What's worse: nostalgia or anti-old timer bias?

[Thread Stealer]

On one hand you've got the people who think nearly everyone in the black-and-white era sucks because of evolution.

Then you've got those who always talk about the good old days and how today everything stinks.

I'd say the nostalgia, or "remember the old days" stuff is worse, because often people have no idea what they are talking about. Crap like "the warriors are all gone, no more exciting fights". Yeah, the Morales-Pac and Morales-MAB trilogies were real snoozers. So were the Corrales-Castillo fights. The old days had nothing but classics like Ali-Frazier 2 and Duran-Lampkin.

And then there's the "boxing has been ruined nowadays by greed and corruption". :lol:

Yeah it was a real squeaky clean sport a long time ago. I think my favorite comment I heard about this was "whatever happened to fighting for legacy, old-timers like Ray Robinson didn't care about money".

:lol:

[MrMagic]

Well gotta say this, no matter how good you are these days you "cant be compared" with SRR, Ali and the likes.
Pretty sad because boxing has developed just like any other sport.. put a baseball team from the 70s with todays baseball teams and we'll see what happens, its not like that in boxing but there sure has been some improvements.

[Ramon Rojo]

I´ve become anti old time only after reading the drivel from old-time nthuggers in classic forum.

Some people there claim Marciano would have a chance against bigger heavyweight like Lennox Lewis.

[PowerPuncher]

Ignorant posts are worse, I don't mind any well reasoned post for old timers or the modern era.

Balanced intelligent posting rules

[unitas]

both are wrong.

there was great fighters back then as there are today. but not every fighter who you see in black and white is a great fighter.

anyway, most of this has to do with lack of fight footage on old timers. you have to depend on written reports.........and they are not always accurate.

[sandwichsurgeon]

Selective memory, the probable reason behind old timer bias (a trait most of us are guilty of because of the filtering out of negative memories or ones that conflict with our views on life) is worse than labelling modern fighters as superior because when people lean towards modern fighters it is because the scientific improvements that are blatantly evident in other sports will, of course, exhist in boxing. Since boxing relies so heavily on athleticism it would be understandable why someone would favour modern fighters due to this, hence ignoring the ever so vital skill factor depended on in the sport.

[ajohnfp]

Anti-old-timer bias is much, much worse. Most people with "nostalgia" are that way because they have a great deal of knowledge about old time fighters. Fact is, the average classic forum poster is more knowledgeable not just about old-timers, but about modern fighters as well.

[RAMPAGE0017]

I chose anti-present day. Some people make fighters of the past out to be some type of enigma. The same ones who say Joe Louis would be able to knock out Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, Foreman, etc without any problems whatsoever.

Or that fighters of today wouldn't be able to even touch Jack Johnson. Don't get me wrong, Johnson was great for his day, but even in the HW division as it is today, many fighters would crush 'em.

[Guru_Too_You]

Well gotta say this, no matter how good you are these days you "cant be compared" with SRR, Ali and the likes.
Pretty sad because boxing has developed just like any other sport.. put a baseball team from the 70s with todays baseball teams and we'll see what happens, its not like that in boxing but there sure has been some improvements.

Weight classes make boxing so different than other sports though.

[dangerousity]

Well gotta say this, no matter how good you are these days you "cant be compared" with SRR, Ali and the likes.
Pretty sad because boxing has developed just like any other sport.. put a baseball team from the 70s with todays baseball teams and we'll see what happens, its not like that in boxing but there sure has been some improvements.

Not being able to compare to Ali or SRR has nothing to do with Nostalgia. In the same case, fighters of the 20's, 30's cant compare with SRR or Ali yet their older than them. Its simply a case of noone from that era before or after has been better. If you look at SRR, its really bloody dificult to compare anyone to him in terms of resume without sounding like a biased ignorant fool.

[Jose FM]

Personally I think the fighters of today are better technically, more skilled, more athletic, stronger, etc... just like in ALL sports. The San Antonio Spurs of today would destroy the Celtics of the 1950's... The Indianapolis Colts of today would beat down the Packers that won the first Superbowl.

People don't give today's fighters (especially the HWs) enough credit!
I agree with you except i dont think that fighters today are technically better than the fighters of yesteryear, i say that because of the fact that the boxers/ athletes of today are more athletic and i would argue stronger then, so they can depend more on their physicality than boxers back in day that had to learn the right way of doing things because they werent as strong as the fighters of today. This can be said because of better nutrition, medical advances, training regimines, etc...

[Ramshall1]

Its funny how Pernell Whitaker is now seen as an "exciting fighter" . . . the dude was as boring as Spinks is today . . . but the Nostalgia gets in the way.

[Thread Stealer]

Its funny how Pernell Whitaker is now seen as an "exciting fighter" . . . the dude was as boring as Spinks is today . . . but the Nostalgia gets in the way.

Whitaker wasn't nearly as dull IMO. Spinks's first fight with Judah was actually pretty good, but most of his other fights bored me and he spends much more time on the backfoot and being defensive than Whitaker, who spent a decent share of time in the pocket or throwing those hooks to the body.

[Hadrian]

i hate both. i'm a big student of history and hate disrespect for the past, but i really really dispise the "no-one can ever be as good" angle as well. i totally agree with the above about past vs present athletcs. jeez you don't have to go back to the 50s celtics. I doubt MJordar would be anywhere near as dominant today. The NBA is filled with guys as or more athletic than him. I'm sure he'd still be a star...but not like what he was....that is just how it always is- John Mcenroe's skinny ass vs. Nadal c'mon...but i still love and respect THE MAC

[surreal deal]

nostalgia is tops,though it was much better when i was a boy.

[maracho]

Whats dangerous are these posters who think that modern technique equals smarter and more athletic as if the old timers were to primitive to even learn it. There is a prevalent bias in the media that claims the U.S. population is more politically, physically, mentally evolved than thier forriegn neighbors. All this stems from the prevalent University teachings that prehistoric human races such as Neanderthal and H.erectus were wiped out by the more evolved Cro Magnon man--no wonder we are hated. However, when you put our best athletes with all their scientifically advanced technique, sports medicine, steroids, equipment, etc..... they still cant beat the socalled primitive forriegn neighbors.

[Butch Coolidge]

You can't find a video of a flabby Larry Holmes jabbing, nothing but jabbing, at a flabby opponent who only wants to clinch in a fifteen round title fight. They appeared to have made the silent agreement not to hurt each other.

That's what my memory keeps giving me though.

Boxing was really rank back then until Tyson came along and made it exciting again. He was all action and intensity. Opponents were scared of Tyson because he didn't give a shit about no silent agreement.

At least today's heavyweights, the top ones, at least look fit.

[maracho]

Furthermore, there are good arguments that life is devolving. Even with all of today's modern technology its no more than improvements that have continued since its original invention from years ago or often thousands of years ago. We dont see inventors like Faraday, Newton, Pasteur, Edison, etc..
Then go back to the ancient Babylonian, Egyptians, and Greeks and you will see inventors even more amazing.

As for as physical attributes one must consider that today we are viewing the top athletes from a vastly greater population with vastly greater amount of sport organization. However there is overwelming evidence that modern man and beast has deminished in robustness overe the years. Do a search on the bigger brained, bigger boned, bigger musceled Neanderthal. Actually one could do a search on almost any modern critter and they will find a greatly more robust ancestor from the fossil record.

All life is deminishing-its called the law of thermodynamics and entropy. Even vegatables of today have lost huge percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years. The sun is deminishing, the earths spin is slowing, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up etc.......

[maracho]

You can't find a video of a flabby Larry Holmes jabbing, nothing but jabbing, at a flabby opponent who only wants to clinch in a fifteen round title fight. They appeared to have made the silent agreement not to hurt each other.

That's what my memory keeps giving me though.

Boxing was really rank back then until Tyson came along and made it exciting again. He was all action and intensity. Opponents were scared of Tyson because he didn't give a shit about no silent agreement.

At least today's heavyweights, the top ones, at least look fit.

Yeah and if you ever get a chance to ask Tyson or most any great boxer or boxing trainer; I bet they will tell you that they believe boxers from the past would beat most today.

[Butch Coolidge]

Yeah and if you ever get a chance to ask Tyson or most any great boxer or boxing trainer; I bet they will tell you that they believe boxers from the past would beat most today.

Sure, Michael Spinks, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, nobody has a remote chance against those guys.

[maracho]

Sure, Michael Spinks, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, nobody has a remote chance against those guys.

Well I do believe in miracles so sure why not?

[Butch Coolidge]

Well I do believe in miracles so sure why not?

most of the guys who believe in the old timer myth look at records. the ones who don't buy into the old timer myth look at a fighter's actual ability.

[maracho]

Now thats a judgement call if I ever did seen one. I think we've all seen Holmes, Spinks and Marciano fight and if they were fighting today in their prime they would probably clean up. On the other hand Tyson cant be considered much more modern than Spinks-so its a poor argument and Spinks definately did not look himself that night

[eze]

I can't stand the no one beats Ali shit from the 90s+ era.

I almost feel you have to base it off eras in terms of greatness, advances in nutrition and humans have evolved into bigger stronger beings. The AVG HW is 220, the avg HW back in Marcianos day were 185-195. I just dont see Rocky beating Vitali. Ever. And I juust dont see Ali boxing circles around him either.



But then again I do bash the old timers a bit but I get sick of the no one will ever be as great as the SRR, SRL, Ali.

I almost feel like this, why box and fight for legacy when no one in the world will ever say you are the best P4P all time, its an unreachable mark if you think about it.

[McGrain]

On one hand you've got the people who think nearly everyone in the black-and-white era sucks because of evolution.

Then you've got those who always talk about the good old days and how today everything stinks.

Both are as bad as each other. Both prevent objective surmise. It's BS.

Yeah it was a real squeaky clean sport a long time ago. I think my favorite comment I heard about this was "whatever happened to fighting for legacy, old-timers like Ray Robinson didn't care about money".

:lol:

That is so stupid it's untrue.

And SRR is one of the worst offenders!

[ajohnfp]

At least today's heavyweights, the top ones, at least look fit.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Looks real fit to me.

[ajohnfp]

Its funny how Pernell Whitaker is now seen as an "exciting fighter" . . . the dude was as boring as Spinks is today . . . but the Nostalgia gets in the way.

You know that Pernell Whitaker threw a shitload of punches, right? It's like a newsflash everytime Spinks throws a punch; Whitaker was one of the most active fighters I've ever seen.

[eze]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Looks real fit to me.


:patsch What a bad example to use. You think every heavyweight that fought back in the day was fit to? Give me a break.

[ajohnfp]

:patsch What a bad example to use. You think every heavyweight that fought back in the day was fit to? Give me a break.

When did I say that every heavyweight that fought "back in the day" was fit? He said that the top heavyweights at least look fit. They obviously don't.

And, on the whole, heavyweights from this era are in terrible shape compared with almost any previous era.

[Butch Coolidge]

Now thats a judgement call if I ever did seen one. I think we've all seen Holmes, Spinks and Marciano fight and if they were fighting today in their prime they would probably clean up. On the other hand Tyson cant be considered much more modern than Spinks-so its a poor argument and Spinks definately did not look himself that night

Marciano eating a bunch of leather from a 180lb guy, and getting his face beat in, really makes me think he could take out Tyson, Tua, Brewster, Sanders, Klitschko. Holmes throwing sharp jabs at a turtles pace makes me think a contemporary would have no chance whatsoever. Remember when Michael Spinks was champ? Now that was a phenomenal time in heavyweight boxing. Lennox Lewis vs Joe Louis? No contest? RJJ vs Billy Conn? Forget about it. The old timers have it in spades...:smooch

[maracho]

Marciano eating a bunch of leather from a 180lb guy, and getting his face beat in, really makes me think he could take out Tyson, Tua, Brewster, Sanders, Klitschko. Holmes throwing sharp jabs at a turtles pace makes me think a contemporary would have no chance whatsoever. Remember when Michael Spinks was champ? Now that was a phenomenal time in heavyweight boxing. Lennox Lewis vs Joe Louis? No contest? RJJ vs Billy Conn? Forget about it. The old timers have it in spades...:smooch

Everbody that ever fought Marciano made abundant quotes concerning how hard he was to hit. :deal

You think Holmes throws Jabs at a turtles pace? :patsch

Why do hate Spinks:fire

At least I am humble enough to back up my arguments:hat

[maracho]

I can't stand the no one beats Ali shit from the 90s+ era.

I almost feel you have to base it off eras in terms of greatness, advances in nutrition and humans have evolved into bigger stronger beings. The AVG HW is 220, the avg HW back in Marcianos day were 185-195. I just dont see Rocky beating Vitali. Ever. And I juust dont see Ali boxing circles around him either.



But then again I do bash the old timers a bit but I get sick of the no one will ever be as great as the SRR, SRL, Ali.

I almost feel like this, why box and fight for legacy when no one in the world will ever say you are the best P4P all time, its an unreachable mark if you think about it.

I can show you plenty of fossil and early humans that were just as big and muscular (based on bone size and muscle attachment) as any football player alive today!

[Butch Coolidge]

Everbody that ever fought Marciano made abundant quotes concerning how hard he was to hit. :deal

You think Holmes throws Jabs at a turtles pace? :patsch

Why do hate Spinks:fire

At least I am humble enough to back up my arguments:hat

Marciano was hard to hit? That's why there's so many pictures of him with his face half torn off.

Spinks? Steffen Tengstadd, Anders Ecklund, 91 second blow-out, aged Larry Holmes---and today's heavyweights are supposed to be the worst ever?

Holmes fighting at a snails pace--I actually saw Holmes fight a few times and most of those fights lacked bad intentions until the last round.

Appreciate what you have now.

[Shake]

Boxing is very much less popular these days, and as such, the talent pool is smaller. Youth are distracted with them newfangled diddly Ipods and internets. Very few go to such an ancient barbaric thing as a boxing gym and sweat and stuff. It's icky.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's perfectly logical for boxing to be at a low-point right now in width. There are always sparks -- such as PBF, and we just came off a nice era with Trinidad, De la Hoya, Mosley, Sweet Pea, Barrera, Morales, etc.

On the other hand some really do believe Marciano could best Lewis -- I'm no Lewis fan, but Marciano was smaller than Frazier. He belongs as much in a ring with Lewis as he does with Bernard Hopkins.

So it's a bit of give and take -- I find it the more high-profile old fighters are built up too much -- and the low-profile old champions are not given any credit what-so-ever. The gap is enormous. If you are unloved, your abilities and accomplishments are played down and vice versa. Take Ingemarr Johansson, a world-champion that beat Floyd Patterson. I bet if you asked anyone if he would win against Buster Douglas it would give people some pause -- but if you ask them if Floyd Patterson would win, they would be much more eager to confirm it, even though the two examples were very competitive.

[Cruiser1]

I got sick of hearing about the old-timers a long time ago. I wanna know how they think a 195 lb. heavyweight from the 40's or 50's would be able to beat a polished 6'6'' 245 lb. guy like Wladimir Klitschko who can crack with both hands. I'm not necessarily referring to marciano either.

People are still talking about these guys from the 20's and 30's. Man, talk about living in the past.

[Shake]

I always compare them with the lighter weight fighters now. Seems more fair. I mean, Jack Dempsey was just a light-heavyweight.