Why is it everytime someone thinks an old time heavy was good they are accused of having "an agenda"

I've noticed that in a lot of cases, when someone says that a 1950's or prior heavyweight was good or very good, they get accused of having an agenda or some ulterior motive. If I said that young Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield were good, no one would accuse me of having an agenda. But if it's Buddy Baer or someone then accusations of agendas get thrown around. I don't get it.

 

Unfortunately the more rabid fanboys ruin it for everyone else.

 

The supporters of modern fighters, are the most ideologically driven faction out there. They accuse anybody who dissents from their dogma, of basically being everything that they are!

 

Funny this should come from an agenda driven troll like you.

 

Good pot stirring thread this one

 

How is Janitor a troll?

He has provided a lot of great information and thought experiments for this forum for the many years he has been here. Just because he has opinions you don't like doesn't mean you can criticise him that way.

I'd suggest a little more respect.

 

Janitor is very knowledgeable. But do you think, he HONESTLY believes that Corbett beats Tua or that Tommy Burns would beat Wilder? Of course he doesn't - he's just saying that to create some controversy, where there really shouldn't be any.

 

He could well believe they might.

Janitor is predictable in his support of old timers and always looks on the bright side for them but he at least attempts to find reasoning while never resorting to insults and downright obnoxiousness etc. He's an absolute gentleman compared to most of us in here lets be honest

We need all ends of the spectrum covered and even Janitor would likely admit he leans noticeably to one side with a fair few leaps of faith.

BTW i think you do a very good job promoting the current side of things too.

 

I do agree those are crazy picks (if he said that explicitly).

I just dont think he should be lambasted for this when other frequent posters 'stir the pot' regularly, in much worse ways, and they haven't contributed what Janitor has to the forum.

 

Totally agreed.

Just to put it out there I don't want to look to be aggressive or petulant @Bukkake. I just think calling Janitor a troll is wrong, and not a good way of looking at it.

 

You're right, it may seem a bit harsh - I just think his considerable talents could be used in a better way, than arguing some of the crazy points he's pretending to believe in.

 

Yes he's no troll.

 

Back to the original question, sometimes people do have agendas.

 

I think it just depends on exactly how far someone is willing to go to make a case and how honest they are in their efforts. In fact I believe there are just as many if not more people who will pick a fighter from a later period to beat another from a previous one. I’ve seen arguments favoring Tony Tucker over all time greats on the basis that he was born post World War II

 

I can't see where suspicions of an "agenda" come into it, as far as supporting a fighter from a previous era is concerned.

Though, fandom in its various forms, does seem to drive most of the poor argumentation - and, this applies to both the Classicist and the Modernist arguments.