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

Boxing is actually a sport that relies massively on athleticism, much more then most other popular sports, technique is even secondary.
Thats the reason why you have countless fighters that start off boxing at a very late age like even their early tweenties, yet they can beat fighters that boxed since they were kids.
Those kind of storys are literally unheard of in other sports such as basketball or soccer.

 

Stopped reading at "Spence being equals with Hagler"

Yeah Hagler being top 3 ATG Middleweight of all time, is certainly equal with Errol Spence who's best win is over Shawn Porter "Face Palm"

I already totally debunked all your points in your last ridiculous thread, which you didn't reply to of course.

Like what is the point of your threads ? Just to make the most ridiculous outlandish opinions for attention ?

 

I think the nostalgia stems from the idea that the other major sports evolved and improved while boxing did not

In the old days you had less champs, less weights, guys fought more, belts were harder to come by, contenders actually had to fight

I think elements of that have faded and it has diluted the current state of boxing to a degree. I do feel there are great fighters now who would compete with anyone who ever lived.

There are NFL & NBA fans who feel the two sports have "gone soft" and the best today couldn't hang with the recent greats operating under the rules and conditions of then. I think that attitude seeps in with boxing as well and the sport has changed a lot from some of the more brutal aspects of the sport that existed decades ago.

I do feel that in some ways other sports have more measurable indicators of improvement through analytics baseball and basketball have changed a lot, in the NFL players are bigger, faster, stronger and these indicators do not apply so easily to boxing

I'm a fan who loves classic boxing but is still excited about active fighters and upcoming fights

 

Problem with Spence and Crawford is they have the personality of a Dodo hole.Doesnt attract the heart and minds of the viewing public.Unlike Hagler, Hearns or Leonards.Who created a buzz and waves in boxing.True or false?

 

PEDS are obviously hugely beneficial. But I can’t agree with the other posters who are citing PEDS as the sole reason that the 80’s and 90’s guys were so great, and so great technically.

 

I dont think its nostalgia, most fighters today are soft so people just call it as they see it

 

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

...because a good punch in the face or body was still a good punch in the face or body in any era...

 

Exactly.

Because of styles.

And that was the exact point that I made to you first.


You have laughed at the notion that Ali could have beaten Fury, as he lost to Frazier.

Yet you have Mayweather beating Hearns, Robinson and Leonard etc, despite the fact that he barely beat a crude Marcos Maidana.

 

Again, it works both ways.

Spence hasn’t fought anybody on the level of the Fab Four.

 

I like Shakur. We still need to see him tested against some top quality opposition. It’s way too early to be thinking about fantasy fights against ATGs. But yes, on the eye test, he looks to have a style that would have been problematic to them.

 

I said that I know that you often like to be play devils advocate and be argumentative.

As in - I’ve seen you debate many other topics in that manner.

 

Of course it relies on athleticism.

It’s far more skilled based than many other sports though.

There’s also many different levels to the sport.

How the 2 guys match up stylistically on the night is also absolutely vital.


It’s you who can’t even conceive that fighters of the past were superior, even though there’s a number of divisions today which don’t contain fighters as good as what they did decades ago.

It’s inconceivable to you, because you have been brainwashed into thinking that everything modern is superior, where you then try to claim evidence from sports that are races which are timed in milliseconds.

It’s absurd.

It’s also absurd that you believe that in 20-30 years time, that the fighters then will all be better than what they are currently.

 

Exactly.

He doesn’t even respond to what you’ve written.

He doesn’t even want a legitimate debate.

 

To be fair, Hagler doesn't have that many great wins vs natural middleweights. You can say Hearns wasn't undersized, which is true, but Hearns was pretty poor vs the top level at MW. He went 3-2 at MW, but went 1-2 in title fights. The guy he beat for the title, Roldan, was definitely no slouch, but definitely wasn't elite. The one reason I'm willing to say it was still a pretty great win is that Hearns went on to beat Virgil Hill up at LHW.