Does anyone think that old timers are overrated on P4P lists?

It's all swings and roundabouts. Some are, some aren't. Time and hindsight do tend to do favours for a lot of boxers though.

 

The current era isn't bad just because SRR would beat the current champs at middleweight. He'd beat almost all of the other era's champs too. His greatness is not in dispute. But a few guys like Stanley Ketchel, Nonpareil Jack Dempsey, George Dixon, Terry McGovern, Packy McFarland, Harry Wills, Tommy Ryan, Jack Dillon, Abe Attell, Peter Jackson, and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien maybe should be.

Also, I'm pretty impressed by the level of ability some of the moderns have displayed in careers that span little more than thirty or forty fights. Floyd Mayweather Jr, Pernell Whitaker, Andre Ward, Miguel Cotto, Ray Leonard, Aaron Pryor, Salvador Sanchez, Joe Frazier, Carlos Palomino, Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Azuma Nelson, Alfonso Zamora, Wilfredo Gomez, Jeff Fenech, Rocky Marciano, Joe Calzaghe, Michael Spinks, etc. They are great and accomplished great things even without hundreds of fights.

 

Some people will WRONGLY say yes, but you can't escape the facts, which are DOZENS of Fights against the TOP men for years on end in the Strongest overall Era(s)!

So NO!!!

 

I think a lot of people who favor the old timers in everything see the past with rose colored glasses. They rate the era by the very best, by the outliers, rather than by the average talent level. Even in SRR's era he was exceptional. It's not like everyone was as good as SRR. The question shouldn't be would you put Sergio Martinez up against Robinson, Monzon, Greb, LaMotta, or Steele. It should be would Martinez beat other champs of the past who fought hundreds of times like Frank Klaus, George Chip, Al McCoy, Mike O'Dowd, Johnny Wilson, Gorilla Jones, Marcel Thil, Lou Brouillard, Teddy Yarosz, Eddie Babe Risko, Bobo Olson, Paul Pender, Terry Downes. And I think in a lot of those cases the answer is yes.

 

Why would old timers be overrated on P4P lists? Their greatness is not in dispute. Within the contextual era that each of them fought in, they were greats. Unless this P4P list is also a hypothetical H2H match-up, where everything gets kind of screwed up since no one has a consistent basis for the claims being made...

 

No they weren't Marcel was better than all of them.

 

Duran beat leonard not Benitez.

 

you are wrong in this generalisation!

first off, I believe Most people that favour past boxing eras are smart enough not to rate an era solely on it's elite, but do look at the top men overall - and they are not miles apart as you have implied.

the 'average' fighters as you have referred them, were in fact far better than the average fighters of modern times, quite simply because the sheer number of competitors, schedule's and contenders demanded it, otherwise they got nowhere!!!

 

no, he was not

 

I think there is a tendency to underrate newer boxers than there is to overrate the oldtimers.

 

duran beats leonard not benitez? .. duran did beat Wilfredo benitez(yes he deserved the victory) and leaonrd once, but leonard fought a dumb fight and he owned duran in the rematch and he did quit like a ***** with his no mas