Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

[Sheldon312]

It is accepted in pretty much so all of Sports: NBA, NFL, Soccer, and MLB that athletes are better than their predecessors. But when it comes to boxing, every past fighter is favored over the current crop. Let's sit back and look at this objectively. Let's take Spence and Crawford at WW for example. Now, I think we can all agree that Thomas Hearns is arguably the most talented WW of all time. But let's not forget that Hearns was not unbeatable. P4P I think Hagler and Spence are equals (yes, hagler was more versatile but Spence was a much better inside fighter and had the better defense and jab.). We saw what Hagler did to Hearns at 160. Now imagine Spence vs Hearns at 147 or 154? Can we really say for certain that Hearns would beat Spence? I personally think it's 50/50. Now let's look at Duran. Wo did Duran lost too? Wilfred and Leonard. How did they beat him? Movement, jab, and counterpunching. Crawford has all that and then some especially at 135 and 140. What evidence do we have that Duran would be guaranteed against Crawford?

Now, let's look at one of the most popular fantasy match ups: GGG vs Hagler. Now, I will agree that based on the combination of skills and accomplishments, Hagler is the Greatest MW of all time outside of maybe Monzon. But can we honestly say that he faced a natural MW as skilled as GGG? I don't think so. The best natural MW he faced was Mugabi. He lost to Leonard and some thought that he lost to Duran (Draw IMO). Now, name a "natural Mw" that he faced that was as good as GGG and Canelo? He never faced anyone as great as those two a MW.

Sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard are considered P4P top 3 but both struggled with slick fighters who were less than Floyd, yet Floyd is always the underdog.

Ali is one of the greatest HW but in today's era he would be too small and he never faced a fighter as good as Usyk or Fury. I could go on and on but why is the boxing community so nostalgic when it is pretty evident that fighters today, to a certain extent, are as good as fighters from the past?

[Willow The Wisp]

A: Heroic deeds are everlasting. Playground games, maybe no so much.

[cfang]

Boxing is an outlier compared to a lot of other sports as it used to be significantly bigger than it is. In the 30s there were more gyms in New York alone than the whole of the us now. Also life was tougher years ago and toughness is a key part of the sport. Boxers had more fights years ago. In terms of the art of it, it hasn’t improved since the 50s. Floyd was using techniques used by Archie Moore etc.

I guess if there was a real life example of one boxer who stepped out of one era and into another and succeeded then it would have to be proven that older eras weren’t inferior. Of course there is an example. Foreman.

[GhostofDempsey]

In the big league sports, athletes have become bigger, stronger, faster overall. In boxing, a 160 pound middleweight is 160 pounds in 1923 as he would be in 2023. If you follow boxing long enough you can see how boxers of today have become more two dimensional. They have access to more modern training and conditioning methods but it doesn't make them better boxers. Boxers in previous eras fought the best of their era. Hearns fought prime Leonard, Duran, Benitez, Hagler--none of Spence's opponents measure up to that level, and his resume is nowhere near as impressive.

[Sheldon312]

A: Heroic deeds are everlasting. Playground games, maybe no so much.

Im confused?

[BKM-]

It is accepted in pretty much so all of Sports: NBA, NFL, Soccer, and MLB that athletes are better than their predecessors. But when it comes to boxing, every past fighter is favored over the current crop. Let's sit back and look at this objectively. Let's take Spence and Crawford at WW for example. Now, I think we can all agree that Thomas Hearns is arguably the most talented WW of all time. But let's not forget that Hearns was not unbeatable. P4P I think Hagler and Spence are equals (yes, hagler was more versatile but Spence was a much better inside fighter and had the better defense and jab.). We saw what Hagler did to Hearns at 160. Now imagine Spence vs Hearns at 147 or 154? Can we really say for certain that Hearns would beat Spence? I personally think it's 50/50. Now let's look at Duran. Wo did Duran lost too? Wilfred and Leonard. How did they beat him? Movement, jab, and counterpunching. Crawford has all that and then some especially at 135 and 140. What evidence do we have that Duran would be guaranteed against Crawford?

Now, let's look at one of the most popular fantasy match ups: GGG vs Hagler. Now, I will agree that based on the combination of skills and accomplishments, Hagler is the Greatest MW of all time outside of maybe Monzon. But can we honestly say that he faced a natural MW as skilled as GGG? I don't think so. The best natural MW he faced was Mugabi. He lost to Leonard and some thought that he lost to Duran (Draw IMO). Now, name a "natural Mw" that he faced that was as good as GGG and Canelo? He never faced anyone as great as those two a MW.

Sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard are considered P4P top 3 but both struggled with slick fighters who were less than Floyd, yet Floyd is always the underdog.

Ali is one of the greatest HW but in today's era he would be too small and he never faced a fighter as good as Usyk or Fury. I could go on and on but why is the boxing community so nostalgic when it is pretty evident that fighters today, to a certain extent, are as good as fighters from the past?

I agree in spirit but there are exceptions and you mentioned generational special talents. I mean saying Ali is too small is a bit far fetched. He fought about as lengthy as a boxer could fight, using the full reach of his long arms and legs, bouncing on his toes in an upright posture making him even taller than his 6'3 height would suggest. He had a big cast iron skull, was a strong grappler and had inhuman cardio and will power. He was 210-220 because he trained so hard. I think he handles himself fine against anyone in any era. Can't say the same for others before him though.

[Sheldon312]

Boxing is an outlier compared to a lot of other sports as it used to be significantly bigger than it is. In the 30s there were more gyms in New York alone than the whole of the us now. Also life was tougher years ago and toughness is a key part of the sport. Boxers had more fights years ago. In terms of the art of it, it hasn’t improved since the 50s. Floyd was using techniques used by Archie Moore etc.

I guess if there was a real life example of one boxer who stepped out of one era and into another and succeeded then it would have to be proven that older eras weren’t inferior. Of course there is an example. Foreman.

My point is, the older generation has been put on this god-like pedestal when a lot of them were as flawed as modern fighters.

[Sheldon312]

In the big league sports, athletes have become bigger, stronger, faster overall. In boxing, a 160 pound middleweight is 160 pounds in 1923 as he would be in 2023. If you follow boxing long enough you can see how boxers of today have become more two dimensional. They have access to more modern training and conditioning methods but it doesn't make them better boxers. Boxers in previous eras fought the best of their era. Hearns fought prime Leonard, Duran, Benitez, Hagler--none of Spence's opponents measure up to that level, and his resume is nowhere near as impressive.

I'm not saying that Spence has fought fighters as good as those guys. What I'm saying is that those guys haven't fought anyone at 147 like Spence either.

[GhostofDempsey]

I'm not saying that Spence has fought fighters as good as those guys. What I'm saying is that those guys haven't fought anyone at 147 like Spence either.

They didn't? What's so special about Spence? What does he do that Leonard, Duran, or Hagler didn't or couldn't do?

[Sheldon312]

I agree in spirit but there are exceptions and you mentioned generational special talents. I mean saying Ali is too small is a bit far fetched. He fought about as lengthy as a boxer could fight, using the full reach of his long arms and legs, bouncing on his toes in an upright posture making him even taller than his 6'3 height would suggest. He had a big cast iron skull, was a strong grappler and had inhuman cardio and will power. He was 210-220 because he trained so hard. I think he handles himself fine against anyone in any era. Can't say the same for others before him though.

Agreed but he never faced anyone that passed the skill of Usyk. Or someone who has the combination of speed and power like Wilder. Hell, I think Fury is overrated but he would better than anyone Ali had fought.