Why does boxing fetishize its past so much?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Zulawski, Oct 5, 2019.


  1. reznick

    reznick Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,712
    5,055
    Sportsbook:
    1,611
    Mar 17, 2010
    This content is protected
     
  2. Saad54

    Saad54 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,322
    2,581
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 10, 2014
    Exactly. The sh8t has been watered down extensively.
     
  3. KasimirKid

    KasimirKid Member Full Member

    439
    494
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 1, 2018
    A major reason is that boxing has films like no other sport has. You can't look at films of baseball, basketball, football, etc. prior to 1960 and dam few even up until 1980. Remember the big deal that was made about Bing Crosby's film of the last game of the 1960 World Series? And it still isn't available for general viewing by the public. There are a few clips of the old-timers, but how much conversation can you generate analyzing Babe Ruth's home-run swing? Or how can you even see Walter Johnson's fastball, Freddie Fitzsimmons' knuckle ball, or Carl Hubbell's screwball? Other sports fans have nothing to talk about!! Boxing fans are lucky. They have first-hand access to sports history which no other sports fan has.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2019
  4. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    15,134
    5,103
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    Yeah, but many of the top fighters of the distant past don't look particularly good in the existing footage. It would be one thing if the film of the old greats was self-evidently impressive but it's not like the boxers of the early 20th century look more skilled or technically sound or physically talented than their counterparts of the past 30 years.
     
    Brixton Bomber likes this.
  5. KasimirKid

    KasimirKid Member Full Member

    439
    494
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 1, 2018
    I agree, but even the points you raise add to the buzz and lead to further discussions. There are differing opinions about who looks good and who doesn't, whether a particular fighter has the natural athletic ability to be a good fighter with modern-era training and conditioning, whether a particular fighter would have been able to beef up with modern-conditioning and dietary improvements, and so forth. All this adds to the past-era buzz. And without film, other sports do not have the basis for the comparisons and discussion that boxing has.
     
  6. Brixton Bomber

    Brixton Bomber Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,615
    1,350
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2013
    Spot on.

    "But he was playing up to the cameras! They ALL did that back then!"

    No. Take the blinkers off for a second. Your boy looked awful, because technically, he WAS awful.
     
  7. HOUDINI

    HOUDINI Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,098
    1,021
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 18, 2012
    There were incredibly great fighters in every era. A great fighter is a great fighter no matter the era. The inherit abilities of great fighting as well as the learned skills have not changed in the past 100 years. What has changed is the emphasis on size over ability in the hwt division. Allot of this has to do with the many pathways to become successful. Size is now enough to forge a nice career.
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement