When we Compare boxers of different eras Are we biases?

Just made it. Pretty obvious who I meant.

 

The simple answer, of course. Humans have selective memories of the past. The fact is that if the good old days were actually that good, things would have never changed. We'd still be dialing rotary phones and watching black and white tv. But there is no harm in remembering things maybe better than they were, especially since this is an argument that can never be settled, no way to ever know which era was better. Maybe that is why so many like to argue about it, because you can't truly win, or lose this argument, it just goes on and on, like a soap opera it never concludes.

 

Excellent point :deal

 

I wouldn't say Duran was from a different "era".
He had his last fight less than 10 years ago.

 

I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses. I think your approach is very reasonable. You can't just say because a fighter was from the 1950's he was better - it just doesn't make sense. You're right - Mayweather and Pacquiao would always have done well as would Roy Jones, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Wlad and Vitali Klitschko, De la Hoya etc. Likewise Ray Robinson or Archie Moore or Jack Dempsey (at cruiser), Joe Louis, Benny Leonard. Hammerin' Hank, Greb, Tunney, Marciano (at cruiser) Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Duran, Leonard, Benitez, Hagler, Hearns would all have done well today or at any time. I think there would have been some very competitive match ups between modern and old school fighters and some could go either way.

 

I see that you have 80k posts, I already checked your page. Found out that you were also doing RBR coverage so you must be well knowledgeable about boxing. And since the thread is about comparing boxers of different eras, how do you see Manny Pacquioa, and Floyd Mayweather against Sugar Ray Leonard, and Sugar Ray Robinson?

 

You need to give it a good 10 years or so before you can get a better idea of where fighters rank. During Leonard's prime there were plenty of people saying he'd struggle with Griffith and Rodriguez; these days SRL's status as one of the top 3 or 4 welterweights is virtually a given.

There's also the famous example where Fleischer didn't include Ali in his top 10 heavyweights. Ali even lost to Jim Jeffries in a computer tournament during his exile.

Present-day fighters tend to elicit more extreme reactions good and bad, and it's harder to judge them objectively.

All that said I think relatively fewer fighters in this era will attain ATG status, mainly due to fighting infrequently against top competition. In era of 100+ fight careers, there was much more scope to flesh out a resume. Even a fighter like Charley Burley fought several HOFers. Compare that to Calzaghe, who you can make a reasonable argument for ranking him anywhere, due to the lack of career-defining matches againt great fighters.

 

Of course, the same thing happens in all sports, even movies and music (although most movies do suck nowadays). Part of it is time smoothing over the edges, we always remember the good. Part of it is quasi territiorial, my era was the best, type thinking.

Most rational fans realize that many fighters from the modern era would do well in the past. We should also remember than many golden oldies would perform well in the present.

 

Agree with this. Old time fighters just had more fights to demonstrate their worth and came up against more styles. You really have to fight top competition every fight to pack in the names today in relatively few career fights. When you've had 130 fights and are 119-11 or whatever there is a greater chance to find that 'great' win over a fighter that had achieved or would achieve something the future.

Jake La Motta for example had what 106 fights? He fought Ray Robinson 6 times and beat him but once but that and his wins over Zivic and Cerdan was enough to catapult him into the HOF despite the fact that he lost 19 times. Contrast this with many modern fighters and the obsession with the 'O' today and it's easy to see why a lot of older fighters are held in higher regard - they fought often and fought constantly against top opponents and despite losing a few they had greater opportunities over more fights to show their worth against great competition.

 

In terms of skill, no. I think anyone with common sense knows that fighters from the last 30 years or so are, in large part, more improved than the old timeys.

In terms of accomplishments, no. Why would we be? The old timers accomplished SO much more than today's guys, who fight more for money and their 0's than anything else.

 

Absolutely yes. The 'legend' of some of these fighters of the past seems to overshadow truthful analysis in many cases.