Which Era is Better: 1900-1920 or 2000-2020?

Also what’s wrong with Mayorga?

 

100% this. This is not a 100m dash we’re talking about.

 

Well he’s the wrong answer for De La Hoya’s biggest win, that’s for sure. Ward makes the cut but not De La Hoya? C’mon.

 

Maybe you’re misunderstanding. I wasn’t agreeing but I was more saying Mayorga isn’t that bad, it’s not some insult to have Mayorga as a top win as I think the other poster is suggesting he was good enough to beat Forrest.

 

Way too different to compare in my opinion. I know that doesn’t ad much to the thread but I just don’t see what we’d go on as criteria. I mean in these days you can’t watch a fight unless you have the money to get pay per view and in those older days you couldn’t watch one unless you were AT the fight. Exposure is limited in both eras. From 1900-1920 you had limitations in fighters of different colors and regions. Today anyone can climb to the top but the number of people talking up boxing is limited.

 

Boxing went to **** from 2011 onwards.
Early 2000s.. it was good, every weekend you had antecipated fights. Now, look at the main events of the fights out of 2018 for example, it is really bad....

I´m not sure how bad it is in quality, but certainly these fighters, especially right now, have zero charisma and singleness as fighters, the fights all look the same, the fighters look the same.... I´m not talking about trash talking, but colorful fighters.

I mean, look at the main fight this past weekend, that mexican guy Zepeda, he is good, looks good, but whatever..... I think maybe Boxing is lacking some propaganda, some marketing, I don´t know.... but something is off with the sport.

 

In terms of the fighters in question, 1900s-1920s without a doubt.

In terms of watching the fights, I’d love to believe that there were better fights happening in the early 1900s than Morales-Barrera 1 or Corrales-Castillo 1 but I have my doubts.