Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

Styles, Einstein.

 

Name ANY fighter that Spence has fought that even compares to Hagler.

I’ll wait.

 

Floyd Mayweather struggled against Marcos Maidana, yet you believe that Floyd would have beaten Hearns, Leonard and Robinson.

 

You ALWAYS favour the modern fighter in fantasy match ups.

And when you are asked to back up your opinion, you think of Usain Bolt etc, instead of the stylistic match ups.


Why would you even think about starting a debate, if you have no intention of debating with anyone?

People have responded to your thread, yet you won’t even do them the courtesy of replying.


You are a fool.

You don’t even deserve us debating with you.


You are either a troll, or a completely ignorant casual fan.

 

I notice the idea that "peds don't create a huge difference" is being put out there. In my eyes, boxing is a matchup of inches & angles, with fractions of an inch often being the difference between victory or getting viciously KO'd. The minute, subtle movements that are so hard to see, are often the only dividing factor in a closely-contested fight.

Peds certainly allow for more efficient gym time and taking them can result in a sharper fighter. It is impossible to say that they don't give a fighter some kind of edge.

Look at a fighter I love, the great Evander Holyfield. From what I know of these things (which is very little), Evander worked like a madman in the gym, maximizing the potential effect. I suppose there are many others who use peds, but they either aren't dedicated enough in training, or they just don't have the talent to rise to the top.

Anyway, I tend to favor the fighters from bygone eras, simply because they were much better than the fighters fighting today, on average. I've been watching boxing for 50 years and I've never seen such mediocrity in my life. I must say that I have about as an agenda-less point of view as possible, except when it comes to hometown fighters, who I support without fail regardless of who they're fighting .

It's not the fighters fault, I put all the blame on the "organizations"

 

Hearns lost to Iran Barkley. Your point?

 

As of right now, no one. That doesn't change the fect that he never faced an opponent as good as Spence.

 

So "stylistically" we can agree that there is a pretty good chance that Shakur beats Duran and Manny?

 

Didn't read. However, I do get the jist of what you're saying. Football/soccer is way worse, Nostalgia wise.

 

****ing muppet!

 

Right... so please tell me, where it is I have been argumentative, with the purpose of stirring up some debate?

 

There are also a bunch of pretentious sports writers in Murica who want to be fiction writers and love generating trash mythology about all these old fighters. That's why we get these movies now too.

 

Read what I said again. We have an undisputed champion at 135 and we still don’t know who’s the best because guys aren’t fighting enough and against each other. Fighters in the past were proven commodities while today there’s still questions. How do we know if Fury can beat AJ or Usyk. How do we know if Usyk can beat Wilder or Fury. Wilder against AJ or Usyk. We don’t.

There was no question Ali was the best HW of his era because he beat Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Norton, Foreman etc.. there was no question that Ray Leonard was the best of his era because he beat Duran, Hearns, and Benitez. People tend to choose the older fighters because they were pretty much proven commodities in comparison to today.

 

There are millions of people who feel that the Jordan era B ball players are better than most of todays players. That's just the way it is. However, saying that Ali didn't fight anybody as good or better than Fury or Usyk is blasphemous and a total insult to people who know boxing.

 

The only other major sport I have interest in besides boxing is American football/NFL, so that will be my base of comparison.
Commercially boxing has declined a lot. In football you are guaranteed multiple high level, high thrilling games each year, including the super bowl. In boxing the making of high profile fights rest in the hands of greedy & corrupt promoters. The Peyton Manning led colts played the Tom Brady led Patriots almost every year, it took Pac & Floyd about 7 years to face eachother, and they only fought once.
In the older days, the top fighters fought eachother more frequently, I think this is part of the reasoning they are viewed in higher regard, also in H2H terms.

Another thing is that boxing is very skill based, but still quite simple. I am no expert on boxing specific training, but looking at the tape, there isn't a radically different approach to boxing in the past compared to today, it is a matter of perfecting the already established art.
If we take the NFL in the 90s, it was far more based on heavy run formations, compared to today's spread & air raid offenses. All things being equal, an NFL defense from the 90s wouldn't be able to match-up to a current NFL offense from a schematical point of view.

And in relation to the above, athletism matters more in football, which makes modern training, nutrition and *ahem* enhancements more impactful. A 6"3" 220 lbs pound guy with average skills in the pros would likely lose to an elite middleweight.
But a 6"2" 250 lbs OL would have major problems with a 6"5" 300 lbs DL, even if the former had elite skills & the latter average skills.