Boxing has changed for good and bad, mostly good. Their is this myth that fighters of the past would fight anyone, any time, and the best fought the best. If you are a student of the history of the game, you know better. The Mob ran boxing from WWI until the 50s and a lot of good fighters had to throw fights or beat the best and never got a title shot. Some even had fights that should have been wins but had one arm band, carried opponents, or if they didnt knock the opponent out it would be a no decision I personally think the best are fighting the best more often in our era than the pre 1960....everyone gets world title shots nowadays Im not trying to start any commotion, just asking a legitimate question. Im not questioning these fighters skills, but their willingness to fight the best Ducking is one of the major topics on this forum, and for some instances, us as fans dont have enough inside information to know who really avoided who Back in the day fighters were open about why and who they avoided. As time goes on, it seems fans care more about how you win, instead of who you beat. Quality>Quantity.......beating good fighters> kayoing no names Some of boxings legends avoided the best black fighters of their time and do you guys feel it should affect their legacy? Personally I do. How can you be considered the world champion when you didnt fight the best available competition or some of them. Do you think drawing the color line should affect the legacies of John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, the welterweights champions and middleweights champions who ducked Holman Williams, Eddie Booker and the black murderers row? Jack Lamotta had the cajones to fight everyone, sodid Marciano....Harry Greb was a beast People say today this person ducked this person but you'd be hard presssed to find fighters ducking a country or race of fighters
I'm not a student of history, but the current situation is probably better than when the mob ran the show. That's not to say the current situation is good as it's still woefully corrupt in more ways than one and a joke compared to other sports.
There's definitely a ton of revisionism and nostalgia about previous eras. I think including way more recently than the mob days. Imagine this place if Floyd fights a guy with a 1-15 record for his 50th. Because that's what JCC did. Yes, they fought more often, but still. Massively padded records all over the place. Also, while I appreciate the sacrifice these 150+ fight boxers of the pre war era, I'm dubious about placing them at the top of ATG lists etc when there's almost no footage of them. They very well may be, but it seems silly comparing them on the basis of urban legend or records vs opponents nobody alive has seen either.
There's probably less than a dozen fights in history when two ATG fighters fought at their respective peaks, at their best weights. There's lots of factors to why that is. But in terms of if things are better now than they are then, I'd say so. So many great fighters who get so much credit - and deservedly so - would be jokes in modern times for the fights they take despite their incredible standing now. We almost unanimously agree that Wilder is a joke - and yet look at the padded records of Duran, JCC, SRR etc, they have so many fights with guys who don't deserve to be classed as members of the same sport let alone share the ring. We're not tolerant towards that nowadays.
