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

Clarify the question. Experts in what aspect/s of boxing?

 

Training a boxer, reading a fight, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of fighters.Conditioning them , planning strategy,working a corner.

Futch was a Detroit lightweight Golden Gloves Champion but didn't turn pro because of a heart murmour. He trained at the Brewster Gym regularly sparring with Joe Louis..
Futch trained:
Joe Frazier
Ken Norton
Larry Holmes
Riddick Bowe
Trevor Berbick
Montell Griffin
Alexis Arguello
MarlonStarling
Wayne McCoullough
Michael Spinks
Don Jordan


Ray Arcel trained 20 world champions including:
Benny Leonard
Ezzard Charles
Tony Zale
Ceferino Garcia
Lou Brouillard
Alfonso Frazer
Teddy Yarosz
Bob Olin
Billy Soose
Larry Holmes
Charley Phil *********
Barney Ross
Jackie Kid Berg
Jim Braddock
Freddie Steele
Frankie Genaro
Sixto Escobar
Roberto Duran
If you don't consider them experts then I've wasted 5 minutes typing this out!

 

"Wait, Futch trained Bowe?
I've heard enough. Yeah he's good."

- Le Modernist

 

An attempt at humour?

 

Don't even bother with people who think they know better than Ray Arcel.

 

Interesting point. Does anyone think that the middleweight version of Toney could have endured the punches that he weathered as a heavyweight?

 

Didn't Futch train James Toney & Mike McCallum, too?

 

I don't have a problem with the term "boxing expert" per se, but I do think that people romanticize them and tend to put way too much stock in their opinions, as if they're all unbiased, all-knowing, sixth-sense-having prophets.

 

Not at all. Of course anyone who's been that deeply involved in the sport and directly influenced the development of some of the premier fighters in its history can be considered an expert. But I don't consider their opinions to be infallible or beyond reproach, which I think a lot of boxing fans do. They were human, same as the rest of us.

 

Then they are experts and their opinions,though not infallible have a certain gravitas/authority to them.
That is the point I am arguing and Galvatron/Gaviscon, implying his opinions are superior is just the deluded conceit of a seriously up his own a*se poster.

 

That's my issue as well. Too often the term 'expert' is thrown around merely to shut down unpopular or dissenting opinions and to stifle legitimate debate. If you don't agree with so-and-so you clearly DKSAB, no matter how you justify your reasoning. It's a lazy form of debating that involves shutting down your brain and going with the herd.

 

No one's opinions are superior; they can only be well reasoned or poorly reasoned. If an expert ventures an opinion that lacks sound reasoning they're as open to being called out as the rest of us. As an expert they shouldn't need to rest on their reputation to back them up anyway; the clarity and depth of their knowledge and understanding should be implicit in anything they say.

 

If the answer is no, that means any MW can add +100lb and resist HW punches?

The problem is you modernists will turn around and say that 230lb Jack Johnson was just a fat cruiserwieght...

 

No.

Huh?

 

This argument is not just circular it is singularly lacking in logic.
Two opinions :
1.One from an expert .
2.One from a layman.
Whose should carry the most weight?

Two guys on here, you and Galvatron, disputed the term expert.I gave two examples of the word. Futch and Arcel, the depth of their knowledge is self evident, but we have posters here whose qualifications are that they go to a gym and hit a heavy bag ,seriously saying they are equal/superior in knowledge to them,its not only farcical its downright insulting to the intelligence of the rest of us.