Do past fighters get overrated because of nostalgia.

Jesus...With the reached you make, you could dunk a basketball lying on your back. If you need to rephrase anything I say, or twist it, you have no real point or retort.

And IF you were being honest, you'd see that I said if 15 rounders were the norm today, they'd be training for them.

 

It's the opposite. Modern fighters get overrated because of some misguided belief in progress.

Also too many people don't consider the dynamic fluidity of an active career. AJ was the next goat, then he was the next journeyman.

People don't like to hear it, but patience is required in these kind of things.

IBHOF has it right, 5 years after retirement, make a judgement.

 

They'd have no choice but to as it'd be their job.

Just gets boring listening to the nostalgia.

 

You're right - it certainly goes both ways.

By the way, have you noticed the different language often used, when making a point in the "old vs new" debate? Those who don't vote for the old-timers usually claim that boxers simply weren't that good "back in the day" - and just leave it at that.

But if someone believes a present day, highly thought of, boxer is overrated, and needs to be taken down a peg or two - the explanation for this often contains over-the-top attacks on said boxer's character. You know, stuff like coward, fraud, bum, shitting your pants, etc... things you'd never bring up when talking about the old-timers. I wonder why this is so?

 

Agreed.

 

I would say that they were fitter, yes.

Not because they were superior athletes, but because they’re circumstances were very different.

They stayed in shape more due to the vast number of fights that most of them had.

Many of them literally fought every month.

So many of them were always in shape.

They obviously weren’t always fully fit, due to injuries etc, but they were well conditioned and on point with their weight.

Today, most fighters fight 3-4 times per year.

So most fighters have to lose weight in camps.

Regarding the HW’s, many of them would struggle to do the 15 rounds today. Some of them struggle well before the 12th round.

 

Sure, you can always come up with examples of untrained boxers today, who look like they would be struggling with 15 rounds.

But, on the other hand, we also see seriously well conditioned boxers, who can go round after round at a torrid pace.

I find it hard to believe, that boxers from, say, 100 years ago (during the 1920s ND era, where we find a lot of those 100+ fight careers) were (generally speaking) in better shape than today's fighters. With what we now know about the body, and how to best get people into shape, most of today's top boxers are likely trained to the absolute max. for a big fight.

 

I’m not comparing a 100% fully fit and trained fighter of yesteryear, to a 100% fully fit and trained fighter of today.

I’m not talking about if they were side by side, where you could perform numerous athletic tests on them.

I’m simply saying that due to their environment and their circumstances, the fighters of yesteryear were generally more fitter than guys of today, as in - all year round/the majority of the time.

That’s all I’m saying.

Many fighters back then walked around at only a few pounds over their fighting weight. Not all of them. But many of them. Because many of them fought hundreds of fights where they were having 20 fights per year. They were fighting every 1-2 months. They were in shape practically all year round due to their high level of activity.

Ray Robinson and Jake La Motta had one of their rematches just 3 weeks after their previous fight.

Most of today’s fighters only fight 3 times per year.

So the average fighter today would have to get into serious shape to be on the level of some of those older fighters.

Again, I’m not saying that the old guys were athletically superior to today’s guys.

I’m just saying that the older generation were generally fitter all year round, where they had more discipline due to their circumstances.

In the time that it takes for some of today’s guys to get into top shape, the guys of yesteryear had fought 1-3 times during that same time period.

 

Sure, so you immediately take the opposite view due to it being 'nostalgia' it appears... That's genuine...

 

Past fighters overrated because nostalgia? Yes. Current fighters overrated because recency bias? Yes, moreso.

 

If you are active and fighting more often, you will be in generally better shape. Simple physiology. We're luck y if a HW contenders fights twice a year. We obviously have guys who are very fit. But when it comes down to training, going in to lose weight takes away from proper training for your opponents, IMHO of course.

 

In some cases, yes. I try my darndest not to do that.

I rank Muhammad Ali as my number 1 all-time Heavyweight, Joe Louis as #2, Evander Holyfield as #3.

If I was just favoring boxers from my youth, my top three would look something like this: #1 Maybe Joe Louis? #2 Maybe Rocky Marciano? #3 Maybe Max Baer or Jersey Joe Walcott or Max Schmeling? In any event, there would be no Muhammad Ali or Evander Holyfield in my top 3.

 

What this thread shows is not all opinions are eqaul. If the focus is on old or new, w/o providing ANY sort of post w/ substance, then that opinion is garbage. But there are people posting legitimate reason for their preference on who might have been better. Sadly, most here seem to take nostalgia as something to be offended by.

 

I agree with this. a point I make a lot is the fact that general diets have got worse we only have to look at obesity rates in the West. yes better food is availible but as I stated the fact something exists does not mean everyone applies it.
I would assert that people in say the 1950's have a healthier diet than the majority of people today as it pre dates mass production and processing of foods. The main advantage today would be supplements. PEDS and more refined training methods.
It certainly isn't that clear cut but assuming one is better than the other without doing closer analysis.
Another thing I would argue for the old timers is the fact that not only do people cherry pick these days but the explosion in belts per weight. With a some Org's having three belts per weight division. so we have have four main Org's and a couple of minor ones like the IBO. So taking that into account let's say we have 10 total "World Chammpion" belts. are people going to claim there's now 10 x as many boxers participating or 5 x as many? I hear from many that defend that today is better camp explaining that more countries participate which is true but I would counter that the US that number has decreased over the last 4-5 decades as atheletes participate in other sports. I would need to do some research to back this assertion but I don't believe that to be the case.
In fact I willl do some digging and add to this thread with my findings.

 

Well it kinda does, 12 rounds used to be the distance for minor titles, USBA and such only world title fights were 15. I seriously doubt these days many fighters going 15 hard rounds especially at heavyweight.