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

[p4pking]

People have already made some good points on here... But I think that it simply comes down to he fact that past fighter's have already had their legacy's set.. Think about it... Currently the fans will always want the top fighters to face someone else, it's just the way it is... But when remembering fighters of old, there's generally none of that, " oh, he didn't fight so and so, and he didn't do this"... Likely because most people generally don't even know who those so and so's are... I know I probably wouldn't when discussing many past greats. Most of us weren't around to know who was being sold to the fans as the next best thing at that time. When your talking about people fighting today there's always someone else who could potentially beat them, and with enough hype around them to warrant the fight.... That doesn't mean people will remember them that way in years to come.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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

You know what, thats a good bloody question!

I think for me, its a mix of the fact that the old fighters could fight for more rounds, they tended to get in the trenches more thus giving me the impression that they were both more fearless and tougher than todays fighters and also i liked (especially with the likes of ray robinson) how style and athletism wise, he seemed so ahead of the game yet he was still such a tough SOB.

I will always like that about Sugar Ray Robinson.

Truth be told though, these days the craft is of such a higher standard. I mean fighters just aren't allowed to 'get off' like they used to.

[DaxxKahn]

People have already made some good points on here... But I think that it simply comes down to he fact that past fighter's have already had their legacy's set.. Think about it... Currently the fans will always want the top fighters to face someone else, it's just the way it is... But when remembering fighters of old, there's generally none of that, " oh, he didn't fight so and so, and he didn't do this"... Likely because most people generally don't even know who those so and so's are... I know I probably wouldn't when discussing many past greats. Most of us weren't around to know who was being sold to the fans as the next best thing at that time. When your talking about people fighting today there's always someone else who could potentially beat them, and with enough hype around them to warrant the fight.... That doesn't mean people will remember them that way in years to come.

CC

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

You know what, thats a good bloody question!

I think for me, its a mix of the fact that the old fighters could fight for more rounds, they tended to get in the trenches more thus giving me the impression that they were both more fearless and tougher than todays fighters and also i liked (especially with the likes of ray robinson) how style and athletism wise, he seemed so ahead of the game yet he was still such a tough SOB.

I will always like that about Sugar Ray Robinson.

Truth be told though, these days the craft is of such a higher standard. I mean fighters just aren't allowed to 'get off' like they used to.

CC

[ICB]

I don't at all the sport has moved on, boxers get faster and stronger. Just like in athletics, people seem to get into there heads that boxers in the old days are much tougher and stronger etc, when thats not true you at all. Infact tell that to guys like Toney, Hagler, etc they are probably one of the toughest fighters in boxing history.

I also hate it when people say *Oh Harry Greb would beat anyone in Middleweight history* then i ask them how much footage have you seen ?? and guess what there answer is ?? i haven't seen any. and thats just it how can you rate older fighters higher than present greats when you haven't actually seen hardly any footage of them ??

Also i think older fighters have already got there legacy set, so they tend to get rated a lot higher and most fighters when they have been retired for years, i tend to find they get rated higher when there retired. Look at Larry Holmes for example he never got respect when he was fighting, but when he had been retired for years, only in last few years people are starting to realize how good Holmes was. But what people don't realize is that a lot of fighters in 80s and 90s also fought very strong opposition as well thats what i don't get when people say *Oh all old fighters had stronger opposition* but if you put most of 50s fighters in with 80s and 90s, elite fighters i think you would find that most of 50s fighters would get there a** handed to them because the sport moves on like i said earlier. I never can understand when people imply older fighters are *Unbeatable* when they have hardly seen any footage of the fighters they are calling *Unbeatable*. And they have lack of knowledge on there opposition because they wern't around in that time.

Fighters today when they really love the sport and are committed, train just as hard as older fighters take Mayweather Jr for example.

[cockey cockney]

as already pointed out....boxing really has changed in every aspect. Training methods, diet etc which has all lead to improved condition aswell as physical aspects such as speed, mobility etc. So its impossible to say really but i guess you have to try imagine say SRR with PBF's improved enviroment to train in. Or PBF having to do it the old school way they used to. Its soooo hard....however fighters like SRL, Hearns, Hagler can IMO be compared to PBF, Jones, B-Hop IMO becuase there has only been minor developements in conditions. I just say for example SRL beats PBF becuase he fought and beat better competition and he was a great at adjusting to a style to win a fight so i rekon he would be able to find a way to beat Floyd. Oh yeah and i say Hearns would beat PBF because he was HUGE at Welter and think Floyd would really struggle to get to terms with his rangey punches.

[CutMeMick]

I'll always favor the old school fighter for the simple reasons that they're legacy is set and that they've already done what the fighter today is trying to do.

I always comment on fighters I have seen theres a shit! load of fightes whom I havent seen much of.
I mean really how many Pep, Leonard, Walker, Burley etc. etc. FULL fights are around? Or how many of us have actually seen a moren then 3 full fights on these fighters?
Yet people try to talk about them and make them unbeatable sure they look good in small 1 min. clips or whatever they've read on them. That's why when I read comments around here I bite my tongue and seal my lips and try hard not to quote that person. I just skip that post and move on.... Sometimes I can't help it but comment.

One of my fav. things here is when people say and I quote "I've seen all of his fights"
Not knowing theres some fights that are proven and known NOT to be any footage on.... It makes me laugh but I don't bother with it I just overlook it. Prime examples when people comment on Tyson and say I've seen all of his fights... Uuuum!! There is 1 known fight that there is absolutely NO video on but yet people say they've seen all of his fights.
Same thing with Cotto people say I've seen all of his fights.... Uuum!! There is also 1 known fight that there is NO video of but people say they have seen all of his fights. Go figure?

Anyway.... Back to the title of the thread on occasion for example PBF now IMO has proven he's an all-time great. I would def. favor him to beat some of the past all time greats. Like JCC, Hiroshi, Flash, Mitchell @ Super Feather. At Lightweight I think he beats Ortiz, Duran, Laguna and Ambers. PBF has proven this IMO....

[Sugar_Shaw]

Because they had to earn respect a lot more

[Trainer Monkey]

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

Not really,some guys would dominate in any era,and some guys would get destroyed now
Its really abilities
If anything theres a tendency to overvalue guys we've seen,and not look at the legitimate tale of the tape
Everybody says Ali would be too small now,theres god knows how many(with the alphabet soup titles) heavyweight champs that were his height or shorter
There are some guys that would be eaten alive in a title bout today,theyd get to the title,but they sure as hell wouldnt win it.Liston,Dempsey,and Marciano at the HW class come to mind.For different reasons of course,Liston and Dempsey because they took complete advantage of the lax reffing of their time.Marciano would have been too small.Mancini in this day and age would have ended up like Angel Manfreddy,so close,but just missed.
But guys like Ali,Robinson and Jack Johnson are just timeless,the could have competed in any era