Why we tend to favor fighters of the past over the present

I see it happen all the time where a debate comes up and it seems the fighter from yesterday seems to be the more favored fighter the majority of the time....I do it myself quite a bit....EG

Ali over Tyson

Robinson over Mayweather ect

So was just wondering why does everyone think that is the case?....Smaller gloves?...the fact fights went longer?....opposition was more up to standards where even the contenders and journeymen were tough?......Just curious on how everyone rates these things or what they rate when comparing

I can say I dont know enough about the older fighters. Only that they fought for longer, with thinner gloves and with much shorter shorts :D

To me it just seems the older fighters seemed more rugged than the newer guys for the most part. SRR had what, 198 fights? :o That's putting your life on the line IMO. The 15 rounders, moving weight classes regularly, fighting for peanuts. Just seemed more interested in fighting than being reality t.v. type stars. Don't get me wrong, there are some rugged guys around, just seems everything is about money 1st and fame than going to war. JMO

It was a tougher era, just my opinion. Deeper competition. Especially around the depression era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

I can say I dont know enough about the older fighters. Only that they fought for longer, with thinner gloves and with much shorter shorts :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LEGION

To me it just seems the older fighters seemed more rugged than the newer guys for the most part. SRR had what, 198 fights? :o That's putting your life on the line IMO. The 15 rounders, moving weight classes regularly, fighting for peanuts. Just seemed more interested in fighting than being reality t.v. type stars. Don't get me wrong, there are some rugged guys around, just seems everything is about money 1st and fame than going to war. JMO

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Contest

It was a tougher era, just my opinion. Deeper competition. Especially around the depression era.

---

CC's to all for the input

discounting fighters of the present has been going on forever. Everyone thinks people from the past are stronger, tougher but its like comparing apples and oranges. I do the same thing, I think the past one are greater but you can only be compared to your current comp. The Majority hated ALI but now they love him. Same thing. My generation was better type thinking.

CC back Khan :)

I would favor Ali over Tyson as a BOXER because he was 100 times better than Tyson and ANYONE who thinks Tyson would have beaten Ali needs to see how Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson did vs him because Tyson was a mesh of those fighters....Cus D'Mato wanted Floyd Patterson with a Sonny Liston attitude and that was Mike Tyson, so his style was all wrong to beat Ali.....not saying he wouldn't last longer but in lasting longer he would probably look worse as the fight wore on, and yes he would have been KO'd



Ray Robinson EARNED his respect, Floyd expects to be handed respect.....he's fought some good fighters and he's made fighters look silly but he is NOWHERE and I repeat NOWHERE near as accomplished as Ray Robinson was.....and anyone who argues with that needs to just look at his record. Yeah Ray lost a few times, even in his prime HOWEVER he did lose because he took chances with his career and usually he came out on top.


Also Floyd's career isn't over yet so he can still prove stuff OR have stuff proven about him...he's still great but nowhere near as good as Robinson

Its a respect your elders thing I guess ;)

I think It has alot to do with being able to put a past fighters into full perspective and fully comprehend there acheivments AND Failures.Really human nature .Not to mention in a way Media exposure of a fighter.In todays media were so caught up in information and obtaining it is instant.Back in the day you had to work at it,a little was left to the Imagination. Dont know if that makes sense.Maybe the most upside down post Ive made ???

History tends to sort out TRUTH and BULLCRAP from all the hype

I know what you mean daxx, when i watch guys like floyd box wonderfully i can't help but think he prolly would box ray robinson to a u.d. but then when i watch or read(cause dammit their are little footage) I can't help but think damn them guys are far more hungrier and stronger. I think floyd would get bent over and pounded...ok seriously the styles of modern fighters may be a lot more flashier and evolved. What keeps me thinking the past greats are better then the recent greast are the inner strenght of fighters in those era. Past fighters barely stay on their toe's and hop around like modern boxers but they took punches with smaller gloves and took them for 15 rounds or more. They also dish out crushing blows to their oppenents. that makes me think, if those guys are use to taking far harder shots for longer of times but get knock out by the greats. Then they really must be stronger and how can the recent greats go 15 rounds with these gladiators.

Well im not even sure if i made sense, but i'll say this....if the fight is for 15 rounds with similar past boxing rules, then the past greats win.....but if its sancution by one of these many abc titles for 12 rounds, the it gives recent greats the advantage. ;D

CC's to all for the opps

I try to comment only on fighters I seen some type of footage of. And I try to see as much old footage as possible. But I try not to comment on fighters I never seen.

Good point Vd i hear people talk about Harry Greb but finding footage on him is a real pain. Same goes for the likes of Gene Tunney yet another man i have problem finding footage on but when i do i see how good some of them really were.