Classic does mean classic, doesn't it? Many of the more modern fighters have yet to be properly evaluated and I can't see them cluttering up a classic section of the forum. So, in what decade should this section be cut off? I'd say nothing past the 1980s..
So being a retired boxer automatically makes them a classic boxer? Adds a bit of weight to the poll I'd say
I'd agree with anyone retired or who definitely has their best behind them. Not that it will ever be capped.
But just being retired doesn't make them a classic boxer, JT. Nor does having the best behind them. There are a lot of boxers who retire, or have the best behind them, that aren't classic (GREAT) boxers.
A boxer doesn't have to be great to be "classic", nor indeed of great interest. Classic does not = great. One of the greater enjoyments of this forum is forgotten boxers who may or may not have reached "great" being explored and appreciated. Why should we stop talking about a great like Bernard Hopkins, or RJJ just becuase they fight past the 80's? What are we to do, raise the restriction up one year for each year we go forward? We are allowed to talk about 1990 in 2008, and 1991 in 2009 etc? I for one see it as silly confining things to the 80's and prior. Some of the best debate comes when matching present day boxers with past.
You're, of course, correct. This wasn't meant as a "pissing" match between me and you anyway. It just gets me at times that some of the more modern day greats are being blown up well beyond what they are in this secion of the forum. Probably more me than anything else! Sorry, John :good
No worries mate, it wasn't personal anyways. There's always going to be a bit of crossever as well as views from both extremes of the scale.
Correct! I would just like to see a bit of respect for some of the older, real, greats. A lot of the time I think guys like Ali, Hagler... and yes Marciano etc. get regarded like a piece of chopped liver by some of the more modern posters. Your posts, and those of many others, are always sensible, and I don't want this section of the forum ruined by nonsense. I'd rather study about things from those in the know.
I don't see any reason whatsoever why we should ignore all the fighters that have been there from the 1980's-2000's.
I think the classic discussion should stop by 1900. Any thing pass 1901 is out law. UNLESS we talk about Barney Ross.
I think you're undermining the potential scope of discussion, which is never good. For example, I made a post regarding the historical significance of Calzaghe and Kessler....now, even though that fight hasn't even happened yet, I defend the fact that such a topic warrants a spot in the Classic Section. Why? Because I think discussions pertaining to the division's history (still in its infancy) along with compariosns between old time greats who fought at both middle and light heavy is a genuine topic of discussion. Cutting things off at year X oversimlifies things. Just my take, of course. :smoke
no cap. What happens currently is what happened before, and history is always being rewritten. For instance, the Ali is no match for Lennox Lewis because of the size of Lewis "arguments" (kidding of course) will all look a little foolish when the smaller than Ali Alexander Povetkin knocks Wlad on his ass next year!
.....i think the problem here is just the title of this part of the forum. "classic" does suggest that the fighters discussed should be of a high quality or of a specific period. If we think just in terms of "fighters of the past" instead, it allows more commentary , without restricting it to ability or time period. This allows us to express our thoughts on fighters who are retired. I know it makes it easier for me. For instance, my fingers would ache while on the keyboard if I had to think of, say Rocky Marciano, as anything approaching a "classic" fighter.
