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

How watered down is your competition when you've got 150 or some ridiculous amount of wins?

How many elite fighters are there in a resume if you've got say 100+ wins, huh?

Your reasoning for steroids is silly. Do your research on them.

Look at some footage of fighters from days gone by and their fundamentals are absolutely shocking. There isn't one fighter back then doing ANYTHING like Loma is.

"It's easy to become champion"

Marciano wouldn't be HW champ today, but many modern fighters would be champions of yesteryear.

 

they don't give them credit because of what has happens and always happened. Everyone said in 1985. Donald Curry is the best fighter since Leonard after he demolished McCrory... He was seen as wow. he can beat this guy and go and beat Hagler.. like it was easy. Then Honeyghan beats him and also McCallum and now he is a flawed guy. Look at Kovalev lately or Chocolatito.. I really don't think it is fair for people to say either guy was not as good as they were, maybe they were not as great as everyone said to begin with. So giving a modern guy credit has been done and then we are let down. maybe that is why. Wait until a career is over with. Some guys who don't look that great now will be the hall of famers more than guys we thought would.

 

Brix is another know nothing poster.

Skill level of today's hwts is horrid. Look at Joe Walcott, not a great hwt champion, and he fought in the 30's to 50's. No hwt today exhibits any of his skills.

Issue today is those who should never be called champion are called a champion. Those that should never be a top ten contender are called a contender. That's watered down. That makes it easy to be a contender and be a champion.

Roids are used by just about every top fighter. Been that way for decades. Roids allow an athlete to recover faster in between workouts. Building size and muscularity. Take away those Roids and say goodbye to that size and muscularity.

Take a hint and try to know something about the sport you post about.

 

I'd take the recently retired Wlad over Joe. How about the HW's of the 90's? Are they terrible, too?

I agree about the best not fighting the best, if that's your point.

Size & muscularity? Lol. They CANNOT give you skill. You don't get more SKILL AS A BOXER by taking drugs. You work on your technique to get skill, everything comes from that. You can take all the roids in the world, but if you can't pick the skills up then you won't win jack.

Take a hint and post about drugs once you know more about them.

 

Hero worship of the past is a tough one to beat. The modern fighters may be as good as the guys of the past (admittedly I don't think so) but we tend to look at the great champions of the past with rose-tinted glasses.

 

And the skill level of today's hwts are just horrible. Goes hand in hand.

 

Yeah, no one's doing awesome stuff like this anymore.

https://media.giphy.com/media/11Uwd4ekOtqfVS/giphy.gif

 

Alvarez is Mexican enough. When he gets tagged hard he fires back, even when it's more advisable to hold. Might cost him big against GGG.

 

Didn't McGregor do a bit of that? Took a 0-0 boxer to rediscover dem old skills

To be fair though, Jorge Kahwagi 'boxed' in our era

 

Like what ?
What's Lomachenko doing?

 

I think 1920s to 1950s was golden age. There were so many seasoned skilled fighters in those days, before television impacted the sport.

 

Film Footage is not telling...

You do realise that Old Film more often than not, COULDN'T capture Movement Properly, movement was too fast for Exposure & Transfer.

this Also had to do with the Operator of the camera's, like all things in life, some were good at it some weren't so good.

You will have noticed that as Film Technique & Equipment Improved the Fighters got better... GOT Better? NO, Looked Better?

WHY because of improvement with film & filming.

Now THANKFULLY, there IS Some OLD Footage out there where the fighters look Right & Normal, see Tony Canzoneri and that Australian Site that has footage back to 1938 where the fighters look NORMAL.

So WHEN it's plain to see Proper Movement then more accurate assessment can be conducted... Now MULTIPLE that by 15 - 20 years, times 15 fights a year, times Plenty of Top Opposition... well it = Great & ATG Fighters.

the other side that So FEW of you every through in, Is Just Simply ASK the Question "Would RJJ, BHop, PBF, GGG, LL or ANY Modern Day Fighters, STILL Be on Top, IF they had to compete that often against Top & Good Opposition, or would they have Lost or Fall Away SOONER???"

 

I do Believe That This Would Look Awful Even With Modern Film Techniques:

https://media.giphy.com/media/11Uwd4ekOtqfVS/giphy.gif

I Last Saw Technique Like That In A Film About The Mating Habits Of Squid.

 

An era when skin color decides your chances to become champion is not a golden age for me. Add to that the mob involvement in the sport.

What was a positive is that meager financial rewards forced another sort of risk taking, at least for black fighters. No one would try today what Armstrong managed to do.

On the other hand, white champions got away with some disgraceful bs. Like Dempsey taking three years off in Hollywood instead of facing Wills, and Zale's and Lesnevich's ducking of the best contenders.