Modern fans are too quick to mention greatness

"great fighters in my active list are as follows.
Manny
Floyd
Evander
Hopkins
JMM
Vitali- bad competition or not, still dominating and will be considered an atg
Vlad- same as above
Morales
Jones jr- although hes taking away his own greatness by continuing

 

" Primo Carnera would knock out both the Klitschkos." atsch

Bert hates the brothers because they put his old arse in the soup line.

 

Great fighters can come out of nowhere and when you least expect it.
Nobody expected Pac to be on THIS level after he lost to Torrecampo. just give the youth some time :good

Dont forget that Kell Brook is amidst the ranks now. Destined for greatness

 

Greatness aspires to be Kell Brook :bart

 

I heard him once say 'OBVIOUSLY Ali isn't the greatest HW that honour belongs to Joe Louis' as if it's beyond debate atsch

 

No. Actually modern fighters get severely underrated

 

You're as good as your last performance unfortunately. It goes the other way too, fans are too quick to call a fighter a bum. Seems to be no middle ground. Fans of the sport of boxing know the difference, fans of fighters often don't.

 

Who said Martinez is great? Hes a solid champ in the 2nd most historic division in boxing. That deserves accolades.

 

The thing is the past does not really matter at all. The present is where all the boxing is happening right now the past fighters don't even matter anymore. The greatest fighters are fighting right now fighters like Robinson may or may not have been competive with current fighters its subjective. If your going to enjoy boxing the best to watch is current boxing instead of a fight where the outcome has been determined for 50 years.

 

That is true
I sincerely apologize for discrediting Special K

 

I think people are forgetting that MAB is still technically active.

 

I see the points but have some thoughts about the "not being great until you've beaten a great fighter"-argument.

Longevity is extremely important to me - performing to the same championship level fight after fight and dominating opponents is a very hard thing to do. Not a lot of people can do it - after a while almost everybody gets upset. Avoiding It should be premiered.

Wladimir and Bernard are two fighters - especiallt the latter, since he never was embarrasingly beaten - are two fighters in recent memory who have achieved it. Thayr're both seen as boring and were/are very dominant in their reigns.

My logic is this: media and the boxing community hype up fighters. The people who get hype, and thus are considered good, are usually from a certain descent or an opponent of the same fighter. Divisions get hyped up as good or bad - and I'm willing to bet that is has a LOT do to with the amount of fighters os a certain style (entertaining), nationality who get a certain exposure because of it. What you know, you think is good. You think that the TV companys have very goos reason to show fights without thinking critically. Could there be a reason why they and their "experts" hype up certain fighterds and divisions?

In divisions where a fighter with a boring style, who is TOO dominant, people will shy away. The networks will notice it and stop hyping up opponents since it will be dreary anyway (sort of). There will be no "great" fighters for the champion to defeat since they're not getting hyped. And because one measure of gratness is beating another great fighter - how could a contender be great if he never is able to beat the champion? And how could the champion, then, be great? It's a sticky situation for him. As some in the classic forum wrote; the best thing Wlad could do is beat his future successor, who will go on to have a great reign himself.

This is simplified and other factors obviously come into play but I think it illustrates the unfairness of the system and the danger of using this criteria too fundamentally. It's purely too speculative/open to bias to use alone. I'm not saying we shouldn't use our eyes, just that our eyes could easily be deceived. Look at the massive favourite Lacy was over Calzaghe. Look at the tapes now. Was he really that great? Networks have a reason to hype up fighters, but boxing fans shouldn't just swallow it and let it cloud rankings. Sometimes, objectivity has to play a role too. We do it with fighters of the past when glossing over their 100+ fights (rightly so) and multiple division successes, so why not here? I bet that in 50 years, people will look at Hopkins being the oldest champ ever or Pac's historical weight humping feat in the light they deserve. They wouldn't mention that Tito was too small, Tarver weight-drained, Pascal not that good anyway - Cotto overrated/past-prime, Hatton never that good or JMM robbed...

They will see it for "what it is", for the good and the bad. Fighters in the past also had doubts over them compared to (even) older fighters and shady decisions, it's just that we forget/don't know about them/don't care to find out about them. This will happen to modern fighters too. Nuances are forgotten and black/white images are created, just like with the rest of our memory, whether football, childhood or boxing. That's a clear risk but will also serve as a strenth for current fighters in due time.

 

in 50 years, when I'm pushing 70; I'll undoubtly say 'this guy doesn't hold a candle to Mayweather' 'Jones would obliterate this pretender in 3 rounds'

Just the circle of life I guess.

 

Martinez is great!

 

I hope I never end up like that and I plan on not ending up like that. We should enjoy life as its happening and not live are life through past glories.