Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

No but it decreases layoff time for injuries which overall means more time practicing x techniques.

But I do wish people would remember your point when they act like evander holyfield or James toney just took a pill and walked into the ring champions

 

PEDs are advantageous. If they weren’t, then nobody would risk their careers and reputation by taking them.

 

if you aint practicing the right things, doesnt matter how quickly you recover. anyone who understands boxing knows half the trainers in boxing today dont know wtf they are doing. these are the guys fighters turn to for guidance. seems anyone can become a boxing trainer today.

 

yet the world is full of ped cheats that never rise above mediocre. this isnt power lifting.

 

So a PED that increases strength - like the ones powerlifters peruse - in the system of a boxer: you think that’s ok?

 

Because we don't get the good fights any more, really. I think boxing was more in the moment in the 1980s.

 

Boxing was a cultural phenomenon in the U.S., including through the 1970s. If you go back and read reports about the frenzy that accompanies Johnson vs Jeffries, the entire country was enraptured. More than 70 million Americans listened to Louis/Schmeling 2 -- over half the country!!

I don't think fighters have gotten worse at all. It's just that the sport has become marginalized and the rose colored glasses are about a time when the fights & the fighters were legendary, larger than life figures.

Baseball has a similar problem but not to the same extent.

 

Nah. I keep hearing how today's NBA is soft and they wouldn't last "in the 90's". Boomers.

 

Yes it does, to all of those. It allows for insanely more practice of those skills without burning out or injury.

 

so i can get a better understanding of how your brain works, and how much i can expect you to comprehend, show which part of my comment indicated to you that im "ok" with it.

 

thats just it, they arent practicing those skills, thats why you dont see them in elite fighters like you did back then. so it doesnt matter how much stronger they get, if their skills dont improve, their jaw is still getting shattered by those fighters that didnt even lift weights back then.

 

for some reason, boxing has always attracted pseudo-intellectual literary types who mythmake, exaggerate and hyperbolise, never letting the truth get in the way of a good narrative. your Nat Fleischers, your Bert Sugars, your Larry Merchants. masculinity compensation maybe?

 

The reason why is because in other sports you have a definitive answer every year on who the best is. Boxing tend to delay this answer for years like we’re legitimately just about to get answer at WW when we knew that Errol Spence and Bud Crawford were #1 and 2 for the last 4 years. We still don’t know who’s the best at 135 despite there being an undisputed champion because Shakur and Tank is out there and Loma/Haney hasn’t fought either so it leaves an incomplete answer.

The nostalgia kicks in when you remember a time when those questions were answered sooner than later. Imagine if Ali never got a shot at George Foreman’s title because he lost and struggled with Frazier and Norton whereas Big George demolished both guys. In todays climate people would have accepted that there is no need for the fight because George would demolish Ali. In the past Aj vs Fury and Wilder vs Usyk would have already happened. This has been a great year for boxing in recent years.

 

BoxingIQ,

The main issue here, is deciding whether or not you’re being genuine. Because most people here think that you’re a troll. And to be honest, I’m still somewhat undecided.

Let’s just clear a few things up straight away:

1. Boxing has progressed from its roots. But it doesn’t keep progressing in a continuous cycle. There’s literally whole divisions that are noticeably weaker now, than what they were 20-40 years ago. The sport hasn’t progressed in decades. It simply just ebbs and flows.

2. Any great fighter from any era, would be able to beat any fighter from any other era. A great fighter would have mixed results in any era, simply depending upon who they fought and how they matched up stylistically on the night.

3. Anybody who favours every older great over every modern great, especially without giving a logical explanation/breakdown, is completely biased. They’re nostalgic. Likewise, anybody who believes that every modern fighter is superior to every old fighter, is also completely biased.


Regarding your first paragraph, I’m a huge fan of both Crawford and Spence. They’re very gifted fighters. The only issue, is that unfortunately, they’ve not had the opportunity to really prove themselves against any fellow great fighters.

IMHO, on the eye test, they both look good enough to have competed in the era of the Fab Four.

Regarding Hagler, Hearns and Spence, you have to focus upon the stylistic match ups.

Marvin went in with that game plan. He actually gave an interview before the fight saying what he was going to do. He respected Hearns’ size and his boxing skills. But he’d seen a vulnerability in him years earlier. So his game plan was to jump on him and go to war.

So the question you need to ask yourself, is: Would Spence have replicated what Marvin did?

Spence doesn’t have Marvin’s firepower. And I also doubt that he has Marvin’s chin. In a chess match, Hearns would have been the favourite over Spence. But would Spence have jumped on Hearns and enforced a shootout?

Would he have gone to war?

Hearns only ever lost to guys who roughed him up and overpowered him. So you needed to be big, strong and aggressive.


Regarding Crawford vs Duran, that would have been another interesting fight. But I guess most people would back an inform Duran, as again, Crawford is still somewhat unproven. But with the gifts that he has, yes, it would have been possible for Crawford to have beaten him.

Marvin is up there with Robinson, Greb and Monzon for the GOAT at MW.

Mugabi wasn’t a natural MW.

No, he never faced anybody as great as GGG, who was a natural MW. But Hearns had success against very good fighters, both at MW and above MW. Marvin also beat some tough MW’s that you’re maybe not familiar with. Tough guys like Hamsho etc.

Floyd is simply always the underdog based upon the stylistic match ups, and the fact that he was past his best at their best weights.

They matched him for size, speed and skills, (offensive skills) but they also had huge power where they could be extremely aggressive.

Now you’re being silly.

Ali wasn’t too small.


A certain blend of styles and attributes can overcome any size.

This is boxing.

SOMETIMES the bigger guy isn’t always at an advantage.

For example: Mike Tyson vs Deontay Wilder, would show that Wilder’s size would actually have been a disadvantage for him in that specific match up.


Ali would have success in ANY era.

He had incredible hand speed, foot speed and reflexes.

He had a highly unorthodox style.

He was a great combination puncher.

He had a great chin.

He had the heart of a lion.

He had supreme confidence.


He wasn’t too small for any era. Yes, he never saw a Usyk. Likewise, Usyk has never seen an Ali.

Neither has Fury. And by Tyson’s own admission, one of his hardest ever fights stylistically, was against Steve Cunningham, due to his movement.


Yes, many fighters today are as good as, and better than, many guys of the past.

However, you need to accept that it goes the other way too.

Forget sprinting times etc, there’s many guys of the past who would have destroyed many of today’s guys.


Now get back to me if you want a sensible debate.

 

No one in Russia?

Ha!


If you were a knowledgeable fan of the sport, you’d know that there’s many fighters of the past who were superior than many of today’s guys.

There’s literally whole divisions from the past, that contained better fighters than what we have today.

There has been no progression in the sport now for decades.


If you can’t appreciate or understand that, then either educate yourself or go and follow a different sport.