Two things got me thinking about this. First, the thread on PBF vs Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Robinson led me to think about this in a more general sense. Second, I just finished Jeremy Schaaps, "Cinderella Man" and a few things about "old time" boxing boxing struck me as relevant to the issue. A few posters argue that boxers legends grow over time. We overrate past greats and underrate current greats. Most, I think, can agree, there is probably some truth to this. The degree is up for debate.

Here is a case for modern boxers being able to stand up to the greats of old. Due to nutrition, modern training and human evolution, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster that previous generations. The are also just as skilled and smart, if not more so, because they have access to video and trainers who have analysed just about every style, technique, and trick. They have the benefit of being able to study all the greats of the past and learn from them. Also, since boxing has diminished in popularity, current fighters don't have the "household name" factor that helps build public perception of greatest, and eventually, legend. Today's fighers are just as great, but they aren't as relevant to the mainstream. Most people, as we age, get a little nostalgic. We long for the good old days of our youth, and overrate many things from that time, including boxers.

Now I'm going to switch sides. Boxing today is a fringe/niche sport. Why are most of us on Saddoboxing? Because most of us are the only hardcore fans our circles of friends. There are plenty of us, but we are spread out and in the minority. Until the 1960's, boxing was the #2 sport in the US. For kids in inner city immigrant communities and minority groups, boxing was then what basketball is now. It was a way out. Not only did many more people box, but local boxing was a huge thing, kind of like local basketball is now (and some places high school football). How many kids now see boxing as a way off the streets? Sure, some, but not like is once was. Almost everyone was a boxing fan, at least a little, and that meant there was more work for more fighters.

If you follow my logic, you know where I'm going with this. The talent pool was bigger then. The BEST ATHLETES became boxers or baseball players (in America, anyway). Why is the heavyweight division a mess? Because the Ken Norton Jr's of the world play football now. Even in lower weight classes, kids that could be spending time in boxing gyms are out playing 50 and 3 on 3 at the local park. They are kicking soccer balls and playing Pop Warner. Boxing simply does draw as many of the best pure athletes anymore, even as compared to the generation that produced Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler.

OK. I'm not taking sides. Yet. I'm hoping some people can add things to both arguments. I'm interested to read other peoples thoughts.