If there is an agenda against old time fighters and against Marciano, what is the Motivation?

You are talking about two separate ideas that have a significant following on this board.

One is the idea that modern fighters are inherently better than old time fighters, and the other is the idea that Rocky Marciano would not fare well in head to head match ups because of his size.

There are good and objective posters who hold both ideas and a person who holds one will not necessarily hold the other.

Both have a radical or extremist element however.

There is a type of poster who is a fan of modern fighters, really doesn’t have any time for the older ones, and will dismiss any evidence that does not support this viewpoint.

The Marciano sceptics have an unpleasant racist element among them, who almost see Rocky Marciano as an affront to black dignity.

The worst anti Marciano fanatics are some of the most extreme poster that you will find online, and the situation was much worse before the recent rise of the Eastern European heavyweights.

 

Better if he had skill, worse if he did not.
The crucial component necessary to answer your question is the level of ability the fighter in question possessed.

For example someone like Mariusz Wach who is basically a lumbering Ox might get a pass if he was filmed with 1930's equipment, particularly if the print was bad, viewers might well say , he would look better with todays technology, but he wouldn't, he would be even more exposed as the limited slow plodder he is.

 

So you think worse camera equipment, 'masks' in a sense, both strengths and weaknesses?
Okay that is an interesting argument.

I disagree right now, but I am willing to consider and explore it.

There are a few reasons why:
For instance, movement is not natural with 1930's footage.
So you can see that Louis smashes someones head back, and you can see when he slips a punch. But you don't truly get a feel for it, the way you do watching Klitschko plant his feet firmly, drive the power up the core, and shoot out a punch with a snap in his elbow wrist and shoulder.

You can see a "shadow" of it. You can see the body mimicking the right movements for that. But you don't see the weight, the balance.
With 30's footage, everything feels "floaty."
With modern footage you feel a sense of weight.

And I think that this will never make a bad athlete look good.

 

Better if he had skill, worse if he did not.
The crucial component necessary to answer your question is the level of ability the fighter in question possessed.

For example someone like Mariusz Wach who is basically a lumbering Ox might get a pass if he was filmed with 1930's equipment, particularly if the print was bad, viewers might well say , he would look better with todays technology, but he wouldn't, he would be even more exposed as the limited slow plodder he is.

I think "the cream will rise to the top,"irrespective of the age of the camera.

 

How do you determine what colour a poster is unless he volunteers the information?
Where is the proof for such a sweeping statement?

 

You can't.

You can however determine whether he hates people of a certain colour.

That is all too easy in some cases.

The rest becomes irrelevant!

 

In terms of results, legacy or perceived skill?

 

Kind of strange that the posters who are allegedly driven by this nefarious agenda only seem to go after older heavyweights, isn't it?

 

In perceived skill.
Q. Can one tell that Henry Armstrong is a great fighter by watching his fights? A.Yes
Q Can it be determined that Jimmy Mclarnin is a smooth well grounded dangerous punching fighter from his available footage?A.Yes
Is it apparent that Freddie Steele is a fast all action non stop terrific punching machine from his clips? A.Yes


Q.Would the three of them look even better on modern film? A. Yes.
Q Does that mean we can't determine with any certainty that they were excellent practioners of the noble art by solely viewing them on old film stock? A.No.

 

Yes indeed! I would imagine I am one of the "usual suspects "here yet, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis ,and Jack Dempsey are all in my top ten! Which would seem to be rather a contradiction .

 

I'm intrigued by the opposite issue-- the agenda of the hardcore classicists who deify old time fighters with a zealousness and fervent devotion seldom seen outside houses of worship. People who think that top contenders like Tubbs, Coetzee, Tua, etc., at their best, would lose to older fighters half their size (in some instances by blowout). People who think that Primo Carnera was a better boxer than Riddick Bowe. People who bend over backwards to explain away even the most embarrassing footage of certain older fighters and their limitations. I wonder what makes these people tick?