Why are boxers of the past always the greatest?

People see that past like a highlight reel- all of the crappy parts are edited out. the further back you go, the more outstanding the good parts are because less people remember the less memorable moments.

in 25 years people arent going to be talking about the scandal that Floyd was in with Pac- because it will be so irrelivant. Instead they will look at his resume and his record.

this is also why we need to pressure judges and refs to score properly, because while right now, a fight is just interesting to watch and see how a win or loss shakes up a division as prospects raise in fall in the ladder, 25 years from now, they are numbered statistics. Pacquiao got KD'd by Mosely the records will show, for instance, even if it was a BS call.

 

Because modern fighters never beat Old Brown Bill Williams over 35 rounds in 1910's Havana while dealing with Cholera.

 

Simple really boxing is on the decline big time. the amount of interest in boxing has dwindled, boxers arent household names anymore.

if i want to look up boxing news on some sites and teletext its in the other sport section beside equestrian **** and cycling and darts. no offence to those sports but this didnt use to be the case

look at the amount of gyms open compared to about twenty years ago its ridiculous.

 

Nostalgic bs raises it´s stupid head again;

"Fight historian Johnny Bos, for one, blanched when I provocatively suggested that BHop might be a great in any era.

“Oh, stop it,” Bos said by phone Monday from his Clearwater, Fl., hideaway. “Hopkins could not stay in the ring with light heavyweights such as Bob Foster and the so great Archie Moore.

"Hopkins is only great for what's around today, no more than that."

Here´s a sample

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

Quarry would be KO´d by just about everybody in todays LHW -division and Foster wouldn´t have a chance against B-Hop.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg-xZadHGc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg-xZadHGc[/ame]

Archie Moore would beat B-Hop? How blind are Mr Historian Johnny Bos?

 

Boxing is an exception to many rules that apply to other sports. Part of the reason fighters of the past rank higher than those of the present is that they have already completed their CV's. On the other hand guys still competing can still add to theirs.

Specifically though, yes I think Tyson would have KOed Wlad, and Foreman would definitely have KOed Haye. But only my opinion of course.

 

most of the athletic people are in other sports. So overall Boxing doesn't get the super athletes anymore.

 

Yes and no on that one. The top of the boxing totem pole are still in the main brilliant athletes. But yes boxing is losing athletes it would have got on board in the past to the various other sports nowdays.

 

That makes sense for big guys, but what sport are guys less than 147 pounds going to? Maybe that's why the light weight classes are still looking so great (or were in the last ten years, not sure about now). And only recently has UFC started marketing guys below 150, so not there!

 

That´s the The Emperor's New Clothes -tale that mostly American media keeps feeding people. Stop listening to "I don´t even like boxing anymore" Teddy Atlas and think for yourself.

The nowadays boxers are physically superior to the fighters of the past, they train more, they are trained better etc.

And for example in HW´s, there are much more athletes competing professionally than in the ´70.

Take a look at few Bob Fosters fights and compare them with B-Hops bouts. In what area was Foster better than B-Hop?

 

Compare these guys to the lightweights of today. How can anybody with their their right mind say that they could beat Gamboa for example?

 

Like Ray Edwards?

 

You can say nostalgia... you can also say hindsight is 20/20

Theres truth each way you look at it.

 

You are looking at a vid of Archie Moore at 49 years old fighting a very young, very spry Cassius Clay... Archie woulda given ANYONE trouble when he was in his 30's, INCLUDING B-Hop.

 

It is like any sport, the past legends and icons of the game are essentially considered the greatest of those sports as they have finished there respected career with a full list of accomplishments to be judged upon, inspired a generation and taken there place in history.

Once enough time passes after retirement, a fighter can than be placed against the greats because he, now, becomes part of history. A current fighter is always subject to such constant crisitism (wether warranted or not) that they cannot be judged against the true ATG's until they finish there career, the air clears and the new batch of fighter become subject to all the crap.

It takes time for people to realise how great some fighter and accomplishments are. For example if Floyd beats pac and retires, but pac returns in a year and remains undefeated and undisputed for another 3-4 years, than Floyds stocks rise accordingly. He would be considered a better fighter 5 years after his retirement than when he actually retired.

I believe its really only possible to rate and compare fighters within a decade or 2 each way, a gap any bigger comes subject to bias. I.e. Fighters that fought when it was still black & white have such a legendary and icon status in the sport that there abilities are often overrated due to sentiment, so head-to-head with a modern day fighter they almost always win.

 

I think it's time for you to follow a new sport