Why are we so biased/obsessed with old fighters/era's

Not kidding, there hasn’t been an aggressive heavyweight like dempsey since tyson, and tyson wasn’t that mean compared to dempsey in the willard fight.

 

There’s no doubt that many people are nostalgic. Many people can show bias to the time they were young, from a time in their life that made them happy. But IMHO, one of the main reasons is that the sport has been diluted over the last 3-4 decades. Now I can appreciate fighters of any era. I can appreciate Canelo, Loma, Spence, Crawford and GG etc. But the sport has been diluted from 15 round championship fights with 1-2 belts, where there’s now 4 main belts, with each Org having different belts for the same weight class. For me, there’s also too many divisions. We now live in an era where European level fighters can claim to be world champions. We live in an era where it’s rare for the best to fight the best whilst they’re both at the top. Fighters aren’t as active. And a loss damages your reputation with the fans in our new world which is obsessed by social media.

 

The sport has evolved from the M.O.Q.

It doesn’t KEEP evolving.

It’s sad that if I asked for your opinion on a fantasy fight, that you’d automatically pick the guy from the more modern era, as opposed to looking at how their styles would have meshed.

 

Fighters were more approachable and relatable. Floyd Mayweather Junior personifies everything that's wrong with modern day pugilism.

 

Because they deserve respect for what they put into the sport to bring it into developments or great eras and fights. There are a lot of great fights and fighters that you are foolishly dismissing.

Will you keep this opinion, I wonder? 90's fighters like RJJr, Whitaker etc are from an era that's nearly 30 years old. Does this count as an 'old' era yet? When does an era become old? I bet you like Tyson, and that's beginning to crop to near 40 years! Ali won the title 56 years ago! These are some of the most popular, 'casual' fighters around. Will you dismiss eras and fights after they go past an arbitrary amount of years?

 

There isn’t a very high chance that in 30 years time, the fighters will be better on average.

It’s just silly comparing boxing to other sports like athletics.

Yes, very little records in the Olympics remain from 30-40 years ago. But most of those records consist of racing against a clock from point A to point B.

How on earth does that compare to 2 fighters facing each other in a ring, where it’s a physical game of chess, where they are pitting their styles against each other.

In most disciplines of athletics, more power = more speed.

More speed = quicker times.

Quicker times = broken records/improvements.

Improvements in sports science, nutrition and technology = a stronger, faster athlete.

In boxing, it’s a more skill orientated sport.

In boxing, there’s far more variables.

A sport where no new techniques or rules have been added/changed for decades.

Boxing does not keep progressing each decade like athletics.

The fighters don’t keep getting better.

The divisions don’t keep getting stronger.

Boxing has evolved from his roots, but for many decades now, the sport just EBBS AND FLOWS.

You can clearly see that if you make objective comparisons from the past.

Today’s LHW and CW divisions are thriving. They’re strong. Much stronger than previous eras. Whereas many other divisions are weaker. Today’s SMW, MW and JMW divisions are significantly weaker than in past eras. And that shoots down any theory that the fighters keep getting better each decade.

A top sprinter from the 70’s and 80’s aren’t faster than today’s top sprinters. Yet there’s top fighters from the 70’s and 80’s who would 100% be able to beat some of today’s top fighters.

 

He’s obsessed by other sports.

He will label anything that he doesn’t possess knowledge of as being weaker.

 

I think it's because the careers of those fighters are signed, sealed and delivered. Plus things age well with time.

I think by idolising boxers of the past we give the champions of the present something to aspire towards. And a standard to hold them accountable to, in a way we cannot do with modern boxers.

Look how quick things change in boxing. One minute Danny Garcia is fighting every dangerous opponent in the world, next he's got a nickname of Cherry. One minute Lomachenko is the greatest of all time, the next he's just fighter who didn't live up to the hype.

Present boxing is too dynamic to compare to the past; one is in constant motion, the other is static.

As for my favourite boxer, Frank Bruno.

 

of course other sports also develop measurable, basketball player are more precise then back in the old days, soccer players run more on average, it is old grand pa talk to lie to your self that boxing hasnt developed.

and there are new techniques added to boxing all the time. Look at the stuff canelo or rjj or wilder are doing, thats things no one has done before. Or the whole eastern european boxing school that developed in the 80s and 90s it is a completely different asset on fighting.
But I gues you gonna post some video of a flat footed old dude from the 50s and will claim they are doing the same things.

 

styles make fights is an old ass american saying from the time where boxers were categorized into brawler, swarmers and boxers which was absolutely stupid. Today those kind of classification dont exist and sinply the META wins.

 

I never said that boxing hasn’t developed. I said in my previous post that it has developed/evolved from its roots. But it doesn’t keep progressing each decade. We actually have PROOF of this. I can show you a number of divisions today which have clearly REGRESSED. Which means that you cannot predict that in 30 years time, that the fighters will be better on average than today. Using other sports as a barometer is silly and ignorant. Two sprinters racing from A to B, doesn’t compare to 2 different styles meeting in a boxing ring. There’s has been no noticeable progression in the sport over the last 30 years.

No new punches or techniques have been invented.

Roy was a phenom. He was a very unorthodox fighter. I’m one of his biggest fans. But his prime was 25 years ago.

Wilder is a very flawed fighter who has poor technique and balance. And I know from previous debates with you that you don’t rate him.

Canelo is a fine fighter and he’s now at his peak. I enjoy watching him. But what is he doing what’s so different to what we’ve seen in the past? There’s been many fighters over the years just as skilful.

 

That old adage is as true today as what it’s always been.

A fight is not decided on who’s the biggest.

A fight is not decided on who’s the strongest.

A fight is not decided on who’s the fastest.

If you can’t appreciate that then you’re watching the wrong sport.

They don’t have to put into those categories.

You can have 2 pure boxers that match up differently.

Go and watch the McCallum and Toney match ups.

Two great technicians.

Two technicians trying to feint each other out of position to counter punch etc.

It’s a different world than 2 sprinters listening for the gun to go off, before sprinting to the finish line as fast as possible.

 

it is that old mentality that has led to the massive decline of western boxing and the latinos and russians taking over.

 

What mentality?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

roy isnt the only one, maritnez is also very unorthodox, the style that is used by kovalev usyk and loma is also something that didnt exist 60 years ago. You cant just point at some random dude in the 60s that does steps in half the speed and coordination and widnes of angle of loma and say they did it already.
Everybody who says that wilder cant box and has bad technique doesnt know what they are talking about you dont medal without having good boxing technique and his right hand is absolutly crisp and short much bettet then wlads or aj. The idea that this guy was just giftet with a good right hand but cant throw any other punch good is so stupid.