Why don't some classic boxing fans and historians give modern fighters credit?

What would that have to do with anything? Hes still active,i dont need for him to retire to evaluate him. If Canelo wins its a huge win and elevates him more than GGG bc GGG should win this fight if he was all that in the first place,particulaly punching power,so i have him winning by 10th rnd K.O , in a fight he will maybe be out boxed before that happens.

 

I partially agree, except that you can only learn more by seeing a fighters career play all the way out. You can't definitevely rank him, for example, without knowing how the story ends.

As the comparison to Kovalev goes, we also have to take into account that if he loses to Canelo, will he have put up a better fight than Kovalev did against Ward? That can make a big difference.

I got GGG KO 4. But I'm afraid it could end in 2.

 

Oh it gets worse than that. There are those who think Riddick Bowe has no chance against Max Baer

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/prime-baer-vs-prime-bowe.585291/[/url]

 

Insane. More nonsense from the camp that thinks Bowe was a lesser fighter than Carnera.

 

I think maybe because they did fight alot more in those days and often on short notice.

That said, say GGG loses to Canelo. Well that wont mean therefore he loses to every past decent middleweight. We have to analyze it first and see why he lost and how the guy beat him.

Its like Tyson losing to Douglas. If this were 1990 and this board was around, the day after the Douglas fight there'd be those on this board telling us how Oscar Bonavena would have worked Tyson over. Hell there are those around here who probably do believe that today.

Or when Lewis was knocked out by Rahman. Someone would be telling us how easily Johannson would have blown Lewis away.

Sometimes, losses happen because of an off night, not prepared correctly etc. It doesnt mean the fighter in question sucked all along.

 

It means an active fighter is only a defeat away ,and subsequently being re-evaluated negatively and downgraded from his exalted position .
For example Kovalev. Golovkin's resume doesn't have any special names on it, neither does Canelo's, this fight could potentially enhance one to greatness and relinquish the other to." very good but no cigar."

 

I love many old school fighters, particularly those who were pioneers in some aspect of the sport or who clearly possessed the types of skills that only vast experience in the field of combat could produce and which so seldom happens today due to various reasons. I'm talking fighters like George Benton, Niccolino Locche, Willie Pep, Joe Louis, SRR who were all awesome in more ways than one. And while I might not have the same sort of God-like regard for them as some posters do I fully acknowledge their massive contributions to the sport and their quality in their own time, which in many cases still stands up today.

That's one thing historically great fighters have over modern fighters. They've successfully withstood the passage of time and judgement to become immortalised in the mosaic of boxing's history. While modern fighters might look more impressive and even be considered over them in a P4P sense, they've yet to receive that hindsight that one can apply to older fighters whose influences and overall contribution to the sport have already been established.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I love watching contemporary top fighters because their book is still to be written and I love studying older ATG fighters because they've been curated and found to be of the highest excellence. They're both worthy of respect in two different ways, and I wish more fans would embrace that.

 

I feel similarly, but there is a difference between legacy and H2H. Legacy wise, GGG, Kovalev, Joshua are at the bottom of the totem pole. Robinson, Charles, Foreman are all above them as of todays date 2017 history wise.

But that doesnt mean that the more modern fighters would be hopeless in a fight against them. And we've seen enough of all 3 to realistically gauge how they'd likely do. AJ would have a realistic chance to beat prime Foreman. I dont have to wait until he retires in order to gauge that. A quick handed, technically skilled 240 pound power puncher who can throw good combinations would have a realistic chance. Sure maybe Foreman does starch him but writing him off completely with the excuse of "hes unproven" while ignoring any advantages he may have shows bias. This applies to all other modern fighters as well.

 

Yeah, a fighter can only do so much in their time and judged by their standards that they shouldn't be held up for not adhering to more modern qualities or expectations. H2H is a different matter of course, since it's a literal envisioning of how two fighters would fare against each other, and exists regardless of legacy or historical standing.

At heavyweight that tends to favour the larger man, since for whatever reason the average size of heavyweights has increased over the years along with a comparative level of skill. Plus the advent of PEDs has meant that heavyweights today now have an unfair advantage in terms of power, explosiveness, speed and even stamina over older drug-free fighters.

Joe Louis for example was about as awesome a drug free fighter as you can be at that weight, but he'd be badly outsized and overpowered by someone like Wlad or Joshua today. That's no knock on him, and that's something I think a lot of older school fight fans don't understand; that because a fighter is unlikely to prevail today means they can't have been any good in the first place. IMO that's what leads to a lot of the nonsense that we read about here and elsewhere, where a fighter like Dempsey would have a chance against a modern heavyweight.

There's also a lot of delusion and nostalgia for fighters of the past, whom their fathers or grandfathers may have praised which blinds people to the reality of the film footage we have of them which often paints them in a less than positive light. Probably a bit of trolling as well, though that's hard to tell considering some of the wacky stuff I've heard from perfectly frank posters who believe their opinions to be the correct and honest ones.

I have little time for such posters really, except to try to shake them from the closed mindset they've found themselves in, which can be difficult since, in many cases, they're absolutely convinced their opinions and beliefs are the correct ones. While I'm not immune to the possibility that the same might be true of myself, I'm always willing to give any fighter a shot and back up my opinions if necessary.

 

In almost all aspects of life I am a futurist. I have no grandpa on a rocking chair who told me stories about Rocky. Nobody in my family follows boxing. My appreciation for the old school fighters comes from looking at footage.

 

This isnt true bc a career is longentivity...no one stays in their prime forever. Theres plenty of footage with ANY fighter to rate them before they retire. you can learn more by watching fights repeadily not total number of fights.

Ranking someone career wise has nothing to do with in ring ability when they are more relevant.

EX: I fight 100 fights and lose 10 in my last 20 fights...where do you rate my boxing abilies? obviously it would be earlier .

GGG is still relevant and possibly prime still so i expect a win agaionst a more prime Canelo bc i think GGG is still more effective fighter.

 

Again you dont need to wait for someone to lose,anyone logically should be able to access someone even if they lose bc nothing written in stone. This is a huge problem for boxing history sections they cant look past one fight and have to wait till a career ends....its mind boggling to me,really it is. lol

Yes if someone loses it effects a career thats common sense,its also how/when and why they lost as well...

EX : current top HW Joshua has things i see and can see for myself why he defeats 95% of HW's in history...do i need to rate him after he retires to match him with past guys? Why would i ? Hes not fighting those guys who have lost and won against inferior and easier opposition and skills dont lie.

At 20 fights everyone will see what im talking about if they cant yet.

 

Joe Louis beats big men and he beat some very powerful ones.
Boxing isn't just about size and power, that's a relatively minor aspect of the full game.
Louis was big enough.

 

I know it's not and I'm not suggesting as such. But at heavyweight it undeniably plays a massive role, especially when coupled with world class skills and athleticism, as has increasingly been the case in the past few years.

Boxing isn't just about skills either; there are all sorts of factors to consider.