Are the past Eras overrated or the new generation just not that good?

I didn't say it imply music was any better now. Once Chopin died it's all gone to hell IMO.

 

every note has already been played.

 

Guys today are better than guys of old.

 

The roids are definitely better. I find it strange people think a short, fat Frazier {who still barely weighed 200 lbs in spite of being a bit chunky} would destroy modern heavyweights. His power really wasn't enough to carry up to guys fifty pounds heavier and yet still faster than him.

 

What I’m thinking exactly.. there’s no time limit for the past.. it stretches back till the 40’s with Robinson, pep and the likes till Ali till Oscar PBf and Manny in the 90’s and 2000’s.

 

People were upset when I stated that Crawford would beat Pernell, Spence would Stop Hearns, and Floyd was actually a better fighter than Leonard.

 

Too many promoters now and way too much in house fights being made. The networks and streaming services have grown and all it means in the end is more ****** wrenches thrown into the mix and less big fights being made. There are some very good fighters from this era but as stated in a previous reply, the fighters from older generations seemed to take more risks. Today fighters are so desperate to keep their O that they are leaving legacy behind for safer paydays.

 

There's definitely a tendency to look at past fighters with rose tinted glasses. But then again there's also a tendency by some to say today's boxers are better athletes and boxing's evolved so are better.

I think a big part of favouring past fighters is that those fighters have finished their careers and proven themselves. While fighters in the current era often still have a lost to prove compared to the past fighters. So if you judge a fighter based on accomplishments then of course past fighters will be seen more favourably as they have a complete resume unlike the contemporary fighters who have yet to carve out their legacy.

But reality is we can't ever really know how 2 fighters from different eras will do against one another if it were that easy to predict fights we'd all be millionaires from betting on fights.

 

You just listed fighters that would beat fighters in their weight class in any other era.
When someone in twenty years looks back at today they’ll see those names and ask why their current era is weak because they’ll be aware of all the no-hopers - therefore distorting their perception of the general quality.
The current era is easily better than any other era of boxing, people who say otherwise just aren’t aware of their biases and they’re romanticizing the past based on their limited sample and nostalgia for the good old days.
It’s quite frankly absolutely moronic to think that boxing is somehow the only sport that hasn’t evolved.

 

At least guys in this era seem to have the ambition to fight eachother.

The past decade was a joke.

 

One of the issues with comparing old timers is that they will always go with their strongest version. While some were very inconsistent, some were doped up at Big Pharma Miller levels, some got a lot of decisions they didn't deserve, or mostly fought much smaller opponents (think heavyweight and cruiser) in their time.
Also, for example many lightweights of today wouldn't make lightweight back in de day. Because of the same day weigh-in thing and less tricks to lose and gain weight relatively safely.
Revisionist history is another issue. Some fighters had issues with certain styles, physical abilities of opponents, but are so popular that they will always get awarded the win by default. Even at their time.

But going to modern times there are other things that holds them back in comparisons.
Making fights nowadays is dependent on so many things. They fight less, and often lesser opponents, because everyone decent is a "champion" now and the lesser guys won't risk their status or O...
It's a bit better now as it was a decade ago, when the big names could just pick out their opponents/time/location/officials/testing themselves.

 

The difference is that they either don't have the competition or the fights are not being made. Therefore, it is a weak era.

 

Well that's why i said active fighters get under rated head to head. Saying someone like Mayweather would beat Leonard while he was fighting would be shot down, as is saying someone like Crawford would've beat Mayweather now, and in the next generation saying whoever ends up being the guy in 10 years will beat a Crawford.

Best thing you can do for your historical head to head reputation is to be retired at least 5 years

 

Fighters from yesteryear always get looked upon with rose tinted nostalgic glasses in comparison to the current era.

The best example I can give is Lennox Lewis.

When he was active he wasn't looked upon like the amazing all time great fighter he is regarded as today. It's taken retirement and the years to pass for the majority of people to open there eyes, realise and appreciate the special fighter he was.

 

I don't see Spence beating Hearns.