An honest question

The way these promoters are handling their fighters nowadays makes it hard for a truly great fighter to emerge. I can see a little change happening within the last two years. I really don't like that every so-called big fight is on PPV. That is one most damaging things to fighters because it is being abused. That Thurman vs Porter and Thurman vs Garcia was just as good as any PPV fight in the last two years.

 

Did he fight people or no?

 

Jacobs was his first real test, because not only did he test his skill, he tested his heart. GGG fought well but I happen to think that he lost.

 

Guess what else happened in the 90's. home internet.

 

I think that the guys saying that its the fault of the internet are right.

In the old days the discourse was limited to newspapers and TV reports. Relatively few people with boxing knowledge doing writeups and maybe getting a couple of letters in response, which would be screened to eliminate the whackos. You had face-to-face interactions with other fans at boxing events, and it's a lot easier to call somebody a wankstain over the Interwebz than it is in person where the guy you are insulting might just box himself.

The Internet has allowed anybody with an axe to grind - and we all know who those guys are around here - the freedom to post 24/7 about how useless their pet targets are. Fighters nowadays have to have polished titanium records and even then they get flak because "it's a weak division" after they made everybody else look like garbage.

Also the poster that advanced the theory of the pioneers having superior skills to their contemporaries may also have a point. Some of those old guys were rated so highly because, imho, they themselves introduced aspects of modern boxing that we take for granted today. I'd say that people like (for example) Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey would be examples of this standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

There are not many boxing aficianados left. They're mostly nuthuggers who don't understand the sweet science. Boxing is now built on promoting the likes of Floyd, Ward, Canelo, GGG etc with their undefeated records and polarising popularity. This is why there is ubiquitous ducking and crooked judging / refereeing to protect the priceless zero, to ensure the "big fights" can be made. The people watching don't have any idea of what is going on.

 

I may add, no one ever thought before that Mayweather and Pacquiao would be earning more than 100M dollars in a single night, equivalent to career earnings of a well known athlete.

 

GGG at this point in time has been exposed.All boxers go through stages of ups and downs and you take the good with the bad a long the way. Right now he has been given a questionable decision. At the end of the day we can't really compare him to Robinson. He shouldn't be mentioned with Robinson tbh until all things are done and dusted. GGG hasn't really achieved half of what Sugar Ray Robinson has achieved.

 

I thought everyone was aware that LaMotta took a few dives in his career, against fighters he felt embarrassed losing to?
If you're going to fight up to every 2 weeks, take on all challengers, move up from LW-WW-MW-LHW, fight on to your 40s even though you were a speedy fighter, expect some losses on your record. Any fighter who has exceptional speed will fade well into their 30s.
These days there is so much politics and matchmaking going on. I like Thurman, he's willing to take challenges, but heck, has he improved since beating the likes of Quintana or Chaves back in 2013? And there's no way he'd make anything of himself at MW.

 

Its just the modern era. People these days are absolute turds. Over here in the UK the sports media are cruel and brutal they can ruin a sport stars career with words and they will if it sell them some air time or Newspapers and people believe what they see and read and then take it back on to the internet and spout off about it.

Ever seen Talladega Nights? Quote from that "IF YOUR NOT 1ST YOU ARE LAST". Like that on here, if your not the best in the division your a bum. If your chin has any question marks about it your a bum. If you have ever lost a fight you are a bum.

 

Here's the issue. GGG has mostly fought C level opposition and a WW. A lot of us on this forum said we'd full credit GGG and even buy into the hype a little if he destroyed Jacobs the way he did his C level opposition. He then ended up winning a controversial decision in his first step up, that's why people are saying it's crazy to say that GGG beats Hagler etc.

 

GGG didn't duck Ward. He's doing exactly what he has said since I started tuning in (I started at Macklin)...he wants to unify 160. Ward was semi retired at 168 at that time from memory. So the fight was a no go from the start. I much prefer ggg - but don't know how it would have played out if they fought. 50/50 fight...but I don't think either ducked.

 

Fighting Ward wouldn't have hindered is goal of unifying 160 in any way , which he already is btw

He should have fought Ward instead of 147 lb Kell Brook. Win or lose his belts and goals would have been still there for him at MW.