It's disgusting how the old fighters get extremely overrated!!!

totally agrees

 

But it just all depends on the boxer. To make a sweeping statement like the OP did just shows a lot of ignorance. There are some boxers who I believe are overated from the past and vice-versa... but to say all is not justified.

 

One thing you all fail to mention is the fact that people "Get weaker, and wiser." Let's not base boxing, but base all human beings. We have machines to do our work now, we eat at McDonalds, most of the population is obese, and very sick.
The "OLD FIGHTERS" of the OLD AGE I guess you'd call it worked on a farm, they ate the right foods, wasn't as many diseases, lived a lot longer, etc. SO, compare the two.....What generation was stronger? Some guy who works an office job, or some guy who works from daylight-dark to survive?
The same applies to boxing. They wore smaller gloves than today, they would go more rounds, etc.
It isn't ALWAYS the case. Certain things are better now than they were back then...A lot better equipment, ways of training, and with anything in life you learn more as you go. Some of this generation may beat the old generation, but I'd bet 90% of scenarios the older generation is a lot tougher.....

 

In fact just as a matter of interest, has anyone ever seen harry greb lose a mythical pound for pound or head to head match up, ever?



I dont think i have, and yet again, nobody has ever seen him fight :huh :huh




I'm not saying his record isn't impressive, but i like to judge a guy on what i can see



The one and only exception to this rule should be SRR at welter weight, due to sheer volume of favorable judgement by boxing writers and historians over the years

 

It all depends on the individual, some people overrate modern day fighters while some overrate older fighters. In order to make a far judgement you must objectively analyse each fighters resume, weaknesses, strenths, etc. You have to take each fighter for what they are, and not favour them according to your personal preferences.

A big problem I see quite alot is when people make comments on older fighters when they lack any real in-depth knowledge regarding them. A good example is the Pacquiao-Harada debate, many of the Pac fans are dismissing Harada as a crude slugger with a weak resume. If they did their research and had seen films of him, then they'd know that there is definately a comparison between the two.

People should not assume that others are favouring older fighters, but instead do a bit of research and look at every matchup individually.

 

on the other hand, the same debate has a different face. i've heard of people argue that lionel rose is one of the best boxers ever to defend his beating of harada or that kingpetch is truly a special fighter. the glorification is just absurd.

 

So instead of arguing this point in the thread in which this debate is taking place, you post another sweeping statement here. :-(

 

I think you will always have some old timers who cling to the past and can't give the new guys credit. But you also have youngsters who don't appreciate the past. It works both ways. I tend to not get focused on the past fighters. I appreciate what they did. But i also realize there are old timers who seem to always give our generation fighters almost no chance against some mythical fighter from the past.

 

Based on my avatar and name? I didn't base my statement on your name, I based on the fact that everything you have said to this point has to do with how much you enjoy the taste of Casamayor's manjuice and how ridiculously you overrate him. The taste of someone's semen(which you are obviously aware of) doesn't qualify them as an ATG boxer.

 

I only think its unfair where they go back far enough so that there's no footage of them in their prime, and then of course we have to take it at face value.

 

I would disagree with the premise of the thread, and argue that it is often the "old school" fighters who get underrated, and modern fighers overrated. People talk like everybody who participated in the sport before the 60s were bums, and that they somehow couldn't compete in today's game. These guys were far more battle tested than today's overpaid and coddled athletes - they fought more often, they didn't have the benefit of refs who stop fights at the drop of a hat, and they actually fought comptitive fights early in their careers instead of facing a bunch of stiffs and then getting a title shot.

 

Good post Zakman.

 

Greb had 300 fights in 10 years, beat Tunney, and fought all the best of his time. There is footage him training, not in any bouts, bt his record is so great, and there is footage of guys he fought, so calling him great is alright be me.

 

This is a very good post Zakman.

I will say one thing that I have noticed that is a bit of a double standard is that we know not to put too much weight on losses when it comes to "vintage" fighter, but yet more than one or two losses by most modern day fighters seems to automatically disqualify them from being in said classic fighters' class even in a H2H sense, even if the win percentages might be the same. It seems like today we punish fighters for losing on the way up instead of looking at it like a learning experience like it used to be.

I know the sport's changed and there aren't going to be elite 150+ fight guys anymore who fight absolutely everyone available, so that's still the hardest thing for me to try and value while still being fair to both sides. As much as there should be a chance for a modern day fighter to get a ranking like Greb's, Pep's, Armstrong's, or Sugar Ray Robinson's, I'm not sure how it's even possible going by things are today. I got to thinking about this today- we could possibly be on the verge of history if Pac could become the man at lightweight and light welterweight, he emerged out of a legendary group of featherweights, but he still probably wouldn't crack most peoples' top 20 lists. I'm not sure if there is a solution that would work for everyone here.

That said, so as not to completely hijack the original thread, I've noticed (generally speaking) that the quality of older fighters' resumes are usually inflated a little bit, but they're underrated on the H2H aspect.