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

All jokes aside, I seriously don't remember any of the old time trainers actually had any protege's in the corners with them, cut men,2nd trainers,assistants, all seemed to be around the same age. I'm sure it may have happened. But I don't remember it. But Ill give a prime example. The career of M.Tyson. Ill never forget how bad that corner was during the Douglas fight after D.King ran K. Rooney and the rest of that team away for the amateurs,and band wagon jumpers and "yes men". Tyson had in that corner that night. They gave no real advise other then being cheerleaders. It was pathetic. And may have cost Tyson a top 5 heavyweight spot. And probably millions of dollars more earned.

 

Yeah, it will be interesting to see. Because of styles and the whole setting. Really looking forward to it. I like how Joshua looks on film and I like how he carries himself outside of the ring. Hope he will make a real impact.

 

I confess a jaundiced eye when looking at the past in sports. While the points made here about taking time to assess the present in historical context is there as well, I feel like the current athletes walk in the footsteps of the heroes of the past and those former greats have to be paid tribute to forever and the modern stars may never escape their shadows, and I am fairly happy with that as I am more and more compelled to keep history alive as you see it fade away.

But sometimes it is a bit awkward. Reading that SI article where Rocky Marciano was shown footage of Corbett vs Fitzsimmons by Jimmy Jacobs and he kept shaking his head at how terrible he thought they looked. Or when I showed a younger football fan the 'Greatest MNF Game Ever' Dolphins vs Oilers 1978 and he thought it was very average except for the Earl Campbell run late. Both have stuck with me and sting a bit.

There was an excellent article on the Top 50 All Time College Basketball Players on Grantland by Chuck Klosterman in 2011. I thought he summed it up better than anyone I had read, writing-

"As with any historical list, my age is a bias. I am 39. I’m aware that human nature causes us to (a) romanticize players we remember from childhood, (b) lionize people we’ve only read about, and (c) undervalue modern players who seem like lesser versions of people we’ve seen before.

The dead are valued more than the living. I’m simply being honest here: It helps to be dead. If I have to choose between a dead legend and a living legend, it’s never a difficult choice."

http://grantland.com/features/the-50-greatest-college-basketball-players-all-time/

So I own my natural bias and will try to keep an open mind, harder to do as one grows older. Hats off to those who can.

 

Part of the problem is the internet. Anyone with a smooth voice can get on youtube and run their mouth and people will listen (even if theyre flat out wrong). Similarly, anyone who can write pretty flowery language or present logical, well thought out arguments can write articles or give interviews and sway the casual and uninformed.

People are loyalists, both to the people they read/listen to and to their fighters. This is a problem in every sport and every walk of life. For example, you have some fanboys who think tom brady can do no wrong or defend draymond green no matter how many nuts he kicks. You have people who stick with a team, network, magazine etc and that is their BIBLE. Happens in other walks of life too like that one uncle who takes everythong rush limbaugh says to heart.

So when purists, whether young or old, encounter people like this its like mixing oil and water. Even if the irrational fanboy/modernist makes a valid point it goes over the purist's head because of how rude or ignorant they act or sound when they speak/type. Its the boy who cried wolf syndrome. If youre rude or make stupid illogical arguments all the time even when you speak the truth there will be resentment and skepticism.

Another thing, happens every goddamn year, there could be a young strong prospect with a lot of potential. He has one or two good wins over C level opponents and it becames damn mear impossible to distinguish between the trolls and idiots who put them up against legends in matchups or claim theye already ATGs. This even happens with HBO commentators and espn writers. Its ridiculous.

So for the most part, purists arent just blind loyalists and flat out hate the modern era. Based on what ive seen its moronic writers, youtubers reporters etc who jump the gun and ruin it. Not to mention what others have mentioned--too many weight classes, too many belts, less emphasis on skill and more on simply being bigger, etc.

 

As for old knowledge being passed on - McCallum trained for both Steward and Futch and is now himself a trainer. Anyone know who McGirt and the Mayweather brothers trained under?

 

I think 2 reasons. 1 a general grass is always greener mindset that manifests itself in nostalgiaism and 2 boxing politics have weakened the product. Much fewer contender v contender matches nowadays means less noteworthy wins among the contender class, which seems to diminish the champs wins over them.
And an honorable mention 3, is that Joe Louis, Ali, and others just meant more socio historically to their era than current fighters.
Personally, I think it's a little silly to think that the old timers like Ali would have a chance h2h against modern shw's, from a strictly logical perspective. But I can see it more from a socio cultural perspective: they had more to offer in allure than current fighters.

 

Training is not some collection of facts you know and pass down.

It's an art. You not only need to know boxing technique, but you need to communicate, judge, observe, etc.
You need to remember where all your fighters are in their development, and how they need to improve. Sometimes you need to help them wit technique, sometimes you need to help them emotionally. It's not an easy job you can do mindlessly by reading a manual.

Roach can't just pass down his training ability any more than Michaelangelo can pass down his painting ability with a manual on how to paint and mix colors.

 

Let's not compare Friday Roach to Michaelangelo. It's ridiculous.

 

I didn't exactly think that, I just don't see why in an age where information is used more scientifically, great trainers in the mental/emotional sense can't gain then impart learned knowledge from a technical standpoint. I am not inside boxing and never have been so don't know that this isn't the case, but it would be surprising to me if there were less great coaches than in the past. I think you may be romanticising.

 

They definitely can. A kid whos been in the boxing gym from 8 years old to 18 years old has tons of knowledge from a technical standpoint, and can teach beginners how to become boxers.

But being a great trainer takes waaay more than just knowing the sport from a technical aspect.
For instance, what if a kid comes to your gym. He's one of the most talented beginners you've ever seen in decades, but he has problems at home keeping him from being fully committed. How do you handle that? No amount of technical knowledge tells you that, but the results of your actions could lead you to have a Championship fighter, or another missed opportunity. Great trainers have experienced that situation 100 times, and know how to deal with it. They know how to deal with confidence issues. They know what they can help, and what they cannot help. etc

You have to manage a gym. You have to manage fighters. You have to protect them from vultures.
Each fighter is like a business startup. So you're managing like 10-20 startups at once.

I think we have some great trainers today.
Better or worse than the past? I don't know, depends on the era I guess.

 

This content is protected

 

As others have said back in the old days each weight division had one world champion and there were fewer weight divisions too. The top guys fought more often as well.

 

I didn't compare them.
I compared the task of passing along their respective skills to another person being more complex than just technique.

 

But even as undisputed champions they managed some horrendous ducking. Even an outstanding fighter like Ezzard Charles couldn't get a title shot at his best weight. Not to mention Langford, Wills and Burley. I can't see fighters of that calibre being kept out like that today.