Old fighters get overly romanticized

In the 90s the vast majority of big fights didn't happen. I've never understood why the era gets a pass for that.

The only difference with today is that the top guys had decent win resumes Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis while today they don't

 

Floyd has a deep resume and fought something like 18 ranked opponents. How is that analogous to Fury at all?

Fury is more similar to Brewster and Sanders. A win over Wlad and not a lot else. I certainly don't see people romanticizing them.

 

You weren’t watching boxing back then if you believe that.

 

An added element is in 1923 is most boxers probably hadn't seen Corbett fight, workout or even talk. Not even once. No boxrec to look at his record or compare that record with anyone elses. Given the distances involved and the lack of moving pictures people were operating under the bare minimum information possible. So Corbett was kind of a legendary figure because. He was a name, a photo and a reputation little more.

Thats why all these informal exhibitions that cyberboxingzone lists happened just seeing one of these fighters in person was a once in a lifetime deal.

 

Except Roberto Duran.

 

Someone remind me to come back to this forum in 20 years when I become great, I'll see if Wilder knocks me out in a what-if fight

 

You must have missed the threads about Usyk being the greatest heavyweight ever, or Crawford being the greatest. Every time a modern fighter wins a big fight, he's all of a sudden in the discussion for greatest of all time.

 

Where are you rated right now?

 

You cant find those threads. And these two are ATGs without question.

 

Not even one amateur fight, but I'llget there

 

They're not the greatest of all time like some modern fans hype them up to be.

 

Not on resume, but either is live against anyone of similar size.