Why are we so biased/obsessed with old fighters/era's

It’s a boxing hipster opinion to trash the new eras and glorify the old guys. It makes them think people will think they know their boxing.

 

Some people glorify older fighters because they were the top guys who attracted them to the sport initially, so they hold a place in their memories.

Some people glorify older fighters because they just learned about them and want to share everything they learned, because others may have not heard of that person, too.

Some people have specific memories with friends or family which are important to them that are linked with certain events.

Sometimes a specific era itself is just more interesting than the current era.

Sometimes it's more fun just to know how things turned out ... as opposed to watching active fighters and knowing you're going to have to wait years to find out who was actually great and who wasn't. Because your opinions will change as they win and lose.

It usually isn't that the fighters were actually better, though. It's more personal.

 

It's human nature. The heroes of the past don't have to be judged against their worse performances, we just look back and recall the highlights. The same thing happens in all sports.

That said, on the argument that we overrate them on the skill question... Years ago Boxing was a much bigger sport, relative to others. More people participated, more people watched and the sport attracted and retained the very best athletes. The HW Championship of the world was considered the richest prize in professional sport.

These days, Boxing is one amongst many. Top athletes are often drawn to other sports where the risk/reward ratio is more favourable. So whilst sports science has improved markedly, there's a tenable argument that standards have actually dropped, simply because guys aren't starting as early and sparring as hard as those legendary fighters did.

 

I'm only blind and obsessed about 1 fighter


Charlie Zelenoff

 

80's pre Tyson was really ****

 

Not idolize, however eras without obsession with 0 in record and machups with close in age and exp fighters looks more competitive.

I do not have only one, each division and decade does have my own fighters.
older era pro boxing: Moore and Dempsey.
Pro boxing HW : 60 ies : Ali.
Pro boxing HW : 70 ies : George Foreman, Holmes and Norton.
Pro boxing HW : 80 ies : Mike Tyson.

 

Every generation thinks they invented the blowjob.

 

Would you say the General Forum is biased towards/obsessed with the older fighters?

 

It's natural. It's like why people learn about old footballers, or history in general. While your waiting for what's coming next, why not look at what happened before?

Also, just given that the past is obviously more bountiful the present (since what are the chances that all of the best talent in history happened at the exact same time, and that time happened to be right now), people wanna go back and look.

Me? I'm just a massive ****ing Nerd.

 

You don't know the era until its over. Maybe Spence and Crawford are about to fight a trilogy for all time, with Porter and Ugas in the middle, Pac going out in a blaze of glory, and Ennis nipping on their heels, or maybe they will both take ugly losses in the next year then wander off.

Both have happened in history.

 

Hagler`s era was better than today`s era, a lot fighters were faster back then, boxing in the modern game is mostly very poor but improving, Ali was very good but had bad fundamentals, people overlook that because of the impact Ali had back in simpler times, modern fighters lack charm and aren`t mysterious like Ali and Frazier were. Liston was very good, Foreman was overrated but looked like a monster v smaller heavies, Louis was very good, Pep was very good at exploiting poor offensive skills, Dempsey was was the first fighter to fight earning a million dollar gate, again adding an aura to him, kind of like Like Taylor being the first movie star to earn a million dollars for one movie, that was huge news back in the 60`s, celebrity just isn`t treated the same.

 

Because boxing was deeper back in those days. A fighter really had to fight through the ranks to get a shot. Nowadays fighters are far too protected by promoters so they can squeeze every dime out of undefeated records.

 

It goes both ways.

 

Deontay Wilder?