Case in point in this fetishism is the above mentioned 70's heavies. Frazier was on the downside for 90% of the decade. Ali was post prime the entire decade and spent the second half mailing in his performances. Foreman beat two good fighters (albeit one at the end of his career) and one decent contender. Norton was decent but fragile at times. And the rest until Holmes at the tail end were true B,C and D level performers who wouldn't get a sniff today. And that is over 10 years and 100 potential top 10 fighters. But most boomers have a soft spot for the crappy movies, the crappy music, crappy TV and crappy fighters of that era. Thus, we have the current fetishism. As they find other pursuits not of this earthly plane, this, too, will correct itself.
The many champions/challengers - how does this influence the talent pool? Today BoxRec lists more than 22,000 active (at least one fight in the last 365 days) boxers from more than 100 countries. Even with several "world" champions in each division, 99% of those will never even get close to a title shot. So how is this responsible for the worldwide talent pool being "hopelessly watered down"?
Simple: The pathway to become a challenger or a champion is five times easier. Actually much more than that as we now have all the junior and super titles. It’s a question of those that are within the top 50 in each division. The top 40-50 are now top ten challengers when in fact they should not be historically. We have 4-5 champions potentially in every division when historically we had one. Thus we have many champions who should never be termed a champion. We have many contenders who should never be termed a contender. It’s easier to be a champion or a challenger as there are many more slots to fill. Over time this dilutes down the talent pool as you do not need to fight the best to be either a challenger or a champion.
Boxing was much more streamlined in the past obviously. Having 1 world title, everyone fighting everyone, its what (I assume) every boxing fan would love to have today. I find this era entertaining though, there are much more personalities, great fighters, more divisions and great fights happening. But the extra titles have really thrown everything out of whack, it creates too much questions like 'whose the best in the division' or 'is this dude a paper champion'. If only every division opted to do a WBSS with all title holders and top ten's. I think it's fair to say that the cruiserweight division is doing it right, everyone is fighting everyone in that division by the looks of things.
Everyone wants "their era" to be the best. Everyone wants to be able to say they lived through the greatest era in boxing and feel special because they were fortunate to have been a part of that. A lot of people take great pride in being able to say "Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever", or "Marvin Hagler was the baddest man at middleweight" because they have fond memories of their fights, were in their youth at the time and it gives them some sort of fulfillment for some reason. There will always be comparisons as to "who would win" because boxing is man vs. man, it's a macho sport, and almost all guys have a bit of ego when it comes to fighting and who can "lick" who. Comparing styles in boxing, (or technology, or anything else), is also how we learn. You learn a lot going back and studying others and what works and what didn't...
I feel a lot of this. Think of Jack Dempsey, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier (up to and including FOTC)...those guys were SAVAGE. Where's that now? When did we last see it? Mike?
I love the 70s and early to mid 80s boxing best, 90s second best, 60s after. I was alive during all those eras except the earliest 60s and was a boxing fan for Foreman in 1973. So, I've seen different eras. And I don't get even a quarter of the excitement I did with the fighters this century. I like the oldschoolish brutality of Deontay Wilder, but whenever I see him fight I can imagine Frazier knocking the hell out of him in 10.
In answer to the main question posed by this thread, the past is so much more understandable than the alphabet slop we have today.