Nostalgia and how it may influence our views

M,of course nostalgia is a vital part of the human psyche. By nature I long for the days of my youth.But because NOSTALGIA for the "good old days", does exist, this doesn't mitigate the fact that the oldtime fighters fought ,much more often,for example New York vicinity,had a boxing card EVERY day of the week,except Sunday. Every Day ! The fighters were so much more experienced then today's top fighters. This alone makes for better fighters,
irregardless, of nostalgia for the past.
As for your question about Ray Robinson being regarded as the greatest ever
while i was growing up ? I saw Ray Robinson several times in his absolute welterweight prime, and I,as a youngster couldn't visualize any fighter of the past,being as good as Robinson...As well as many oldtime writers those days.
My dad and others, who saw Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, fight said that they were better than Robbie. So ,yes to your question. Ray Robinson had a GODLIKE reputation, while he was fighting, and nostalgia didn't enter the
picture. He was THAT GOOD...An example i posted once. I,and my dad and uncle,saw young Ray Robinson,as a second to Salem Crescent Golden Gloves
boxers,in 1939-40 ,BEFORE he turned pro. We waited on line just to shake his hand,which we did,so great was his reputation,prior to turning pro. So yes,
Robinson was a"great" before he even turned pro..From the gitgo !!!:good

 

Yes nostalgia is a powerfull force.

It dosn't follow that the predudice in favour of modern fighters being better, or the predudice that acolades atached to earlier fighters are a result of nostalgia are any less irational forces.

They can be every bit as destructive to the truth as the most extreme forms of nostalgia in their own right.

 

We each carry with us a memory trace that we invariably identify with ourselves. As such our most lurid and impressionable recollections are artificially promoted beyond neutrality.

Ted Spoon doesn't have this.

Rules in boxing are one of the most pivotal factors charging these viewpoints. How many fans of the London Prize Rules would consider the same game a 100 years later dead is a case in point.

 

Yeah, well, technically, after that, she was, but not before. Head-trauma issue though, I think. :conf What can ya do?

Oh, here we go. :roll: Another bleeding heart liberal who literally sees **** in every single violently forced sexual encounter resulting in two healthy adults of the opposite sex having intercourse. atsch Why are you calling me Burt?

 

Interestingly, when was the last light heavyweight to have ever win an undisputed world title matchup? Oh hang on, there has only ever been one! I think that is called breaking the mold in any era!

Still, a few light heavyweight champions have fought competitively against world class fighters. Let me see if i can think of a few.

Adamek is cutting a swathe through the heavy ranks at the moment. I wonder if he would win a rematch with Chad Dawson. And wouldnt a Bernard Hopkins Adamek fight be interesting. Especially if the Klits would retire or even better actually lose to Adamek, who is probably their best challenger.

Fat Toney pretty much won a version of the world title, i wonder if he would have won if he mythically could face a smaller, lighter, younger version of himself. Or even better, if he had to fight a prime Roy Jones Jr. I cant see him winning but that is just me.

And Speaking of Roy Jones Jr. I wonder how that light heavyweight would go fighting for a world title and whether Antonio Tarver might have had similar success himself.

What of Michael Moorer and Michael Spinks. Could those light heavys have made a fist of it at heavyweight? Or Chris byrd he certainly seemed to go better at heavy than light heavy.

Light heavyweights being competive against heavyweights is nothing new, and certainly not uncommon even today. If a good light heavy can blow up and be competitive with a heavy, then he can also stay in shape and be competive. Heavys arent the only ones with mortgages on being better fighters when they are lighter. David tua fights better 20 lbs lighter. Why isnt he weight drained at the weight, but if Chris byrd or Roy jones does, then they are automatically weight drained.

In some ways you are right about the modern improvements but in boxing unlike other sports it doesnt allow for the areas where modern knowledge tells us that boxing is less professional in many important areas. I think a lot of people forget this. This simply isnt the case in other sports.

although i couldnt imagine modern sword fighters competing with those of eras from the past, for these exact reasons.

 

He ruined her for all other males. I'd expect nothing less.

Today, history's great romances would all be classified as psychiatric obsession, stalking, assault and ****.

Pachilles sent me :rofl with that one. Best one liner of the day.

 

I'd say generally this board is quite young so nostalgia is not that big an element as most people are looking at things from before they were born, rather than things they lived through.

 

:goodfact

 

it can seem like nostalgia influences people disproportionately regarding boxing, but i think there's a good reason for that...

1) dedication to training has always been prevalent in boxing circles, fighters sixty or so years ago were just as well conditioned as the top fighters today. this is not the case in team sports like football, that's soccer, or others like tennis. i'm not saying that the quality of those two sports has necessarily increased (argument for another day), but the sports have advanced physically in a way that boxing hasn't.

2) for most sports, more money means more matches (see football again, and tennis again, although the picture is more complicated in tennis). for boxing, though, more money means less of a need to risk your life! fighters in the first half of the twentieth century simply fought more and tested themselves further, so their obscene achievements followed.

3) boxing has weight limits. 140 pounds will always be ten stone, and the strongest man weighing no more than that can only be so strong and fast. the human body has limits! that said, if you remove weight restrictions (and therefore to some extent height restrictions - there will always be freaks like hearns, but generally someone weighing ten and a half stone isn't going to be that tall!) then the sport's physical side will surge on... footballers and tennis players are bigger, stronger and faster than ever before. also, look at usain bolt and track.

my point is that statements that may seem to be overly nostalgic, may turn out to be true more often in boxing than in other sports.

 

:deal Wlad Klitschko would easily whoop Clay´s ass and Pac would knock out SRR.

 

who said that ??

 

I would be reluctant to say boxing has evolved in the last 30 years.. if at all.

The longevity has certainly increased.... and that is only due to the pharmaceuticals/'roids/HGH being swallowed up by the top level fighters.

The developments in footwork, combination punching, defence etc. etc. since the inception of Queensbury rules, through to the 1930's & 40's is more than obvious.

Film quality makes a few assessments hard to pin point, but the overall style/art/ science of boxing changed to a level that is not necessarily different today.... more so seen in divisions below H/W.

 

It´s logic. If todays fighters are superior to the ones of the past they would beat them. Ali and Robinson are fighters of the past, Wlad and Pac their current counterparts. They are superior, so they would knock them out.

This logic is flawless. :deal

 

I agree.