Are modern fighters underappreciated?

The difficulty with rating modern fighters is that their is so much uncertainty until after both their careers and that of their opponents. Things can still change. For example, you say Vlad is the best fighter in the world but the reality is that we dont know this. If Russian Chageav fights and beats Vlad, then Russians body of work will go up. If Sam Peter cleans the division, then Vlad will improve. If Danny williams comes back into the fray and Kos Vlad then Vitalis legacy improves.

there is a bigger difficulty with modern fighters. there are so many belts and weight divisions and none of the top contenders ever fight often, so you just dont know who is better than others. Roy Jones had a great career, but it is arguable that he was never the lineal champion and never proved he was the greatest light heavy of his era. Other guys in the past do not have this argument. I think that even now Roy Jones is one of the best fighters ever, but i think there are plenty of fighters who would have beaten him.

It is a difficult question. I personally underate/appreciate modern fighters, but it is quite clear that many others (like yourself it would seem) vastly overate modern fighters. In reality there is no correct way to compare.

 

This is something that has always happened and always will. People always remember the times of yesteryear with somewhat rose tinted glasses. Marciano, in his day, wasn't seen as all-that by a lot of observers. Ali didn't make the top10 of heavyweights in '71, when he already had a good case for it (remember, guys like Holmes, Tyson and Lewis were not competition for the top10 back then yet).

Boilermaker also makes a good point, not just about the opponents but also the boxers themselves. If Haye destroys Wlad (which is quite a realistic scenario) then obviously his legacy will go down somewhat.

 

Id have Rjj in the atg top 10 mw(i have him at #7) I have Lewis in my top 10 hws. The problem is that the modern fighters are still fighting, plus they have less fights so they took a longer time to reach teir peaks

 

Yes, modern fighters are under appreciated. This is the way boxing always has been. For example neither Joe Louis nor Rocky Marciano was thought to be a top 5 ATG heavy when they were active, and really did not gain appreciation until the 1960's. This is true. and makes me wonder how good some of the old timers might have been.

Why modern fighters are under appreciated is a good question. Overtime the films, and audience who saw the fighters from yesteryear have passed on.

It seems the modern fighters in this decade are grossly under rated. In addition to being "new ", most of the best fighters today face a geography hurdle from a sport where traditionally the media and the best fighters came from the Northern Hemisphere. Some up and coming new talents or current division kings are still greeted with antipathy in some circles of the boxing media. Another problem today is lack of free tv coverage of the fighters. On the other hand, the internet is great.

While it is true that boxing today often has many political barriers which make it more difficult to place an era, is it really that different from decades past? Lets discuss.

Upon close examination, I would say no. The color line was in play in most divisions until the 1960's. Some decades were marred by corrupt ranking organizations such as the IBO, fixed fights ( some via DQ, ) and the mob. Other decades were dominated by on or two powerful promoters who could " ice " a great fighter who did not sign with them.

It seems like most decades have their share of problems. This decade has too many champions in it for sure, but on the other hand there is no color line preventing fights, and a great fighter can come from far more countries than he could in the past. So in that sense the fighters from the 2000's have the most level playing field to determine who the best in the world is.

In the end, Itry to rate the man, and not the era he fought in.

 

Good post,

:good:good:good

 

Yeah, I would say that contemporary fighters often gets a bit more harshly judged here on the Classic Forum. Losses, weak perfomances and failure to take on dangerous rivals sometimes feels a bit magnified in their cases compared to the old timers.

But, with some exceptions, I think there's not that much bias.

 

Modern day guys wouldnt have to suffer in comparison quite as bad if it weren't for the touchy-feely types who pussified the sport by ending the 15 rounders. The old timers, and I include the 70's here, separated the men from the boys in those rounds 13 thru 15, IMO.

 

You see some modern guy losing steam or huffing and puffing in rounds 11 and 12, you don't have to imagine real hard how he'd do in the 15 round era.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

i wait until a fighter retires to base a judgement on them so i wouldnt have an active boxer in a top 10 etc.... but no i dont think i underrate them

 

The curent genaration of fighters always get sold short because you have to stand back to see their body of work.

Not only are they still active but their oponents might continue to be active and improve their resumes for some time after they retire.

To take Lennox Lewis as an example, three of his oponents went on to win titles after he retired thus improving their standing and therfore the value of his wins over them.

Paquiao will be regared as a pound for pound phenomenon by future genarations having held lineal titles from flyweight to jr welter. Your grandchildred will want to know what it was like to live through that.

Bernard Hopkins age defying wins will be compared to those of Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott.

Even fighters like Jermain Taylor, Glen Johnson, and Antonio Tarver will have their advocates.

 

I think most modern fighters could beat the older 'greats'

not just mediocre fighter though, I mean the best of the bast 20 could beat the best of the 80 years before them.

Simply because of modern training methods, nutrition knowledge, increased competition, evolution in boxing.

Not that that fighter wouldnt do well if he was placed and trained in this time here, but I feel that fighters today train smarter and just as hard if not harder (training smarter using modern techniques leads to shorter recovery times between workouts which leads to the ability to do more work in a given day at a higher rate of work because they were better recovered).

but should a boxer should be rated on effort based on what he had to work with, or his overall ability in the ring? two different things.