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

Now you're just being purposely obtuse....other than fighting each other who have they fought who's elite?
Fury fought Vlad and that's it. I'm clearly pointing out that Wilder and Fury haven't fought either Usyk or Joshua or the guys just below them.
It's called context.

 

Flawed logic....

 

You could say the same for RJJ, Tyson, SRL, Duran etc.

 

Context. What was the span of years for Lewis to fight Tyson and Holyfield, and each other? You clearly have no concept of context.

We are going around in circles because you don’t know what point you want to make. As I’ve pointed out, the likes of Ortiz and Parker are around as second tier guys. They are every bit (and more) the fighters that Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield had around them. Other than fighting each other, who did they fight that was elite?

So what exactly are you complaining about? Usyk and Joshua haven’t fought Wilder and Fury yet? Then back to my earlier points, Lewis didn’t fight Tyson until almost a decade after his prime (remember you mentioning Fury and Wlad?), even Holyfield fought Tyson out of his prime, Bowe didn’t fight Tyson or Lewis at all. I’ve closed every loop of this circle and you still haven’t found a point to make.

That’s why I’m still confused. Are you trying to argue for no reason, or do you actually have a point you want to make? If the latter, try and be clear about what you want to say, and remember it is in the context of now vs then - so you have to apply the same standards. Your criticisms towards fighters now apply to earlier times and then some.

 

Vargas was a big HBO name and an Olympian. And it was a big fight and a big test for young Vargas. I can tell you didn't watch it. O caught it live on the edge of my couch

 

Cool, explain where the syllogism breaks down then. You’re not one of these people who use the word ‘logic’ while they have no idea what logic is, are you?

 

Stop. When they actually fight the top dogs then we can talk eras.

 

Yeah I’m sure a boxing fan enjoyed it. It wasn’t a notable fight though so I fail to understand the significance of it and why it is relevant to this topic in anyway.

 

How wasn't a notable fight?

 

I hate to break it to you, but Fury beats Tyson, Beterbiev beats Roy, Spence and Crawford beat SRL, and Lomachenko beats Duran. I’m sure that will seem ridiculous to you but that’s how reality is. You also combined multiple eras there, and everyone still loses. That should tell you something with some honest reflection.

 

We are talking about eras. How was that an era defining fight in anyway? It wasn’t even a major fight for it’s time. So that’s why I’m baffled at you even bringing it up. What do you want to say with that example?

 

It was a dangerous fight that would've taken years to get made today, or wouldn't have happened at all. How much longer are we going to wait for Crawford and Spence to actually fight, if they ever do? Neither are are big names yet they act like they deserve big name money.

 

Every sport has progressed over time. Some obvious examples that immediately come to my mind would be track and field and swimming in which we have definitive proof in the form of records that have gotten better and better over time. You could also look at any other sport that is in the form of a race (bobsled, cycling, speed skating, rowing, marathon, etc), or involves achieving a particular distance or height, etc. You can literally pick any of these sports and see that the records have always gotten better over time. Here are some examples:

Index of athletics record progressions - Wikipedia

Category:World record progressions in swimming - Wikipedia

Yes, it is harder to quantify progress in a sport like boxing where it is people against people, rather than people against a timer or a measure of distance. But why you would argue that progress only exists in one or two areas of athletics and not in any other, doesn't make any sense. The progression of nutrition, exercise science, and sports medicine is universal and has resulted in more talented athletes in every sport. Boxing has not shunned advancements in nutrition, exercise science, and sports medicine. It has participated just as every other sport has in advancing the sport and its athletes. (Not to mention the advancements in medical care that boxers receive post-fight.)

Also don't forget the fact that the human population has only increased over time and it will continue to do so for awhile. The world's population in 1800 was around 1 billion, and today the population is around 8 billion. What does this mean? A larger pool of potential boxing talent. There's literally 8 times as many people on the planet than there was 200 years ago. Combined that with the fact that the number of boxing gyms goes up over time as well. (here's a 10 year graph in the US Boxing Gyms & Clubs in the US - Number of Businesses | IBISWorld ) and there you go, more people over time + more boxing clubs over time + evolution of exercise science and sports medicine = more boxers and greater talent.

 

Leave us cancers alone

 

Are you really this dense or just argumentative because you think you know better. deflection onto me does not then validate your fallacy.
You daft twat...