Do past fighters get overrated because of nostalgia.

Who's to say they couldn't? What Usyk did to AJ means jack**** to me. Posters here don't seem to understand the difference between 'Would" and "Could". Everyone so freakin committed to absolutes, even in hypotheticals which will never be proven absolute. "Blank WOULD do this....","Blank WOULD DO that....."

 

Make it pre-60s then it would be correct.

Louis and Marciano are not in the same league as Usyk, skillwise. They are very much inferior. If "experts" and "fans" cannot see that then either they are actually blind or their nostalgia is blinding them.

 

Marciano trains 27 hours a day, so I'm backing him.

Louis has concrete feet. It would look like the Bellew KO.

 

Clearly.

 

The very best are also insane athletes. Let's not act like it's pure skill, because it isn't.

AJ is a decent boxer, but a specimen. He's done unbelievably well, but most think he's unskilled.

Usyk has an absolutely unworldly gas tank.

 

Athletes are just those who participate in sports, who's trained or skilled. That's not always natural. Athleticism is more the natural abilities, with higher levels of coordination and fluidity in movements.

Body builders, golfer, a lot of pro positions in sports....obviously athletes. Doesn't make them highly athletic. I know it sounds crazy... but that's just my 2 cents.

 

Even if that were true, so what? The most skilled guy always wins, yeah??

 

I think the reason is because we know what the old timer has accomplished. More times than not, the ATG has a better resume than a still active fighter. Also take into consideration, to get a belt, the old timer had be be the best or very close. 1 belt 1 champ, no guessing who the man is.

 

It doesn't? Ok.

 

No, it doesn't. If you don't understand what I wrote, or can't see that some muscle bound palooka isn't necessarily an specimen of athleticism, feel free to research. Pretty sure I gave a decent account above on 'athlete v athleticism'

 

Two points:

1. Go and educate yourself of all of the great fighters of the sport that existed pre-1960.

2. Styles make fights.


Regarding point 1, out of a huge number of great fighters that existed pre-60, the most obvious one is SRR.

If you don’t think that he could even have competed today in his respective weight classes, I can’t help you.

Even if we allow for same day weigh-ins, his fighting prime would see him fighting at LWW today, with the MW versions of him fighting against today’s JMW’s.


Here’s some friendly advice for you:

Don’t ever dismiss something that you’re not familiar with.

It’s ignorant.

Just as ignorant as some of the people from your examples.

Robinson, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore could all have competed today.


Regarding point 2, I’d have to read the comments in question.

If Marciano and Louis were chosen just based on nostalgia bias with no real thought behind it, then yes, that was extremely ignorant.

However, if they were well thought out with a hypothetical break down, then there’s nothing wrong with them.

Regarding their skill sets, yes, Usyk has by far superior skills than what Marciano had.

However, as we’ve seen many times throughout the history of the sport, the most gifted opponent don’t always win.

The old adage of ‘styles make fights’ is as true today as when it was first spoken.

Fights are won depending on who’s style can come out on top on any given night.


Marciano was a relentless pressure fighter who could break down better skilled fighters.

Louis was great technically, with great power and ruthless finishing ability.


Usyk is a great fighter. One of my favourites today. But nobody is unbeatable and every fighter has a stylistic nemesis.

 

You have liked a post which has said:

“No pre-60’s fighter could even compete with the guys of today”

Do you really believe that?

 

So why aren't Golfers athletic?

 

Of course some could. But to think they would utterly dominate is preposterous.