Why are boxers of the past always the greatest?

I'm ina the middle because I think Hopkins is the rarity: a guy who would have been successful in ANY era because of skill and intangibles and just sheer hardness. However, if "athletes" like Brandon Rios and for the love of God Caballero can rise to the top, then anybody from the fifties could be up there too. Chavez jr, Rios, Caballero, Litzau, Maussa, Malignaggi, even ponderous but powerful Canelo all have severe severe flaws, and if they can compete and sometimes win at the highest level then YES, those old timers could too.

BUT BUT BUT our stand outs, especially from the featherweight divisions, really are some of the greatest of all time, and I think we were gifted with a very talent rich feather weight division just like the 80s had a crazy talented welter one. Pryor, Benitez, Hearns, Leonard, Duran, and the bigger Hagler were all amazingly awesome and in head to heads with fighters from any era did well. Barrera, Morales, pac, Hopkins, even Hamed, Marquez, Floyd: those guys are also competitive with any one in the history of the sport in theory. They are great in any era, and its clear when they fight lesser fighters. Head to head at welter Floyd and Pac don't stack up because of their "range" of weights. they are small, Leonard and Hearns were baseline welters who could move way way up. But in just talent they are equal or superior.

 

:good Great post.

 

Well first of all Mike Tyson would knock Wlad into next week, that's just a fact. George Foreman would have probably swallowed Haye for breakfast.

You could have come up with better examples then that. But part of it is nostalgia, and some people just have a bias towards the old timers.

 

wait, BOXART, you're complaining about people saying Tyson would KO Wlad and Foreman would KO Haye?

god damn, boxing fans are ******ed. wouldn't be close.

 

The more gyms/fighters in the 1950's theory doesn't stand up when you consider that worldwide the sport is bigger then ever.

It's the typical nationalism + nostalgia taken to the millionth degree in boxing more so then any other sport.

 

Just to add. A while back someone at boxrec pulled down the records and looked at fights by decade. The current crop only falls behind the 1920's and has similar numbers to the 40's-50's and larger then 60's-90's.

People love to just crap on boxing (from fans to casual people who have no clue), it's been going on forever.

 

Well that statement just doesn't hold up at all.

How is the sport bigger than ever?

Just here in Australia for example, the recent Australian Heavyweight Title was fought between a guy who was 4-0 and a 9-7-3 fighter.

In the late 1800's Bob Fitzsimmons was learning his trade over here in Foley's Boxing hall (he is not an English fighter at all, if anything he's a New Zealander)

Boxing was an absolute top sport - far more popular and having many more participants than football or basketball in America. The English fighters were storied tenfold in every weight class to today in number.

Just look at the frequency of fights - Through the 40's you had Robinson fighting 10-15 times a year in some years - He fought Lamotta just 3 weeks apart!

The knowledge base of the trainers and the sport was far deeper.

I think in answer to the thread - The main reason the older fighters get respect is that they had to prove themselves to make a meagre living from fighting compared to the guys today with padded records and keeping an "o" over shitty competition to make a name for themselves.

Back in the day, it was more like MMA in that if a fighter had a loss - The quality of his effort was more recognised than some sort of life ending loss of his O. That secured more fights.

The sport has ebbs and flows, but the talent pool is undeniablly shallower than it was even in the 70's.

 

Bigger in Latin America and Asia, and to a lesser degree in random places like Africa.

It's less popular now in many first world countries...not exactly surprising.

 

Boxing was massive in latin America and Asia was well represented back in the day as well.

 

end thread

 

So all the success of Latin Americans in recent decades (yeah im aware of fighters from 50 years from those regions but there are a lot more now) is because the Americans are not as good anymore? Same with all the former Soviets dominating?

Sounds like a good excuse. Japan had more shows this decade then ever before (im not looking it up but it's what I read a few years ago).

 

Dude - Read Mike Silver's "The Arc of Boxing".

That will answer all your questions and more.

 

Yeah, no thanks.

I've read excerpts from that book and while it may have some interesting statistics it is mainly what this thread talks about. I specifically remember (in the Hauser review) quotes like "Hopkins wouldn't be a contender in the 1950's"

If you want to believe that then more power to you. Cyber Boxing Zone awaits your angst.

Like I said those boxrec numbers were very interesting. Granted a lot of stuff decades ago wasn't even recorded. Let me see if I can find it.

 

Ha ha - Been a member there for 5+ years mate. They've forgotten more about the sport than you'll ever know.

 

:blood name a faster heavyweight than Patterson
Name a heavyweight lighter on his feet than Ali
Name a heavy weight with more punch than Shavers
atsch
maybe the training is better, but the athletes aren't