Why does boxing fetishize its past so much?

Stop expanding upon the premise. NO-ONE IS SAYING ANY ERA OF BOXING WAS PERFECT. That thought has nothing to do with my original post.

Boxing is a sick broken sport mainly due to the commissions putting $ over the health of the sport.

There should be only one worlds hwt champion. At one time that is what we had (predominantly).

If we have only one champion we need only one set of top ten contenders. Over time just think of the talent pool as it then becomes difficult to rise to the top. Top talent has to learn how to fight! Wow!

 

It does matter because your original post said we need to return to....and what you want to return to exists only in your biased and nostalgic memories of your departed youth. It also addresses the OP on which this whole thread is based.

The fights and fighters of today are no better or worse for the most part than they were 10-20-30-40 etc. years ago. I know in your memory (mine as well) the nostalgia of the past is always better than the present.

There will never be music as good as the 60’s and 70’s...yet my kids disagree lol. That does not mean music was better then or that my kids don’t appreciate good music as much as I do...it just means it has changed.

I love all eras of boxing history including....gasp...today! I know that is a minority opinion on classic.

But the reason the thought is held from the OP is because of nostalgia and personal preferences and biases.

 

Again you’re wrong. Returning to one champion and one set of top ten contenders does not mean returning to the color line nor mob influence. Why you are reaching for this you will need to contend with.

Today’s boxing is a watered down mess. Fighters don’t need to know how to fight any longer as it’s much easier to be a contender and much easier to be a champion. Many pathways to success suppress the need to develop high level skills.

There are some very good fighters mind you but oh so many second and third raters.

 

So....it is the same as every generation that has preceded it? And it is subject to the same criticisms that every generation that preceded it has levied at the generation that succeeded it. Good to know. Thanks as always for your dizzying intellect and articulate and cordial responses. You are an asset not only to this forum but to society as a whole. I salute and applaud you

 

You may have a point there.

If you were talking about Andre Ward on the day of his retirement, there would be no shortage of positives to focus on.

My most abiding memory is the Kessler fight.

Most people thought that Kessler was going to win the super six tournament, then this relatively unknown fighter turns the whole thing upside down!

 

No it’s very different.

Again too many contenders and too many champions cause the talent pool to be very watered down as it’s much easier to become either.

 

More contenders from more nations than ever before has also served to give us higher quality operators from an even larger pool of fighters....unless you also think returning to an American domination of the sport is what made it so much better.

 

Does not matter where they are coming from. We have 4 (more or less) different pathways to be called a world champion. 40 ways to be a top ten contender. This produces a watered down pool of fighters most of which have no business being called a contender.

 

Boxing in myopnion has regressed, therefore it was better in the past. And no I'm not talking about or including fighters prior to the 1930's because other than long dead sportswriters words (And their bias)there is very little to no film on them. So in my opinion it's hard to say how great or bad fighters like Greb or Walker was.

From the 1930's thru the mid 1990's were the best fighters in the history of boxing. Believe your own eyes guys, watch Duran, Ali, Robinson, Napoles, Leonard, Sanchez Williams , Pep just to name a few, and compare them to some of the fighters around today. If you can't see the differences to how quickly the counters came, how great past fighters always seemed to be in a position to counter because of their abilities to slip, and ride with punches , body punches and infighting are basically lost arts today, if you can't see these differences I don't know what to say to you other than stop "watching boxing and began to observe it, because their are a lot of differences between world class fighters today and world class fighters 20yrs and beyond.
Some think it's a" nostalgic" point of view and were" feteshizing " the past history of boxing And not giving credit to today's fighters but I have scrutinized today's fighters with the same scrutiny that I done with fighters from the past and their is no comparison. Today's everyone pretty much fights the same way. Where are the classic counters punches ( Sanchez, Napoles , Arguello) The boxer-punchers ( Robinson,Ali, Leonard,Hearns,Gomez, Hagler,Zarate) The "Cuties" or defensive specialist ( Pep, Walcott, Locche, Benitez, Whitaker) the Aggressive brawlers that were defensively sound ( Armstrong, Frazier,Duran, Qawi) The aggressive skilled Punchers ( Louis, Marciano, Moore,Foster, Foreman D.Lopez, K.Galaxy, Zamora,Olivares) Modernist have this view of everything new is better. And that's true when were talking about technology, medicines,constructions (Well that maybe true let's see if any modern buildingis standing after 5000yrs like the Great Pyramids) and certain sports like football, when the average offensive lineman in today's game is weighing around 330lbs and can move ( But Bullet Bob Hayes ,Sayers, Sanders, and D.Green are still cons
Idered some of the fastest men to every play the game and none of these men played football the last 20yrs, ) What player in today's NFL any better of a total athlete than Herschel Walker, and especially Bo.Jackson,,,,,, If any, because they wouldn't be human.

If Michael Jordan or Dr. J, played the game of basketball they would be just as successful, if not more so because of the lack of physical play today. But can you imagine some of the prima donnas
In today's game trying to dunk on the late 80's Pistons team? They would be crucified, and probably would quit with today's players mentality.

Today's boxer's have multiple World Championships belts to fight for
So they can avoid the best challengers and still get a World Title. Today's fighters can earn Millions of dollars and not be close to great. Today's fighters have much more media exposure than fighters from the past.
But boxing today is very watered down . You have welterweights coming in on fight day at or close to middleweight, fighting fighters that could be a natural welterweight. Fighters fighting once or twice a year with light sparring in between. How can they compare to a fighter fighting 8-10 times a year, in between fighting in exhibitions, and In between all that sparring. How can they compare. The truth is the can't be.

 

I re-watched The Holmes vs Norton fight. And I would suggest any boxing fan watch or re-watch the fight. Holmes counters were so quick and accurate it was amazing. And he was still crisp with his punches 13 rds later. Compare that performance with anything from Wilder, Joshua or Fury. If you can't see the differences in skill level your blind or refuse to see.....

 

Flash is on the money.

 

All one needs to do is look at the finished product. It's pretty evident which era is superior.

 

Who was the boxing historian and where did he state his comments?

You opined that a historian saying "Floyd Mayweather would've only been a top 1/3rd of the division fighter at WW in the 40s" was an "extreme" example of a "historian" fetishing the past yet don't have an opinion as to whether Floyd could beat SRR and Gavilan (top of the division at one point in the 40's) so as to put himself above a top third fighter?

How can it be an extreme example when you don't have a clue if it might be on or around the money?

I can sypathize with you about the lack of around some of the current brigade but that has played out throughout history and is a common theme. Most things take time to settle and crystallize.

I do consider myself lucky however that my absolute sweetspot in boxing was from the late 70's thru to the mid 80's and not only was the talent stupendous but it was actually recognized as such at the time. We had long term pretty much establishes ATG's as well as guys that were cementing their ATG status very rapidly. The only thing undecided was exactly where they would finish when all was said and done.

Guys like Gomez, Sanchez, Pedroza (recognized later than most i am talking about), Arguello, Duran, Benitez,Hearns, SRL, Hagler, Spinks and Holmes. On the edges were guys like Chandler, Pintor, Pryor, Cuevas, Saad, EMM etc.

What a time. I do sometimes wonder if boxing in this day and age has somehow suffered story wise but could be wrong. Back in the day there was a lot of interest and ink in not only the big players but lesser players as well. So many seem to have had a story. Maybe i don't dig as deep nowadays and maybe there's just too many frigging champions.

 

The heavyweight division has always been paper thin in talent until the 1980's wherein real athletes, worldwide began to be recruited and trained at a proper age, given all the advantages of the modern sporting world. Since then, the division has enjoyed its longest sustained run of excellence in its history. As goes the glamor division (which is truly the worst division) so goes the sport.

Tired old wags want to prattle on about Baer and Galento and Layne and the plethora of lesser talents who wouldn't dent today's division but their rationale and agenda are transparent. No one takes them seriously.


We are living in the best of times.

 

Every sport is like this to a certain extent. Boxing's weight classes make it more extreme though because except for HW, the fighters are still the same size, unlike American football or basketball where old time players are tiny compared to the modern players.