Why can't any present greats beat any of the past greats?

+1.

What's sad is that the change was supposed to be for fighter safety, when all it's really done is exaggerate the difference between those who weight drain and those who don't.

I also believe that the level of weight draining is a huge reason why fighters today don't have the longevity (in terms of fight #'s) as many old timers and are more likely to suffer long-term brain damage from fewer fights. As you dehydrate, the fluid around your brain also decreases- and it's the slowest to replenish once you rehydrate. It also impairs brain function.

 

its hard to say that some guys are better cus their career is not over yet, loadsa people just automitcally assume the guys from past where better though and thats fine but its only an opinion and some arrogantly state that the past fighter dominates when theve probably barely seen them, most of the top guys now should be in contention with them old guys

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIG5cE_bn2I

..well Jr would do better than Sr against SRL

 

Nostalgia does play a part in this, I agree. In a way that is understandable because the dust has long settled on old-timer's careers and we can fully and accurately gauge them. Sometimes just out of hard-headedness old timers are automatically picked over the current crop.

I do think though, that many people are too quick to jump on hype trains of some fighters today, according them a status that they don't actually deserve. I remember when Roy beat Ruiz, we had a LOT of people genuinely thinking he could have beaten Ali, Foreman, Louis etc.
Nobody is saying that now. Nobody was saying that Roy has a glass chin then, but after the Tarver and Johnson knockouts, suddenly Roy is this glass-chinned joke. Knee-jerk reactions are rampant on boxing forums.

One thing we must keep in mind is that the sport has changed significantly over the years, particularly with how fighters are matched. Old-timers may have had 10, 15, 20 losses on their records but that is generally going to happen if they're not carefully matched and fighting often.
Today going 15-0 or 20-0 means literally nothing. Fighters are over-protected and matched against no-hopers and cans for years. Not so much in the past, where you had lots of fight clubs in every city and a fight didn't take anything from 4 months to 2 years to negotiate.
Very different times back then, where losses could be seen as learning experiences, and not career-ending disasters like now.

Floyd and Manny could hang in any era, I don't doubt it for a minute. A couple of others too, like Marquez. But I think Floyd would have at least one or two losses by now, purely because he'd be fighting much more often and could not dictate the terms as he does now.

 

So true. I remember back then what a massive accomplishment it was to win titles in three weight divisions. It was massive guys, seriously. Everyone was on the lookout to see who could manage the almost impossible task of winning four. It was almost a mythical milestone that many thought could never be reached.

But, adding in several new weight divisions and a whole bunch of new 'world' titles was inevitably going to cheapen the accomplishment of winning a title in more than one division.
How many multiple weight world champions have there been in the last 15 years? I honestly have lost all count. Way too many, at any rate.

What does a 'world' champion even mean these days, anyway? I've seen 'world' champions who aren't even the best fighters in their own country or even state, let alone the world.

I remember when being the Commonwealth champion or the champion of your country was actually a big deal. The ridiculous number of 'world' titles has utterly cheapened the term, to the point where you have to be only half-decent to win one, not especially good.

 

This.

In all sports there are fans that overrate the athletes of days gone by.

In boxing - and more so among the HWs - some overrate the older generation fighters to a delusional :nut level. Anyway just another troll esb thread.

Move along.

 

Ya I agree but they are advance because teams worth billions of dollars are pouring tens of millions into youth programs where you have 16years old walking around 105kg of purse muscle. There are no such programs for boxers in other country and there are less gyms

 

You could say past champs were better than today' but they certainly weren't more professional or dedicated.

 

For one thing some tend to overlook small details that are important: old timers often fought opponents who sucked so badly they would not be licensed to fight professionally these days. "Ring names" were around back then so a fighter could put "wins" on his record by fighting the same guy over and over and a less informed public would be none the wiser. Promoters and the mob not only fixed fights but orchestrated the sport to suit their own ends. Boxers were more recognizable public figures as well. Today a lot of that **** just is not allowed and with far more advanced communication technology the fans would see right through it.

 

Really you believe that. Berny Madoff, world trade center collaps, fixing European soccer games, nba referee shaving points, hell just the other night I saw a boxing referee deduct one point on a bull**** call. I could list more but you get the point people can be dooped period and it will look legit.

anybody can be bought only the price is negotiable. ask anybody on K Street :hat

 

Sure, regarding team sports.

Think about this one. Poor ppl in Merica have what the "middle class" has in Eastern Europe, S America, Africa, much of Asia :think

 

Eastern Europe isn't that poor

 

:deal

 

That's one of the reasons, with nostalgia and lack of knowledge or intelligence being among others.

There are even lines like "boxing is unlike all other sports, it doesn't evolve". It's amazing what you can find on internet.