Why do we always pick historical fighters over current ones?

Of course we look back with rose tinted specs and lots of us weren't even around during many great fighters era's, or were very young, so many just look back to footage of fights without seeing all the ducks, excuses, poor matchups, politics, etc etc...
We can do all that with the current, and pick them apart all to easily because we see it all in live time..

Plus those guys careers are done and dusted long ago so can look at an whole career, but miss so much doing so!....

There's always been plenty of filler in the heavyweight division, ppl just weren't there or just look back with rose tinted specs like you said.

 

I honestly think people do it just to sound more intelligent. In football discussions it always happens too, although in football discussions the lauding of older greats is more legitimate because they were playing with terrible balls and on shocking pitches every week.

When it comes to any old Heavyweights discussion these days you can only compare them to modern Cruiserweights or modern day small Heavyweights.

 

Fighters in the middle of their carreer will always be less proven than one's who's career has panned out, and should rank lower until they improve otherwise. Plus you can pick them right when they peaked whereas current ones may still be developing.

 

Most of it is rose-tinted bollocks.

Pick any magazine from any era and it will be slagging off the standard of heavyweights.

I've got a couple of 50s ring magazines bemoaning the standard of heavyweights compared to the 1910s, which if they are remembered for anything it is the white hope joke period.

The 1990s era was seen by "experts" as a joke at the time. Now it's being heralded as some kind of golden era.

Truth is that it's all probably a wash. There's a few outstanding fighters every generation, some good ones, and some mediocrity.

 

There's no way people can watch guys like the fab 4, Jones, Toney, Whittaker, SRR, Pryor, Sal Sanchez etc & think they wouldn't be the top dogs today. They would.

For me, my eyes tell me that the fighters from the 70s/80s & to an extent the 90s were the best there has been. A larger talent pool from inner city America, Unbelievable endurance over 15 rounds & tremendous skill & fighting instincts crafted from thousands of rounds of gruelling sparring like that seen in the Kronk Gym. Sparring that would have trainers today jumping in to calm it down.. & who can blame them? It was certainly detrimental to fighter's health but damn it made them great fighters.

Of course there's fighters from before then like SRR who would dominate in any decade but as a whole I like what I see from the 70s/80s/90s.

There's guys in the classic section who say the 1920s was the peak. I personally do not see that. Maybe I'm still scarred from the Harry Greb shadow boxing video.

 

"We"? "Always"?
Your question is founded on a false premise, so everything else can be dismissed.

 

You haven't seen a Harry Greb shadow boxing video.

 

Well, I just happen to be exceptionally intelligent so I sound that way by default with very little effort.


"...these days you can only compare them to modern Cruiserweights ..."


Why don't you furnish a chain of premises that you think leads to this conclusion, rather than stating it as prima facie obvious, which it most assuredly is not.

 

Oh yes I have....

This content is protected

I assume u have seen this & are somehow going to explain to me that it's not shadow boxing. We must have different definitions for it.

Heck, forget me. The clip provided can be found detailed in the biography 'The Fearless Harry Greb', "the only film footage of Greb that exists is of him working out before his bout with Mickey Walker.....on the film Greb is SHADOW BOXING, jumping rope, hitting the heavy bag, doing sit ups and calisthenics....."

Apologise in your own time.

 

Correct on the football one. For me, Messi is the greatest player of all time & Maradona is second. Anyone who has played football can attest to how much more difficult it is to dribble at speed on a baubly surface. Frightening to think what Best, Garrincha, Maradona & co would be like on the pitches we see today.

I also have a theory that I'm about to explain horribly which goes against this notion that players today are much better.

You have players like Maldini who in his mid 30s was still one of, if not, the best defender on the planet. Maldini, naturally, played in the generation before so when we go back to his early days at AC Milan, his teammate Baresi was seen as the best defender on the planet. Take Baresi back a further generation where he was a young player & Beckenbauer was rightly recognised as the best defender on the planet. So we have players crossing generation from generation & there doesn't appear to be some incredible jump in talent. I'm explaining this horribly but I'm sure u know what I mean. Granted, using this theory, the young players used as an example will get better as they get older in most cases. However, there's clearly not a huge jump in talent, if any, that people suggest.

You get incredible football players in every generation.

 

I've seen that clip many times, and am about 178 steps ahead of you. He's not shadow boxing, he's doing isometric exercises in which the muscles are tightly clenched for the full range of movement, hence the comically stiff look you misinterpret.

 

In the words of old fish eyes, "Do me a favour!!". HAHA

 

It ALL depends on the era that the current boxing writers and experts grew up in, as they will over rate that era. Once they die off and retire the next era of boxing writers and experts comes along and starts over rating the era they grew up in. And so on and so on.

There is no consensus, because when you are comparing eras there is no objective measure.

On the HWs.
I said a few years after Lennox Lewis retired that give it 15-20 years after he has retired and people will start rating him as a top 3 HW of all time and possibly the Number 1 best. Right after Lewis retired no one was even ranking him in the top 10, because of a few losses. Those same "experts" gave Ali a pass for his 5 losses, plus at least 3-4 outright corrupt UD wins he has on his record that he lost.

You need to have a perspective on an era of at least 20 years after a fighter retired to be able to give a measured view of it. Its as simple as that. You also need to take the boxing writers and experts views with a pinch of salt, as its all seen through their own lens of the era they grew up in.

What is a better fighter someone who was 10 years undefeated and undisputed, or a fighter who was champion on and off for 10 years but who had 3 stronger challengers who also had great careers. Its really subjective BS.

There is also the fact that the modern HWs are in better shape and more professional than any fighter who was fighting pre 1990s, thats not even in dispute now. Of course, the older observers do not want to admit this because they may have a strong emotional attachment to the 80s or 70s or 60s HWs.

 

1990s heavyweight scene was mostly crap.
I remember it well.
Apart from a few very well-known epic or entertaining fights (eg. Douglas-Tyson, Holyfield-Foreman, Holyfield-Bowe trilogy), the division was full of dull and boring pretenders.
Mercer, McCall, Seldon, Briggs, Akinwande, Schulz, Hide, Bentt were mediocre.
Tommy Morrison was ****ing crap.
Lennox Lewis, for all his ability, was often boring as hell, inside and outside the ring.
The division was so bad even Bruno finally managed to win a world title.