Boxing has the weirdest fans nowadays, the likes of Sugar Ray Robinson can lose 19 fights and no one will hear a bad word against him yet for example Golovkin wins a close decision against a bigger, defensive puncher fighting the fight of his life, and he is apparently a complete fraud. This pattern appeared to emerge some time around the 90s. No one is perfect, everyone has their nemesis, off days, gets old etc but why is it so many great modern day fighters are immediately written off as garbage for showing the tiniest chink in their armour?
In G's case, he's an overblown fighter who gets rewarded for doing far less than greats. Standards are already watered down in today's era of boxing but you don't even need to fight anyone anymore and amateur pedigree is added to your professional body of work. The hype machines are degrading boxing. Especially when it's only producing 170k buys. Originally I saw a 156k number but that's another thread. It's common practice to inflate numbers.
Age of the Internet every idiot opinion is debated endlessly. Everyone and everything is over criticized. Look at Wlad second longest title reign in division history. Most title defenses. 3rd most consecutive title defenses. Still active and facing the best the division has to offer in his 40s with those type of accomplishments he'd never be second guessed 50 years ago even 30 years ago. Today is different. Plus the sport markets the undefeated record too much to sell the casuals.
Robinson was a welterweight who is arguably the best middleweight of one of the best eras of 160. I think he won 120 fights in a row...umm before losing to Lamotta and then beat him in another 5 fights - I love GGG but even with Rays losses - Ray deserves every bit of credit he gets.
But why are they considered hype machines? Robinson for example, lost to LaMotta who had lost to various 'bums' yet he is beyond criticism? If Robinson was around today he'd be considered a journeyman. This begs the question, what do fans consider 'good'? A terminator who squashes everyone with the first punch for his entire career?
He won 40 fights then lost to LaMotta who in turn lost to what would be considered 'bums' by today's standards.
It's hard to say with the amount of delusion going on. Maybe fighters of the past have been insanely overhyped? SRR lost to lesser fighters than Thurman.
Because miserable losers who hate their lives and themselves like to attempt to bring down winners in life, like boxing world champions, because it makes them feel better. These are the same types who idolise either Floyd/Ward/black fighter or Kovalev/GGG/white fighter and support or attack depending on which fighter is the subject of discussion. They are not fans of boxing and the hypocrisy and double standards they show is telling. I have noticed a lot of these tools get 'BOOTED' by the mods over the last couple days which is encouraging for this forum.
Lamotta is not a bum in my standards and I believe would give anyone right now trouble at 160. I think he'd take too many shots from ggg but for anyone else - he was a very crafty fighter with power and a chin too. I can see your point but in the parallel universe of Robinson peak 147 v Thurman...I think Thurman would get sparked out. I'm not bias like Atlas who raves about the old days but Robinson is my exception. Natural weight at 147 and has Graziano & Lamotta scalps. It's the equivalent of floyd fighting ggg with no training camp (Robinson fought so often) and floyd winning. Robinson too me is goat/tbe
I agree SRR and JLM were both great fighters, but the double standards are obscene. Both those guys can lose multiple times to what would be considered nobodies yet modern day greats show the tiniest chink in their armour against extremely tough opponents and they are completely written off. It's not even debatable, it's pure insanity.
I get your point but two of my favourite fighters are Tsyzu and Morales. I didn't stop watching when they lost. Each to their own. I don't believe a loss can define a whole pro career. I hope other fans think the same way.
SRR fought about once a fortnight, Thurman fights once a year. I like Thurman but Robinson would KO him after a thorough schooling in gloved fistic violence.
My point is, traditionally you could be a great fighter and lose, yet today it is not acceptable to even have a close fight. You are a fraud, a bum, lowest scum on earth cos you didn't smash your opponent to atoms with the first punch, and even if you did they'd say he was overrated, or they'd say you can't go the distance etc. Old greats seem to be held to different standards and I find it bizarre.
Side note...I think most would agree "TBE" lost to Castillo. Rare to find undefeated fighters these days that fight often and don't cherry pick. GGG is an exception and hopefully Garcia and Crawford can continue forward.