Why is it, that whenever there is a mythical matchup between a modern great, e.g. Tyson and a classic great, e.g. Marciano, the supporters of the modern great are always sure beyond any doubt while the classic supporters at least admit there is a grey area involved and admit there is doubt?
Its because the 'modern' side tends to be full of young people, who lack life experience. The one thing life teaches you is that nothing is simple, grey areas are very prevalent.
The General Forum types are mostly quite young and full of that absolute conviction that youth provides. They don't want to be told by anybody that anything that represents them is somehow lesser than that of their elders (their generation of boxers in this case, but it could be anything from clothes to music, etc.). I think it's because such an idea would suggest that the oldsters have something over on them by virtue of this and they're very sensitive to the notion that they might not be as well versed as someone who's seen more over the years. They don't want to acquiesce to that. It's natural and understandable, and we were all there once. And us old guys like to discount the new generation because we like to poke the bear and watch them froth at the mouth.
I'm one of those young guys, but that doesn't mean I believe modern fighters are better. On the contrary, I'm grateful for the HD footage and everything, there's still talent in this new generation, but as far as any comparison between a modern and a classic fighter goes, I'm one of those guys who always gives the edge to the classic one.
Same here. I'm 44, so not old or young and I tend to favour the older fighters over the modern ones. As you say there are still classy fighters today, but I don't think there are as many of them! I think boxing was at it's strongest from the 50's to the 80's, but there have been great fighters before and since.
Well Tyson is gonna be tough for anyone, don't see anyone just dominating Tyson, there are a few classic greats in Liston and Foreman who could. A general lack of historical knowledge I guess. I like a musician example, so many people especially youngsters are wowed by dazzling flash, not melody, interpretation, taste. Then as you mature you realize what a true musician is. I didn't think much of Louis when I first saw him, then after studying film and reading all that analysis by McGrain I have a much better appreciation for the subtlety in his game, and a better eye overall.
