Do you believe that IN GENERAL, fighters from previous eras were superior?

I saw Sugar Ray Robinson in Raging Bull and he was grossly overrated. He could barely handle Robert De Niro.

 

I actually think it's easier to see the difference in team sports than in some individual competitions. The pace of todays game is what usually stands out.

 

those sports have remained essentially the same as they always were and the best exponents do not avoid facing their peers, meaning there is a system that encourages development and progress. boxing has changed for the worse in many ways: it has sprouted endless divisions and titles, shortened its fights, built a system in which the best avoid fighting the best and, if they do fight each other, often do it when well past their peak and often do not develop long rivalries. it's a different sport, one that prioritises the showcasing of talented fighters against lesser fighters in place of pitting the best against the best.

 

And Eddie Mustafa Muhammad almost lost against a guy going in the tank.

 

Translation: I only watch the Klitsckos & dksab

 

X2

Here are today's rated fighters that I think could have competed and had decent success in any era of Boxing. Note that I am not saying that they would have been a Champion in the era of one belt, but they would have been competitive with just about anybody. It isn't a long list....

Wlad Klitschko
Vitali Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins
Andre Ward
Money May
Pacman
Erik Morales
JMM
Rafael Marquez
Nonito Donaire

 

Another fallacy. Plenty of fighters were ducked in the golden era.

I love history and no other sport has a more impressive past then boxing, but whitewashing history is wrong.

It seems a lot of wannabe boxing 'experts' earn their badge by slagging of this era. Juts buy the 'Arc of boxing' book and start jerking off to it.

 

lol at this reasoning. If the American supermen don't dominate no one will.

 

Wladmir TKO rd 4 Muhammad ali

 

What you are saying has nothing to do with the quality of fighters. Boxing as an entertainment has little to do with the actual sport of boxing. Boxing as a sport followed the pattern of all other sports. Boxing as an entertainment venue has its ups and downs. For example, there are no marketable US heavyweights so it is perceived that heavyweight division is in the decline but the reality is that heavyweight boxing does not get the marketing dollars to keep people's eyes on it.

 

the new generation is always better than the old one....if not humanity would not progress....

 

No way, this time is alot more advance than back then, yeah boxing was more entertaining in the past but that was because they were overall worse, if you put everyone together most champions at the moment would still be bar a few exeptions

 

Better boxers? No. Better athletes? No. But they were better fighters :deal

 

No. There's the great, the good and the bad in every era. Time has a way of making you appreciate what you had, more than what you have. I do it now; I don't see the new crop being as good as the Jones/Mosley/DLH/Trinidad/Mayweather/Pacquaio group that came before it. Just human nature I guess.