Are the past Eras overrated or the new generation just not that good?

The tribe - my cultural point. There’s a book about this - the Goldmine Effect. I’ve explained how the internet expands knowledge exponentially and connects cultures together to expand them.

You can’t measure a dance, that’s exactly my point. As you point out, it’s a qualitative judgement. You can only move with the dance partner you have, that’s why the connected world has many more dancers and results in a far faster evolution of skills. For our qualitative judgment, compare Usyk to Ali. Can you seriously say with a straight face that Ali is even on the same planet?

 

Determination is more irrelevant than ever before. Fighters know how to train now, and fights are shorter. That rewards and encourages skill. 15 rounds encouraged toughness and determination, another reason why old timers were poor boxers and very often simply tough sluggers.

 

well, i disagree. i can look at a couple of dancers and tell you which one is better. i can do the same in boxing, more often than not. i do it regularly.

 

The easier question is who have they fought other than each other?
I pointed out that the guys from the 70's and 90's did on the whole fight each other and also said that didn't necessarily make them better but that context is there. I don't understand why you think I'm defending one and not the other when my post was clear that it's not that clear cut.

 

Vargas wasn't a big name? It wasn't even on HBO World Boxing, but BAD

 

Complete nonsense.....boxing is very much about the mental aspect. determination and will are both clearly very important when it comes to two men fighting in the ring. Saying otherwise is laughable. It's also wrong to assume the reward correlates with skill it clearly doesn't at all and is down to an individuals attributes and aptitudes.

 

I appreciate that man haha. I’m all about the passionate outburst life, that’s what makes a forum a fun place and gives a fight a greater personal investment.

 

Do you mean guys like Ortiz and Parker? How are they any worse than the second tier guys of the 70s and 90s? I think those guys would be champs in those earlier eras.

 

That wasn't the point I was making...
The point was that both haven't fought the other top guys which is clearly true. I notice you didn't mention Joshua or Usyk I wonder why?

 

No, he was a new champ at the time. The Wright win didn’t elevate him, the Quartey fight put his name up and then there was the Trinidad fight. You’re talking as if the Wright fight was a super fight of some sort.

 

No, as I pointed out it’s not as difficult to be conditioned for twelve rounds (because it’s twelve rounds and now boxing coaches focus on boxing instead of trying to be conditioning coaches as well). That rewards skills, I’m not saying there is a reward. I’m saying skills have utility and are fostered to a greater extent because the determination aspect is less important. What wins a fight? The more skilled fighter. When it was 15 rounds it was sometimes simply about who could absorb the most punishment and remain standing at the end. Do you understand? This very clearly follows.

 

I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. Who hasn’t fought who? It’s no different than any other era, careers don’t perfectly align. I’ve already mentioned Joshua and Usyk multiple times, watching their fight is the perfect example of far boxing has come since Ali-Frazier.

Weren’t you talking about Fury and Wilder? Two top guys who fought each other multiple times? This is why I’m really struggling to understand what your point is.

 

That'd cool. Who is the elite though?

 

Can you honestly say that Fury, Usyk, Briedis, Beterbiev, Bivol, Canelo, Crawford, Spence, Lomachenko, Shakur, Inoue, Chocalatito, Bam Bam etc. wouldn’t absolutely toy with and annihilate any other era of boxing?