Why people romanticize past fighters over present fighters

I've studied not just watched, the sport for well over 50 yrs now.
I've been in the ring swapping punches with bad intentions, and
assisted in training young fighters with some old school boxing
trainers from my local area.
The problem I see with modern boxing, or the sport, in the last 20 yrs or so is the lack of repetitive training.
In order to have the timing, and intuition old school
boxing had one must be in the ring, sparring or fighting
consistently.
There's simply no comparison between boxers who were fighting
sometimes twice a month , to someone who may fight twice a
year.
The razor sharpness , the ability to combo punch intuitively ,
not robotically ( Prime example is the recent Crawford vs Alvarez
fight, Crawford used the same four punch combo through out
the fight robotically, rarely did he adjust mid combo, if Alvarez
blocked it, or get hit by it, same pattern of punches, Canelo
rarely made him pay for it)
It's also why there's a certain sameness in boxing today.
Everyone seems to fight at the same pace, same distance
whether south paw or conventional .
One doesn't see the classic counter punchers, the defensive
or offensive specialist from past era's in today's game.
Because they don't or can't put in the time required to find that
certain physicality they have that could give them an advantage
over an opponent.
Think about the many hours, days, month's and finally years
a Joe Frazier, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Whitaker, Ali, Benitez,
Jones Jr, Marciano, etc had to put in to discover and develop what they
could do that could give them an advantage.
Example , Frazier and Marciano had relative short arms for heavyweights.
And weren't physically dynamic, like Jones Jr, Whitaker, or Ali,
In today's game with all the safety concerns , they couldn't
develop a left hook that could counter a jab consistently
or the knowledge to hit an opponent on the hips, arms,
shoulders, etc , to break an opponent down that had a stylistic
or physical advantage.
Another proof of this is the relative longevity we see in world class
boxers in todays game.
In prior era's it was very rare to see boxers fighting successfully past
the age of thirty. Most Atg's were considered washed up by thirty-five.
prior to the 2000's.
But now boxers are fighting well into their late thirties.
Usyk ,Crawford, Pac, May Jr, Fury, Wilder, Loma etc
all fighting successfully in their late 30's.
Is it because of "modern" training, better foods, and "supplementation'
or because they simply don't put their bodies through the constant wear and tear of
repetitive training and taking punishment of past times.
Regardless of what some may think, humans haven't evolved to suddenly
become a better boxer at a later age.
What's happening is they are not damaging there bodies as regularly
as fighters from past era's. So they have longer career's.
For safety concerns, boxing isn't as hard as it used to be.
Rightfully so for the sport to continue to exist.
But the fighters, especially the top tier guys are not on the same
level as fighters from the past.
So in my opinion, it's not romanticizing at all, just the preponderances of
the evidence.

 

Could be: why people romanticize present fighters over past fighters. I'm pretty sure people today had Joe Joyce beating any heavyweight from the past.

 

And the changes in weigh ins. On the under card of Floyd v Pac, Leo Santa Cruz got into the ring at 144 and they called him a full fledged featherweight. So we are going to have a mythical match up between Santa Cruz and Little Red Lopez, who was a same day weigh in featherweight. We should be matching Santa Cruz with Carlos Palomino.
The day before weigh in destroyed boxing. Teaching skill and training skill has taken a backseat to the size advantage. In just about every fight one guy is much larger than the other. And the fanboys will say 'but he made weight'...40 hour before the fight. Because they stack the deck like that. Devin Haney, for example, would weigh in at 4am the morning before the fight- roughly 42 hours before the fight- and just show up at the scheduled weigh in.
You can make the argument that it is safer for fighters to weigh in the day before but that indicates that you do not know what you are talking about. Fighters, like wrestlers, have always cut weight to gain an advantage or to fight in a weight class that has more money in it. It wasn't healthy then to dry out. Today...explain to me how it is healthy for a guy to weigh 160- and in shape, sparring 10 rounds per day- on Friday the 13th, then make weight at 135 on Friday the 20th, fight at 156 on the 21st, and be back at 160 on the 22nd?

 

Yeah I got lost on that terminology, too.

 

what if i've never had a gf

 

Both types of people are idiots and usually don't even watch fights from the era they despise or only watch highlights of the fighters losing/struggling to reinforce their agenda.

 

It's a cliche, but this much is true. Few fighters today have that killer instinct and a willingness to die on their shield craving victory more than air.

Pacquiao was a dog. Crawford has that dog in him, as did Spence who went down fighting despite being outclassed in their match. Usyk might, but we haven't seen him pushed hard enough to see it. The reason legends of the past like Michael Jordan, Fedor, etc get immortalized is because we appreciate the gung ho effort they make to win showing just how passionate they are about their sport.

It doesn't matter if it's a new fan or an old fan, hardcore or casual, if they see something despicable like Victor Ortiz just straight up quitting in the middle of a thrilling battle, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. They're supposed to be gladiators and they're getting paid millions. Dammit, you better go out there and fight till the end. And if you don't have that inclination, you're in the wrong profession.

 

Agenda has to be one of the most said words on this forum… not isolated to this thread, just a thought lol.

 

Don’t you mean their moustaches? Per that metric, John L is the GOAT.

 

Look at Riddick Bowe. Among the sports HW greats hes the "unfulfilled potential" guy. The guy who had a chance against anyone "but" he just didn't do enough.

Riddick Bowe is 43-1 with 33 knockouts. Scouring through boxrec there are TWO HWs in the top 250 with more wins. Wilder who just got 44 and Oliver McCall. Wilder is known for padding his resume. McCall is known for being 15 years older then the guy who gets memed on for being old.

The current HW champ is a 24-0 38 year old the current LHW champ is a 24-1 34 year old.

2025 isn't really a golden era at any weight class but at the smaller weight classes most fans consider the recent eras to be better. Because they actually were better. We aren't rating modern fighters low at HW because "get off my lawn". HWs are being rated low because this era has been a dysfunctional mess.

I can't speak for anyone else Wlad is the only 21st century guy I rate highly all time. At least based on their resume. Everyone else? What have they done to be considered better than top 10 guys in the 70s? Contrary to popular belief being 6'5 or 6'6 is not an accomplishment.

 

Could be the hyper sensitive and protective nature of fans.

"No more Tunney people are upholding racist propaganda when you come back. Another forum for that now."


A reason

 

Hi Buddy.
You make a valid point re: PEDs, in the late 60s and 70s I was an avid follower of boxing, unlike today, the thought of boxers taking drugs was unheard of, well to me it was, and the strange thing was, there was plenty of drugs around in them days believe me, so when you assess what the likes of Frazier and Ali and their contemporaries did, it puts clear blue water between them and the fighters of today, and recent years, in fact you cannot put any HW name up against these two imo.
stay safe scart, chat soon buddy.
Mike.

 

very few have an agenda and very few are actually doing what the thread title suggests...

people are Rating on Records, REPORTS and Consensus

then & now,
hype, minus the hype,
film if we're lucky enough to see 'Properly' filmed & preserved old footage,
film of opponents where film doesn't exist
cross record checking, opponents too
longievity at Top level,
Wins and Loses too

opportunity against opponents,
robberies and/or questioned fights & decisions
multiple books, newspaper reports, inside knowledge (which has to have some documentation to vallidate...

I mean these are the things that 'proper' researchers, serious fans and historians do... and Should Do.

very few are romanticizing, some Era's are just better than others, making for a better stock of fighters.

and that's it!

 

let me say that differently.

Humanities and academia are secondary to getting along and not hurting anyone's feelings so badly they in response report you in droves.


It is protection against a dissenting opinion ran by trolls with alts to make numbers to manipulate a group of otherwise uninterested individuals.


I was not banned for having an original opinion. I was not banned for having a controversial opinion. I was not banned because I lacked academia or spread lies. I was banned because I made my point well and if you can't win a war of words you can look to control the narrative in which it is discussed through authority. Like a little worm. Or a troll with alts, a strong opinion, and little else to them.



Did I pick on Gene or have I consistently went after all colorline characters? Oh but Gene got me banned though. So in the future will I drop all colorline talk or just stop pissing off the very whiny Gene Tunney fans and their leaky vaginas? Probably the latter right? Colorline is the bigger fish and if I really believe the champions of an unfair era to not equal the champions of a fair era then I'll likely keep saying something to the effect but no so on the nose as to rile the mob and be silenced by the Gene Tunney fan who are definitely not super emotional racists. You know they are not because a mod banned me and told me so.