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

So you have Shakur, Pence and Crawford in the top 50 pnd for pnd in history.You outta your mind.It dont matter what era.Being considered one of the greatest is earn out right.You cant just earn it cuz you’re in a modern era of today boxing.Those guys have punched to be part of that prestigious illustrious list.Being a total package, exciting, have charisma a catchy story line, aura.Whatever it might be on top of that the credential.Longesr world champ, 8 division world camp, consistency, most of all memorable HISTORIC fights and so on.Leonard had the x factor and do many greats have it.Spence and crawford don’t have those innate trait.Being boring in and out the ring.You gotta entertain and put the world on stand still.All eyes on you. Ali, liston and these greats did etc.

 

OK... can you give me some examples?

 

I’m not going to do any digging.

It’s just something that I’ve noticed when we’ve debated over the years.

It doesn’t make any difference to me.

I just thought that you were acting in the same manner in this thread.

 

But Spence's best win is Shawn Porter.... Where as Duran, Hearns, are ATG's. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to compare Spence to Hagler. And no surprise that the OP would do that given his posting history.....

 

Lol absolutely not, i dont think that modern means superior, especially in thinks like movies, music we saw a steady decline in the last years, in boxing not so. More international talent then ever plus better athleticism.
Except it, name me one nba player that started playing at age 21 or one single tennis player. We have got countless of these people in boxing, because skill is not nearly as important in this sport then athleticism

 

I’ve debated you numerous times.

I can remember everything that you’ve ever said to me.

Your opening post on this thread rubbishes the notion that the guys of the past could be better.

You’ve got some sort of weird obsession with athleticism.

But what you don’t realise, is that due to their circumstances, there were many fighters of the past who were superior athletes to many guys of today.

They had better stamina and were better conditioned throughout the year. But you can’t except that because you are fixated on comparing data from races etc.

Now you have no proof that today’s guys are athletically superior to their predecessors. That’s just an assumption on your part. But even if it was an irrefutable fact which nobody could ever dispute, it still wouldn’t mean that all today’s guys were better in terms of skills/ability.

You also believe that the sport continuously progresses. Yet if you’d be watching for as long as I have, then you’d know for sure that it absolutely doesn’t.

Again, there’s many fighters of the past who were superior to many of today’s guys.

Again, there’s many divisions today what are significantly weaker with lesser fighters than from several decades ago.

You are an ignorant fan who is obsessed by modern athleticism, where you’ll label people as being biased and nostalgic if they don’t agree with you.

You’ve got a lot to learn.

 

No, basketball players and tennis players don’t start playing at that age.

Yes, we have boxers who have started very late. But they very rarely reach the highest level.

Skills will always be more important than athleticism in order to get to the highest level in boxing.

Skills and style are the most important factors.

It takes years to hone your craft to get to a certain level.


Let’s just run with your logic for a moment though.

Let’s say that every fighter today is a better athlete than those who came before.

Then what?


That means they’re more skilled, and they’d beat everyone from the past?


None of what you say makes any sense.

 

Yes, we can say that todays boxers are better athletes. Most fighters are more ripped ans muscular plus the punchoutput is higher and the punches are more rapid, you can literally see that. The HW on top got massively taller and heavier and have decent mobility even at over 6’6 height, thats all you got to know

 

No, athleticism is more important, the very crafty guys are just also very athletic. Look at floyd, WK, RJJ or Canelo they are all build like tanks. Athleticism is literally the basis of this sport.

 

also late starters in boxing that operate at the highest level are not rarely at all.
Small list: Marciano, martinez, joyce, AJ, tarver, hopkins, holmes, liston, norton, mercer, qawi. Thats a lot. Its impossible to start tennis or football at age 20 and still be a legend in the sport, why? Cause the sport doesnt relay as much on technique and skill as other sports but on pure athleticism, psychology and toughness's.
We have seen countless instances were hightech fighters got destroyed by pure violence and determination. A gut like froch literally breaks every rule that classical boxing teaches, yet he is able to compete at top level because of brute force and conditioning

 

Ha!

WTF?

You have no knowledge of the guys of the past.

The guys who fought frequently, in 15 round fights, where they were conditioned all throughout the year.

More muscles?

Ripped?

What do you mean that you can literally see it?

Compared to what?

What specifically are you referring to?

The punches are more rapid?

Ha!

 

No, it isn’t. Not at the highest level.

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

 

What are you talking about?

Many of those had been boxing from a young age.

Tarver turned pro late, but he’d been boxing as a young kid.

He fought Roy Jones in the am’s when they were both about 13 years of age.


You said someone starting out at the first time at 21.


What you’re referring to with Froch, is based upon styles. But Froch was still a world level fighter. Again, there’s many levels to the sport.


Look, your whole belief system of modern athletes being superior is based upon sprinting times, which relies more on athleticism than skills.


Let’s put that to one side for a second.


Please answer these simple questions:


1. Why can’t fighters of the past be superior to SOME of today’s guys?

2. Why wouldn’t it be possible for an older fighter to beat a modern fighter?

 

Because boxing was much better in those days. Lots of free fights, lots of good guys fighting good guys, less corruption (maybe). Boxing was a mainstream sport not a sideshow loot it is today. I feel sorry for people who missed those days.

 

All of these guys who think that the sport has progressed are wrong.

It’s actually regressed.