Question, Boxing Historians

[aether]

It's not about how many times they've fought, it's about the competition they fought. You can still fight 200 times today and not get rated by anybody, see Buck Smith for example. He is 179-20 and you've probably never even heard of him and if you have, you'd know he is just a journeyman.

Modern fighters can compete with quality over quantity but it's not happening for the most part. A lot of the fighters pad their early records, handpick the right opponents and generally avoid taking unnecessary risks and fighting the best until it makes "sense" (and it rarely does).

How many times did Sugar Ray Leonard fight? 40 times? Yet he is rated as one of the very best of all time. Why? Because he fought and beat Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez. As good as Floyd Mayweather is, his wins over De La Hoya, Marquez, Hatton, Castillo and Corrales don't quite compare to that.

i agree with this completely. the problem i have is that some DO take that number of matches, and make it the sole basis on why today's fighters can't be held even in the same breath as past fighters.

i don't believe that any of fighters today deserves to be included in the top 10 all time. but we got to be objective in judging them, not completely disregard them.

[MANGLER]

Old school fighters put in more work.

More fights
More rds
Less $
Less divisions
Fewer belts to a division
Less exposure
Less cherrypickin

Past gr8s fought in a tougher time so their accomplishments look better. When newer fans who been watchin boxing since world awaits talk down on these guys they probably never seen thinkin today's stars would beat em, it rubs some people the wrong way. Obviously there's no way to handicap any fight 100% accurately. Of course there's guys in recent memory who mighta beat past gr8 champions. But I think fighters from BITD to a degree deserve to be put on a higher pedestal cuz the circumstances they fought under were tougher. For them to even still be talked about today shows they put in some work that can't be forgotten or overlooked. No disrespect to any fighter. but it's easier to become a titlist and star today.

[Mersey]

Saying that the best boxers from today would beat the past generations fighters, without actually knowing anything about them is ignorant.

But it is true, some historians will not even consider the thought of a great boxer from today beating and ATG of the past.

[aether]

Old school fighters put in more work.

More fights
More rds
Less $
Less divisions
Fewer belts to a division
Less exposure
Less cherrypickin

Past gr8s fought in a tougher time so their accomplishments look better. When newer fans who been watchin boxing since world awaits talk down on these guys they probably never seen thinkin today's stars would beat em, it rubs some people the wrong way. Obviously there's no way to handicap any fight 100% accurately. Of course there's guys in recent memory who mighta beat past gr8 champions. But I think fighters from BITD to a degree deserve to be put on a higher pedestal cuz the circumstances they fought under were tougher. For them to even still be talked about today shows they put in some work that can't be forgotten or overlooked. No disrespect to any fighter. but it's easier to become a titlist and star today.

nice post.

fighters from the past DO deserve respect for fighting in an era where there is not much $, less weight classes, less belts etc...

but to say fighters today doesn't deserve to be even compared to them is unfair. they are being judged as if they are in the same era of fighters BITD and completely disregard their accomplishments with respect to their OWN ERA.

[aether]

Saying that the best boxers from today would beat the past generations fighters, without actually knowing anything about them is ignorant. .

of course. but some do present valid arguments, yet being completely shut out in favor of the past boxers

But it is true, some historians will not even consider the thought of a great boxer from today beating and ATG of the past.

i think it's kind of like the same with music. you always favor the bands you grew up listening to instead of the new bands, no matter how talented they are.

[Mersey]

i think it's kind of like the same with music. you always favor the bands you grew up listening to instead of the new bands, no matter how talented they are.

Spot on

[mickey malone]

There is some terrific modern quality about, but back in the day, Pac Mayweather would all be signed, sealed and delivered in about 2 weeks time!
Then there'd probably set up another one for February, with the winner fighting say Mosley or Bradley at the end of March..
Problem is, Bradley would have gone grey, and Mosley will be about 45 in the time it takes to set up a decent match these days.. What with all the postponements because someones bruised a knuckle or one might be getting a few more bucks than the other, all stands to reason why old school fighters get more respect, and rightly so to!

[StarshipTrooper]

I think most of the posters seen as "boxing historians" regard fighters such as Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones, and Bernard Hopkins as top tier ATGs: Certainly "modern" fighters by any REASONABLE standard (although I've seen some *****s lable Whitaker as an "old timer" since the early 1990's were SO long ago ). Every era has it's share of ATGs, but not every division in every era and all too often it seems that ANY top fighter these days will get the ATG tag courtesy of his rabid fan following whether he truly is an ATG or not. My God! Look at the Cottards! They had Cotto already elavated to near GOAT status when the truth is he's a good but not great fighter. Then you have the *****s who HAVE elavated Floyd to the GOAT and talk about no one EVER being as skilled as him when there have been at least two fighters active over just the past 15 with better skills than Floyd. Or how about the Klitlickers with their insistance that the Klitschkos destroy any Heavyweight in history? It's THOSE kind of things that Boxing Scene's "historians" contend with on a daily basis.

Poet

[aether]

I think most of the posters seen as "boxing historians" regard fighters such as Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones, and Bernard Hopkins as top tier ATGs: Certainly "modern" fighters by any REASONABLE standard (although I've seen some *****s lable Whitaker as an "old timer" since the early 1990's were SO long ago ). Every era has it's share of ATGs, but not every division in every era and all too often it seems that ANY top fighter these days will get the ATG tag courtesy of his rabid fan following whether he truly is an ATG or not. My God! Look at the Cottards! They had Cotto already elavated to near GOAT status when the truth is he's a good but not great fighter. Then you have the *****s who HAVE elavated Floyd to the GOAT and talk about no one EVER being as skilled as him when there have been at least two fighters active over just the past 15 with better skills than Floyd. Or how about the Klitlickers with their insistance that the Klitschkos destroy any Heavyweight in history? It's THOSE kind of things that Boxing Scene's "historians" contend with on a daily basis.

Poet

yes, there are some terrible posters who claim their fav fighter is greater than what they are. but there are some who are being judged unfairly too.

take pacquiao's comparison to armstrong for example. i do believe that armstrong winning the featherweight, welterweight, lightweight, and almost winning the middleweight title in an era where there where 8 weight classes is more impressive than pacquiao winning an alphabet at lightweight, beating oscar at welterweight, and defeating the lineal champ at jr. welterweight in an era where there are 16 weight classes. however, their accomplishments are still comparable and would be a very interesting discussion. yet when someone opens up such discussions, they will be automatically labeled as a "*******" or someone "who doesn't know **** about boxing".

[1SILVA]

I think most of the posters seen as "boxing historians" regard fighters such as Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones, and Bernard Hopkins as top tier ATGs: Certainly "modern" fighters by any REASONABLE standard (although I've seen some *****s lable Whitaker as an "old timer" since the early 1990's were SO long ago ). Every era has it's share of ATGs, but not every division in every era and all too often it seems that ANY top fighter these days will get the ATG tag courtesy of his rabid fan following whether he truly is an ATG or not. My God! Look at the Cottards! They had Cotto already elavated to near GOAT status when the truth is he's a good but not great fighter. Then you have the *****s who HAVE elavated Floyd to the GOAT and talk about no one EVER being as skilled as him when there have been at least two fighters active over just the past 15 with better skills than Floyd. Or how about the Klitlickers with their insistance that the Klitschkos destroy any Heavyweight in history? It's THOSE kind of things that Boxing Scene's "historians" contend with on a daily basis.

Poet

Amen to everything you said. In the last 10 years, I would say that fighters like Hopkins, Toney, Mayweather, Barrera, PacMan, Lewis, Morales and Mosley would have held their own in any era. Just like Ali, Robinson, Sugar and Benny Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, etc would do very well in this era. Great fighters are great fighters, period