Why are boxers of the past always the greatest?

Good point! But i cant really compare music with sport, in old days music WAS better because the artists actually had the talent to make good music back then. In sport you still have to have the talent and work hard to make it to the top, nothing have change there imo.

 

The Klitschkos weren't brought up in the US. They were brought up and trained in the former USSR before the Berlin Wall was torn down. They probably didn't even have the freedom to travel between towns on trains

 

The old fighters fought more frequently, no doubt. They also fought a lot of cab drivers and firemen. Imagine Wladimir Klitschko decided to put together a 'bum of the month' club? He'd be slated for it. In fact, the fights wouldn't even be sanctioned

 

Because Grandpa's can tell better stories.

 

Think older fans cling to their past and blindly root for boxers they grew up with, 'n if anybody dares take 'em off a pedestal, it's a personal affront

 

That´s right - Lopez wouldn´t beat any of the today´s top featherweights.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w32aohgV_j8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w32aohgV_j8[/ame]

 

What happens 40 years from now if a fighter from that time is called the greatest ever? What will today's fans say then?

 

If you compare 100 years of boxing against 1-2 years(the present) The best over the long run is better than our smaller group of active fighters. Are you out of your mind comparing Haye to ATG heavyweights? Aside from k2 the heavyweight division is **** and Haye still has to fight retired fighters and bums to keep his scam going. I question myself for responding to this ****.

 

History tends to remember thing favorably for the fighter, not against him. For example the late great Ezzard Charles had a similar career to Roy Jones Jr. fighting from middleweight to heavyweight. Hes remembered for his accomplishments, not his losses. He was stopped more times than Jones and had a lot more losses, but history focuses on his hight points. The same will be true for Roy in the future. When fighters are active, we like to see them as close to invinsible. We look at them as if they are super humans and the expectations are always higher. When the fog clears, we can see their body of work as a whole and remember what they did. Nobody remembers Alis first 5 fights, and nobody judges him on his last 5.

 

I was very small when I watched the early 80s, but now that I've seen what those guys did and what they went through to get to the top, I think that is the most athletic time in the history of boxing. Now there are a handful of good ones, then even contenders who never had a title were still like 60-3 and had fought similarly experienced challengers.

those guys were still conditioned for the 15 round fights, and the main stream status of boxing insured that a wide range of athletic people were attracted to the sport. Now, why would an athletic big guy choose heavyweight boxing over a shot at football/basketball etc.? Boxing is still the refuge of the small athlete since it promotes those guys very well, but in general I think the middleweight division is a farce since the time of Hagler, though it had been dominated by an ATG for years in Hopkins before he moved up. And honestly the superior athlete everybody talks about nowadays ... does anybody think Maussa or even Brandon Rios are great athletes? No, but they are good enough to have belts because of unathletic intangibles. Low skill but exceptionally tough guys ... and guess what? low skill and exceptionally tough guys would do well in any era. they can compete nowadays, too, just not beat the very very best.

I do think guys like Floyd, Morales, Barrera, Pac, Marquez are a match for ANY small guy their size in history (126-130), but clearly duran's longevity into old age and success at weights above middleweight are INSANE for his height and put him rightfully in any discussion of the greats of the sport. I do think the sport evolved from the 60s into the 80s, but I don't see much stellar progress since then in terms of conditioning and skill because the fighters fight so much more infrequently against lighter competition nowadays in general. Unless you are managed by golden boy, where they screw you as soon as possible with impossible match ups. Poor Katsidis.

 

I was about to type out a big paragraph similar to this, but you summed it up. Boxing used to be the #1 most popular sport, especially in america, now it's not even top 10. In the days of Sugar Ray Robinson there were literally 90 times more active fighters and unlike other sports where technique and training methods have drastically changed and the old timers wouldn't stand a chance (football, basketball, hockey), boxing has changed very little. So boxing has changed very little in terms of training and technique and what makes boxers successful but at the same time it's literally got close to 90 times less participants which is why the old era was much tougher. Also add to that fact there were only 8 divisions and one champ per division so you had 90 times more participants competing for only 8 titles as opposed to way less participants competeing for 68 available world titles in 17 weight classes.

 

He doesn't have to, we already know who he is knocking out. You make it out like Louis created that phrase.

 

The evidence is there, just watch the film.

 

This is the bit that gets me.