Why do boxers seem to be less skilled than the greats in the 80s or 90s?

There are still some great fighters out there. Lomachenko, Uysk and Crawford are damn good but the sport lacks the mainstream popularity that it once had for sure.

 

It's just that were 1, in a dry period
2, theres less people who take up the sport. So a lower talent pool at the top

 

I agree and feel the same. I have not watched boxing in five years. In fact, I don't know who any of the current champions are right now. Once in awhile I see a headline about Golovkin, Alvarez or Pacquiao, but don't know much about what is happening. I think boxing began to fall apart in the late 90s. Once guys like Toney, Whitaker, Jones, Norris, Chavez (the list is almost endless), began fading, there was never a new cast of characters to take their place. Mixed martial arts seems to be big right now with a lot of people. I always felt they needed to start putting great fights on free TV like the old days to bring back the popularity of boxing. What few great fighters there are go immediately to pay-per view, and a lot of people like myself won't pay those ridiculous prices to watch a fight. When HBO cancels boxing after having it for over 40 years, that tells you how bad it's become...

 

Because I suspect like you, the 80s/90s was MY era. Same as those around the 60s/70s bemoan the lack of talent back then...

But this era, from a UK perceptive, due to the Olympic investment, has not seen such top class talent since arguably the 19th century.

Objectively, boxing has worldwide, as big a pool talent as it ever has. But I suspect most here are American and they have not the dominance they once had.

 

Today's WORLDWIDE talent pool is much larger than 30 years ago. Just because boxing isn't what it used to be in the US (as TBooze mentions), doesn't mean that boxing is in a slump, globally.

This decade alone we've had some amazing fighters... Mayweather, Pacquiao, Gonzalez, Ward, GGG, Canelo, Rigo, Loma, Usyk, Inoue. Boxers who would be competitive in any era.

What we of course lack these days, is a dominant, charismatic heavyweight champion, who's a household name - not just in boxing circles, but also in the general public. Like an Ali or Tyson.. or even a Foreman or Holyfield. Someone who grabs everybody's attention, thus keeping boxing in the news. Unfortunately we don't have that at the moment. But that doesn't mean, that boxing as a whole is dying - worldwide!

 

I still love the sport and will always. There are some great boxers 2day, but I think internet/instant news allows us to clown them in ways no previous era of fighters had to deal with.
Moment-by-moment scrutiny. Everything is under a microscopic glass. 40 years ago, no internet, no dvds or even VHS tapes, so when the fight was over, only memory can review past fights.
But us we can record, splice it dice it, compare them to other fighters. IMO that makes it tougher for today's boxers/athletes to meet the same standards as their predecessors.

Just a few thoughts...
Had James T won his fight with Tiberi...let's say this past weekend. Would we not holler robbery? An investigation was launched after that. Donald Trump said it was the most disgraceful robbery he ever saw live.
A book was written about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Tiberi-Uncrowned-Champion-Andy-Ercole/dp/0898025982
Some say he lost to Griffin, some said he won, point being today we would have considered him a hot cold fighter, Sometimes he shows up.


For fans who talk about divas, how would we have responded Had Ray Leonard fought during the age of internet? Just imagine him losing his 2nd title defense to a former LW, would we really call him great the next day as we post on boxing blogs worldwide? Or would the internet be abuzz on how he got exposed, LOL!?

Had Hearns vs Ray just happened this past week, 4sure I could envision the board stating Ray got exposed. He got outboxed by a brawler & won because Hearns appears chinny- (this would've been confirmed as he lost every fight by geting KTFO'd.)
Had Hearns started fighting just 10 years ago, his detractors could point out he got KTFO's 3x.
And we wouldn't call him china Hearns? Tommy 'Teapot4achin' Hearns lost to a 24-4 Barkley only to lose his next 3.

& Who dropped Ray? Was it Bruce or Kevin Howard? I 4get, but had it happened just last week, how could we have envisioned Ray retiring at 32-1 as an ATG getting dropped by a nobody?

Just imagine at The Baltimore Civic Center, Nov. 9, 1982....would be today 2019.
Ray packs the arena with Hagler there then states: I could make millions and millions by fighting Marvelous Marvin Hagler. 'Unfortunately, it will never happen.''

Would we accept that? Or, would we clown him for doing such a horrid stunt. Well that is what I considered as. Fans & Halger left rejected. History doesn't want us to remember all the UPs & Downs of yesteryear. After Haglare he beat Donny Lalonde who was outboxing Ray, once again, until Ray's under estimated power saved him. Duran was the only other win.

So, too will it happen in this era.

I think Terrence Crawford, Errol Spence, Lomachenko, David Benavidez,Alvarez, 3G to name a few will indeed be the standard in about 10-20 years.
There names will be repeated as to how a champ should fight.
Long gone will be the negative aspects we debate on. All the catch weight fights, who lost due to ring size, hurt toes, all that will be forgotten.

Just as we chose to 4get Ray's diva ways. James Toney inconsistency to stay in shape. I'm not saying they weren't gr8, rather today's fighters are under constant scrutiny IMO due to technology. Ever screw up we see/read it. Every popped test, every haggle for a lesser foe. Even Ray Robinson cherry picked, but there wasn't an avenue to scrutinize him like today's boxers.

There are some really good boxers today, but reading boxing fans rants on their/our sport...we sound more like a board of menstruating men.

 

In Theory I agree with you, but perspective has a way of making us see the same things differently (sometimes).

 

You people are not watching lower weight classes enough! There are still some tremendous talent there, that more than compares, and even exceeds in some cases.

Roman Gonzalez is a bona-fide ATG, and he's still active! Then you've got Inoue, Higa, Tanaka, Kenshiro, Kyoguchi. That's just Japan. Then there's Estrada, Rungvisai, Nietes, Ioka etc etc. Lots of really great H2H talent. Of course, you cannot compare them to greats until their careers are near over (like Roman). Just let it run its course. Boxing is 'global', baby!

Some really great responses here.

 

exactly, and the fighters who are not at the top don't seem to be as good as the contenders of the past. So the difference in the contenders to the top guys is wider now. A fighter at that time gained invaluable experience fighting contenders. I don't think that is the case today. and on top of that the fighters win the title with less fights today-adding to this all the titles.

 

Excellent post, I agree with all of it.

 

The problem for this IMO is Ali was a special breed. I think we got it wrong, seriously. Only our sport uses outside actions to determine the greatness of the sport's ambassador.
Not really disagreeing with you personally, rather the concept we allowed to become a prerequisite for determining greatness. Avoiding draft, joining a black militant religion would cause stir, then add on his big azz mouth. He created a standard almost impossible to duplicate. Where Hopkins, Mayweather talked trash IMO it was sorrowful & insulting & @ times racist in tone (Hop -I will never loses to a white boy) Mayweather (fry up this yellow chump with some sushi) Filipinos eat sushi?

Ali was insulting, but damn funny & never made racial epithets against non-blacks. Others try to be controversial (Wilder, ) but it doesnt seem natural.

Best example to illustrate a world phenom who isn't really charismatic is the dude I usually rag on WAPAKMAN!
Barely speaks to the public, never in his life has he badmouthed his foes, yet something about his demeanor alone drew us to him. Like a Filipino Bruce Lee turned boxer. He was charismatic in the ring, but humble outside of it. He IMO was a true torch carrier for the sport the past 15 years.

Americans loved him more so than any native to USA. He IMO took over where Ray Leonard left off, who in turn took the mantle from Ali.
And until Tyson came along, the MW's Hagler, Ray, Hearns, Duran captured our imagination because they IMO were on free tv. CBS Brent Mussberger, ABC, How-ward...Co--selll! NBC wide world of sports, uhh 4got the main dude there, but I remember Brent Mussberger interviewing the upcoming bout Hagler-Hearns.

PPV has seriously depleted a large pool of fans.
PBC is trying, but they got boxers in an era doing the Floyd, not the Ali.
Ali chased gr8ness & the money followed.
Floyd & sucessors chase $, hoping greatness will follow.
@drronnie does have a point: We The fans realize this in our own ways, as a result, our sport suffers.

 

You're right... Ali was a VERY special case, that we're not likely to see duplicated.

What I was trying to say, is that even without someone like him to be the face of boxing to the "outside world" (generating interest and followers in the general public, that would otherwise not care that much about boxing), boxing today is doing fine.