Yes past fighters tend to be overrated while current fighters tend to be overlooked. Why? Selective memory is one reason I suppose. Like I said before, people think the 70s had great music because they remember songs like Stairway To Heaven but they forget that Muskrat Love was the actual chart topper.:-( And then there's the "echo chamber effect" we hear the "old timers were so much better than the garbage we have in the ring today" so often people take it as gospel without bothering to challenge the notion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1JX8NB-4QY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOLb3lKsEhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FztXCCz_l5k Ironically, the old timers were better slights are usually aimed at the heavyweight division and those slights against the heavyweight division are nothing new. In fact, the heavyweight division has been at "its all time worst" consistently for the past three or four decades. However, if you bother watching the video links you can easily see that's not true. If anything the current crop of heavies are well above average. Whereas the lighter weights don't seem to make any great fluctuations in quality. And if you bother reading threads like these you have probably noticed that some people have a tendency to try to re-arranged the past to fit their "old timers were better" narrative. Somebody even went so far as to lump Holyfield into the Larry Holmes eraatsch
Also in the minds of many there is no way for an active boxer to be "great". While somebody like Michael Dokes can be "great" for some reason, mainly because he fought three decades ago. And Jim Braddock is supposedly a Hall of Famer according to one poster on this board---I never bothered to check that but I do know that Braddock's record is something like 43-28-4 . Could you imagine if a current fighter with a record like that was put in the hall of fame or even nominated for the hall of fame?:admin Current fighters are scrutinized in great detail---every little thing. While the old timers not so much...not at all really.
Past eras also had great tennis players, yet no one in their right mind would pick a 50s tennis player to beat Roger Federer. This type of non-sense only happens in boxing fan circles where the delusion with classic athletes is particularly crazy.
anyone who calls braddock and dokes great fighters is as bad as those calling floyd tbe(and a lot less think the former that ive seen). find any argument and you'll find idiots on both sides, selectivley use the idiots arguments to make one of your own, and you become one of the idiots too. braddock is in the hall for being lineal hw champ, i'm pretty sure they all are, but the hall has **** all to do with anything.
the tennis comparison cannot be made because of improvements in equipment, will wearing colored gloves confuse willie pep to the point he forgets how to throw quad jabs? compared to virtually any non fighting sport boxing has changed so little, a 3 round reduction in fight length and more strict refs are the only major changes*. edit* apart from 24 hr weigh ins, but they're irrelevant to the discussion with the exception of some early 1900's fighters(mostly hw's, that ive seen) who thought being dehydrated was good for some reason.
something of a sidenote: being a true boxing fan (not new to it, true to it), i have respect for the knowledge displayed on the classic boxing forum. having said that, i think they are kind of missing the boat over there on pacquiao. pacquiao-armstrong at 140 would be the shiznit and, yes, duran trumps mayweather at lightweight
What does tennis have to do with boxing? You deliberately made a comparison to tennis instead of boxing because you know nobody in their right mind would pick Mayweather to beat Ray Robinson or any welter to beat a Carmen Basilo. Or a lightweight to beat Duran. You compare boxers to boxers, but your type knows that argument goes against your agenda so you draw tennis, track running , F1 and other non releated sports in as a comparison insteadatsch
Yes , this. Not many shared an era with Marciano , Louis , Robinson around here. I came to the sport in the Lewis, Tyson , Hoya era. Watching past greats on espn classic and classic fights , docs on youtube etc made it clear in my eyes what era's had the greater fighters. All this rose tinted glasses krap is a load of nonsene sprouted by casual fans who only follow certain fighters in the current era.
sure, an atg could beat duran at lightweight. dejesus did it, crazy puerto rican. just wouldn't be mayweather, all leaning back and freezing up on the ropes
70s era heavyweights--overrated It's a trickle down effect from thinking 70s Ali was better than he was.
This...plus especially the heavys. The fraziers and alis of this world look like athletes. Now its a shock if someone liked wlad, wilder or browne come to fight in good condition.