.

I'll pick Manny and Floyd over some greats of the past....but not against any ATG WWs.

 

Basically the fighters of the past faced better competition than todays fighters. Those fighters tested themselves against the elite. There isn't as many great fighters in todays era. Think about it, how could you pick Manny to beat Leonard at welter when his best win is Miguel Cotto? Leonard fought Duran, Hagler, and WB.

It also has alot to do with people favoring the old school. Its just like when a parent says, "I went through everything coming up". I personally feel that some of the fighters in this era could be great in others though. But its hard to make a case for a present fighter beating a past one with the competition they went up against. Just my opinion.

 

personally, im sick of everybody braggin about the "older fighters". at the end of the day WE DONT KNOW which fighters are better unless they get in the ring with eachother. people need to start givin our generation some props and stop living in the past.

 

since there are 10 champions in every weight division now....naturally this era must be better...because in the 80s, there were only 1 or 2 champions per division

 

:deal

:yep

 

because they r senile

i hav respect for old age fans who actually watched old fighters

 

Back in the day, the best fought the best. There were few disputes over who the real champs were. Example: we might never know who the best WW of this era is. Both Floyd and Manny are world champs, but do we really know who the real WORLD Champ is. World champ is supposed to be the best fighter in his weight class. Can any of us say with absolute certainty who the best fighter of this era is? If your answer is yes, then you are a fool.

 

They are just nostalgia laden pussies who watch an HBO highlight reel with sad music and shed a tear.

OR

They listen to their great grand father tell them stories about how good Dempsey was.

The best one was a poll based on Dempsey vs. Bowe and it had Dempsey winning hahahahaha. That sums **** up right there, Bowe would have farted on Dempsey for a KO.

 

Because pot blocks old unhappy memories. True story.

 

Well, when you put it like that...

 

:good also with floyd and manny I think people seem to forgot that WW is no where near either's prime weight. Very few if any beat floyd at Super Featherweight

 

Because they're old farts trying to cling to their good ol' memories and will always ***** how past times were always better

Or because they're casual boxing fans that DKSAB, so they just blabber what other people says and what boxing historians write (biased old farts like the aforementioned).

Also, rooting for the old legend over the more modern boxer in fantasy matchups is also the tactic that casual boxing fans tend to use to be ¨correct¨ without being forced to watch the actual fighters in action and compare them, or use their brains too much, as in comparing the level of opposition, size differences and such.

All a nostalgiafag needs to know is X guy was from the 70's or 60's and was considered a ¨legend¨, and that guy automatically beats any current fighter for them, without giving it a second thought.

That been said, there's a thin line that divides the nostalgia defender from the nostalgiafag

The nostalgia defender can be right in his statements (ex: saying the 70's was the golden era of HW because competition was at it's fiercest with many great fighters facing each other) but if he also says C levels from that era would beat the bestest fighters of today, for no other good reason than ¨they were from the golden era, they fought Ali, etc¨ then that guy is a nostalgiafag.

The nostalgiafag is dumb enough to not realize that all sports, including boxing, evolve throughout time. athletes evolve, get bigger, stronger, faster. Yeah, there will always be chumps and mediocre athletes in any era, but the best of the best of today should be able to compete and defeat champs from the past more often than not.

If a NFL or NBA fan tried to argue that a superstar team from the 70's would squash any superstar team of today, people would point at him and laugh, but in boxing this kind of rubbish is applauded.