Same as any other era just more political and less exciting. Boxers from the past are not better than the current and vice versa.
Essentially what alexthegreatmc said, more or less. Politics (promoter battles, network battles, etc.) and current state of the sport (activity levels, magnification of a single loss, etc.) lead to an era with less "very good" fighters, but not near HOF-type of discussion, than in the past.
I've heard people say, "Oh, past fighters were so much more skilled than today's fighters!", but were they really? Do we have any concrete proof that they were more skilled? A lot of the past fighters people like to talk about don't even have footage of them fighting.
Well, we don't. I guess I could have worded that better. I meant to say that there's not a lot of footage of the past fighters people like to go on about. We don't have much footage of Robinson in his WW days, when he was supposedly at his best.
I got you, I just find it funny. Claiming someone was much better while having little (poor, grainy quality) to no footage of their fights is hilarious.
honestly,as good or better than ever....there is a lot of nostalgia in sport but when you watch re runs in most sports its actually not nearly as good as present day... i have never enjoyed boxing more
And in fairness, that's mostly because at the time those fighters fought, the technology to record things either didn't exist, or was still new.
I think overall todays boxers are far superior athletes but poorer boxers. The number of fighters today with excellent fundamentals is lower than I can remember.The jab, uppercut, basic footwork, etc just don't seem to be as prevalent.
It's generally great with the exception of the Heavyweight division which has been terrible for over a decade now.