How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
During all the discussions of various topics, many a reader might reach the unfortunate conclusion that myself, as well as perhaps certain few others, HATE boxing history. Nothing I can assure you is further from the truth!
I think that one can only have an appreciation of boxing at all, if one first has knowledge and an appreciation of the sports history first. Just as in any other endeavour.
The difference between the modernist (my) perspective and the nostalgist (or OTNB) perspective, comes down to how the past is to be properly honoured. It seems almost that embracing the present or recent eras of the sport is akin to dismissing the past, even forgetting it somewhat. These 2 views do not HAVE to be immutable. They CAN be held without the other as a necessary positive.
Seems to me that OTNB posters feel that the only way to ensure the memory or legacy of their favourite old time boxers is to construct a mythology, an almost religious sect in which the achievements.qualities of such boxers are held to some kind of unmatchable or indomitable standard which no boxer thereafter can ever encroach upon.
Take for instance the Shavers dilemma, recently highlighten on the forum "Shavers, the hardest puncher ever".
It is in fact IMPOSSIBLE in theory for Shavers (or any boxer) to really be the hardest puncher for all time. As soon as something like this is declared, boxers with a harder punch will, via the law of entropy, appear, but because they will have no common opponents or punch pads to measure against, there will never be any way to show numerically that these guys unequivocally hit harder. There in fact ARE methods which I used on the Shavers thread myself which go largely ignored, which are basically conclusively overwhelming but leave room for OTNB to debate.
Similarly the "Joe Louis best right hand of all time", or Muhammad Ali, "greatest of all time", with such statements made, and subjective argument allowed together, it doesn't matter if 100 boxers exceeded these guys here, the immutable statements can no longer be assailed as they are set in stone as some kind of Moses law which can never be tested without a time machine.
Again, there are ways to show beyond any reasonable doubt that it is false, but subjective opinions are allowed to overshadow facts for nostalgic posters because their favourite boxer is removed from common opponents to test against empirically.
Max Power 101: Any nostalgist claim which involves "OF ALL TIME" can immediately considered false, on the grounds where it is applied to a boxer in a past era from which empirical evidence to support the claim is now impossible to obtain FOR ALL TIME as well!
There is another way to honour the past, a twist on one of my previous laws...
"Every Generation of boxers and trainers, does the groundwork and lays the foundations of the sport for the generations that follow"
AND
"Every generation of boxers and trainers has the previous generation of boxers, trainers and sports scientists to thank for their development of the sport to lead to the success which they themselves have in it in their generation. Without them, their own performance would not be possible!"
It is in this way and ONLY in this way that we can properly honour the heroes of our sport past and current together, without ANY disrespect OR conflict. That's what it SHOULD be about.
The preferred method promoted by the large nostalgic OTNB community is causing enormous damage to the sport and is its single biggest continuity threat. Boxing will die a death from being eroded by stupidity from within long before health authorities or competition with other sports will ever do it serious harm.
"Enough with the games mate! Your messing with the Grand Master!"
Lennox Lewis
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Master
Bookmarks