LOL Phily … You stick to your expertise .. the 70's !!! and the tough guys from Philly ... !!! know your place .. lol
well, frequently human beings are known to see what they are looking for and/or want to see...some call it confirmation bias...to each their own. I personally recognize the greatness of the past and my youth, but it does not hinder me from enjoying the greatness of the present either.
It used to be that the public's perception which trumped the "boxing authorities, but now there are so many alphabetic organizations that even people who consider themselves boxing fans are confuse about who the best fighter in almost any given division is. There's so much money out there that there is a lot of value in just being recognized as 1/12th of a champion by some hokey organization.
Or some because they choose to not see a difference and they CHOOSE to believe if its new , It must be better, though facts may not support it. Confirmation bias. Look at the 3 top heavyweights today. 1 , doesn't know how to fight behind the jab, set up his opponents and defense is just throwing up his arms and waiting for the opponent to stop punching. The other one is just big and awkward, and his sheer size, and the opponents lack of skill to properly deal with it is the reason for his success. The 3rd one is built like Hercules, but if you watch him close, he has many flaws including endurance issues, and possibly as he showed the 1st Ruiz fight a determination issue because it sure seemed he didn't want to get up . If you can't see those obvious flaws, than your simply refusing too see.
It seems to me, that you consider those who don't see it your way either biased or unknowledgeable. Is there any chance do you think, that they may just be expressing their honest opinion - just like you are?
Not at all. But the site IS about healthy debate. And if you read what I was responding too perhaps you may see it differently. But personally I'm very open to others opinions and if someone gave me a point of view that I initially may have not thought of. Of course I'll listen. And unlike most on this site I'm the 1st to acknowledge a great point.... And my own mistakes.... And that's my difference. But don't come at me as A Bible of knowledge, but not having facts to support it. Or have the ability to listen to a different point on view.
So are you open to the opinion, that there is more to boxing than the heavyweights - and that we have had many excellent boxers over the past decade?
Yes I am. Let me give you an example. I watch Lomencheko closely. And I see his foot movement (Great) his ability to parry and slip and counter very good. But the kid only has 15 pro fights, and he's 31 yrs old And his competition is suspect, how much real growth can he have? So Were do some on this very site get the opnion of him being a great fighter? Yes, he certainly have the ability to be a great fighter, he does pass the eye test, however his opponents really don't. So where does the opinion of some on this site have given of him being a match for a fighter like Duran? What opponent has he fought was as good as DeJesus? Certainly not Salido who beat Lomo. Point being let's stop putting the cart before the horse. Again, this site is about healthy debate on a sport I would assume we love. That's why I don't get pulled into insults or name calling . I can debate an issue all day without it. But no I don't have blinders on, and yes I watch no I observe fighters today with the same scrutiny as I did fighters in the 70's and 80' s 90' or film study of fighters before my time.Unfortunately I see some glaring differences in skill level.
So when I ask you, if you are open to the idea, that there have been some excellent boxers recently, you say yes... and then quickly go on to criticize Loma, explaining why he's not such a great fighter. It's like you just can't bring yourself to say anything positive about this era. But with more boxers, from more countries, taking place in more fights that at any other time in the last 50-60 years... can we at least agree that, globally, boxing is in a pretty good place right now?
His overall point, which really isn't debatable, is that modern activity(fighters being brought along to fight once a year, maybe twice) and competition has been on the decline for a very long time … So when these so called great fighters won't even get in the ring with each other, then all you really have to go on is speculation no matter how popular boxing is now world wide ….
Arum wants to match Crawford up with Connor McGreggor in the octagon under MMA rules, none the less. Talk about getting your fighter killed in 30 seconds in order to make a buck … And you are telling me that boxing is in a good place right now??
See, here we go again! "no matter how popular boxing is now world wide"... you must explain why it sucks anyway. You can't just say that, yes, world wide, boxing is doing fine right now. It's simply against your core belief to just leave it at that.
