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

Other.
Because they depend on hearsay a lot, regarding most old-timers, or if it's fighters from not so long ago, their memory is often playing tricks with them, with so-called idealisation and devaluation (psychological mechanisms) taking place.

 

Other.
Because to be seen as a great expert/historian here on Classic you must agree, that boxing has devolved over the years, and is nothing like it used to be. If you can say something like: "Today's boxing is so watered down, and is of so little interest to me, that I barely follow it any more"... then you will get a nice pat on the back from your fellow historians!

 

I voted for "other."

I give current fighters all the credit in the world. But when it comes to talk of ranking them all time, or how they would do head-to-head, I prefer to wait until their careers are over.

It isn't fair to take a fighter whose career is over, and you saw him rise and fall, when he was young and old, at his best and his worst ... and compare him to some modern fighter just approaching or at his peak.

I've seen too many fighters who people jumped the gun on -- and were pronounced as GREAT -- and nobody even mentions them anymore because they failed so miserably after they were deemed the "NEXT GREAT FIGHTER."

Wlad is a great example.

If Wlad gets destroyed in one round against Joshua, and immediately retires, and he never returns, you'll think of him and his career one way.

If Wlad loses to Joshua, and he loses to Wilder, and he loses to Parker and keeps fighting and loses to Hughie Fury and loses to Dereck Chisora. And won't stop and keeps fighting. And loses to a couple unranked journeyman ... (which has happened to a lot of top fighters as they got old and went on too long) ... you'll probably have another impression of Wlad.

If Wlad destroys Joshua in a round, and then signs to fight Wilder and destroys him in a round, and then signs to fight Parker and destroys him, too ... you'll have a totally different picture of Wlad. You might consider him the best who ever lived.

You just have to wait until it's ALL OVER.

Then you have a more accurate picture.

It's not an insult to modern fighters, you just want to see their careers in their entirety.

On the other side, I don't give as much credit to fighters at the turn of the 20th Century who have very little available footage. If you look at one fighters' whole career on tape, and you examine every flaw, and you have NO footage or ONE FIGHT of another guy ... it's easy to pick apart the person whose flaws you can see and praise the guy whose flaws aren't available to critique.

That isn't fair, either. It's an incomplete picture (like judging a modern fighter before his career is over.)

When comparing and contrasting fighters, you need to give both a fair shake.

 

There are a number of reasons here. I certainly don't discredit the modern fighters.
1) There are, at least, 5 different 'champions' in each division.
2) There are, at least, 40 'top 10 contenders' in each division given that the various boxing bodies don't recognize another contender in another boxing body (how are we to sift thru all this mess?)
3) New 'divisions' have been created, it seems, for every 3-4 pounds!
4) Fighters fought more in the old days so, save a precious few, no old day fighter had anything left beyond age 35 or so.
5) ERAS! What would a prime Lennox or Klit look like in 1921? What would a prime Dempsey look like in 2000? Can you imagine a prime 2000 Ray Robinson, not fighting every 2-3 weeks for 10+ years and doing the usual fight every 6-9 months? That's too scary to even think about!
As I said I'm not discrediting the modern fighters but you have to put things into perspective here.
My somewhat limited $0.02

 

Agreed, another reason is hard sparring, fighters don't spar nearly as much as fighters from the past. (But with good/great reason) . Fighters are much more aware of the physical dangers of fighting sports, especially boxing,and are sparing much less. Along with far fewer fights in general. Plus another reason that fells to be mentioned, Is great trainers. Their are very few of the encyclopedias of boxing left Today. and these new trainers dont have that knowledge beyond repeating the basics of boxing , they don't have that advanced info fighters received from E.Futch, A.Dundee,L.Duva,R.Arcel,G.Clancy,M.Steward and others who probably forgot more than most trainers today will ever know. So yes, those are very valid reasons why boxing has regressed in the last 20/30 yrs.

 

I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few years. I suspect that it with differences in how individual fans get immersed in the sport. I'd bet that those who had older relatives or friends regaling them with heroic tales of past greats from a young age are more predisposed to accept narratives that denigrate the present (and romanticize the past). They're more likely to see most changes in the sport as evidence of decline and to overlook signs of advances and improvements.

 

Are you saying modern boxers are only a bit worse than boxers of the past because they have the benefit of PEDs and would be a lot worse without them?
Or, are you saying moderns are better but only because of PEDs?

 

Why, in your opinion are there no "encyclopaedias" left and why wasn't the knowledge they amassed passed down to the next generation of trainers?

 

Simple ,in the 60's and 70's there was only one champion per division and they ACTUALLY had to fight mandatory contenders! Add the fact that fights are 12 rounds instead of 15 seals the deal. But in the end todays fighters simply don't pass the eye test, especially the heavyweights. Surely no one out there thinks boxing is in better shape today than it was in the seventies?

 

Agreed, watered down to luke warm! Geez, George Foreman came back and won a title in the ninties at 46! One of the two best heavyweights of the last 25 years Holyfield couldn't stop Foreman who was all target and went the distance and actually lost the last round to a 42 year old Larry Holmes.

 

Part of it is that they've got rose tinted glasses for the old timers turning them into mythical beings instead of men, and part of it is that the cream of the crop of a century is always going to be as good or better than the cream of the moment.

 

Other

Boxing is less scientific.

 

I'm skeptical about any talk of a shallower talent pool today. I haven't seen numbers to back it up.

Boxrec has 22k active male boxers listed. 3125 are from the US and a far greater number fight in the US.

 

Of course. Simply the fact so many champions exist and so many "top ten" challengers the game is heavily watered down. You don't need to be that good to be a champion. At one time a championship distance separated the men from the boys. Today a fighter only needs to worry about 12 rounds. GONE is the championship distance. Classic example that a rank amateur just plain awful hwt in Fury could win the championship. What's even worse is that fans today are so themselves used to a watered down talent pool they look to Fury as a good fighter. A pitiful shame that it's gotten that bad.