Why do old fighters get judged so harshly?

As a fan of modern and classic boxing, I have a simple question:
Why do old fighters get judged so harshly?

For instance, if you post a Corbett clip, people like @mrkoolkevin will rip him apart for something like keeping his chin high. Which I don't even think Corbett does often.

Look at this remastered video of Hagler vs. Hearns.

This content is protected

Now here, Hearns objectively has his chin high throughout most of the fight. There are other examples, but this one is glaring, and I think illustrates what I'm trying to get at.

How come people are so harsh when critiquing older fighters, and don't seem to apply the same standards to modern ones? It's a trend I noticed ever since I started watching boxing.

 

That just doesn't make sense man.
If he sucks, how did he beat Jack Johnson.

You are probably going to say something about weight and age, but in real life, those assets alone don't help you beat one of the best fighters on the planet.

 

How many different ways can a human being position his arms and legs?
There is surely substantive depth in technique, but can your hand placement really be as important as speed, power, timing, positioning, reflexes, and awareness?

Think about it like this.
Think about the gap of technique between a street fight and a good boxing fight.
Is there really centuries worth of technical evolution between those two?
Really?

Maybe there is.

 

I think much of style evolution is really just style differentiation.
I think things eventually come back full circle.

Whoever the most famous fighters are at the time, set trends that get picked up by coaches, fans, and fighters in gyms. (For instance, ever since the Eastern Euro invasion, you will see more guys in the gym with tennis balls attached to string from their hats.)

And when that style becomes saturated, someone with some vision comes along with a different style to offset it.

A really good example of that is Fury describing his style vs. Klitschkos from the other thread. He calls Klitschko robotic, and illustrates his point by using a high guard, throwing short efficient punches. Fury then compares it to his style, which is hands low, leaning back and punching from strange angles. I don't consider that evolution, I consider it using a different approach.

Another example is Lomachenko. His nickname is Hi-tech. And he looks technologically and technically advanced compared to his modern day peers. But Willie Pep was somewhat similar. So how can boxing be purely evolutionary, if Loma and Pep have more in common than Loma and Walters?

I think people mistakenly attribute stylistic nuances to evolution.

Which is why I find it easy to find "modern" techniques in old fighters.
Guys like Kevin get a hard on for "Pumping 3 jabs out in quick succession."
And claim that a sign of an old school fighter is the inability to do that.
Yet, when you produce examples of Max Baer pumping three jabs, there is only dishonest responses.

 

I also started watching boxing while I was in film school.
I spent most of my time learning about the magic of the screen, and all the little details and nuances of production.

Like how the angle of a shot can tell an entire story.
How the timing of cuts can relay subtle information.
How a close up shot can incite a certain emotion.
How one break in a smooth edit can ruin the suspense of belief.

And I think, in fact I am certain that it helped me navigate classic boxing footage. I feel less immune to the results of the production than most people.
I'm always cognizant of the disparity between what happens in real life, how it is being captured on film, and how that specific method of capture affects the perception of the acton.

I think that's why I like classic fighters so much. I just see they were really good.
And the scrutiny from detractors doesn't survive against the footage.

For example, how many people think Jess Willard didn't throw combos?
Many. But I know he threw combos. And I could pull up a 5 punch combo right now.

If we could purchase a 1910 camera and take it to a Klitschko fight, people here would be amazed.
We would set it up from a high and far angle, and the camera would almost never pan. No matter how much you like Klitschko, your knee jerk reaction will be to consider what you are watching to be crappy boxing. Because on the surface, you will never appreciate a boxer, when the film of him doesn't' represent normal human movement.

One tiny editing or production mistake can ruin a whole movie by messing up the emotional connection the viewer has to the film. With old boxing footage, this is happening multiple times per second.

Now compare that to 10 cameras recording one match, with guys filming from the ring ropes. You just get absolutely extraordinary detail and depth.
Hard not to like whatever you see. And vice versa for old films.

 

Yeah, that I agree with. The HW division has evolved from the perspective of the size of the fighters.
And there are certain evolutions. Like matchmaking has evolved. The business side of the sport has evolved.

I was more getting at the supposed evolution of technique and overall ability.