Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It was better before (?)

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #1

    It was better before (?)

    Researches say we idolize athletes at most when we’re between 10 to 20 years of age. And, when coming to the question ”Who is the greatest of all time? we pick athletes we idolized back then. Or, if we have to choose, we pick athletes of earlier days than our favorites to beat athletes active today.

    I’ve noticed, I often fall into that category. And I can imagine we who prefer the history section (than the nonstop forum) can be rather rigid at times. Yesterday rules! ?(maybe) ?
    Tags: None
    #2
    " idolize athletes"...........I agree that it is youthful to idolize athletes.
    I think being young and impressionable adds to the impressions.
    Today it seems that the younger fans want their era's of sports to be held higher because their in the era also. They speak as if it has to be the best because "their there"! Sort of an arrogance factor that seems to over ride their lack of actual knowledge.
    My appreciation of pro boxers started at a young age because of my family & friends involvement in the sport. I am most appreciative of Sugar Ray's skill set and talent and was around during 2/3 of his career. I also think that Roman Gonzales and Rigo are outstanding talents too and I've been retired for some time now!
    I simply enjoy hard workers who prefer to take control of the decision making and refuse to allow judges to decide whose best that evening. They can't be successful in that Methodology or win all the time but I enjoy effort.
    Effort comes from within the heart and mind, it's not a talent and can't really be taught, you have it or you don't. It's one intangible all winners have.

    Ray

    Comment

      #3
      Originally posted by Ray Corso View Post
      " idolize athletes"...........I agree that it is youthful to idolize athletes.
      I think being young and impressionable adds to the impressions.
      Today it seems that the younger fans want their era's of sports to be held higher because their in the era also. They speak as if it has to be the best because "their there"! Sort of an arrogance factor that seems to over ride their lack of actual knowledge.
      My appreciation of pro boxers started at a young age because of my family & friends involvement in the sport. I am most appreciative of Sugar Ray's skill set and talent and was around during 2/3 of his career. I also think that Roman Gonzales and Rigo are outstanding talents too and I've been retired for some time now!
      I simply enjoy hard workers who prefer to take control of the decision making and refuse to allow judges to decide whose best that evening. They can't be successful in that Methodology or win all the time but I enjoy effort.
      Effort comes from within the heart and mind, it's not a talent and can't really be taught, you have it or you don't. It's one intangible all winners have.

      Ray
      Enjoyed reading your reply.

      And for me, I guess I should consider myself lucky being in the right age during the 70s-early 80s. A lot of solid combatants to idolize back then.

      Comment

        #4
        No doubt, that is how fans pick their favorites. The kids with web access don't believe anyone from the telegraph days could beat their fighters, as if technological advancement goes hand in hand with being better boxers. They think Jack Dempsey was as primitive as the telegraph. Tunney fights almost identically to their boxer-movers, but they cannot see it. He was a scrawny primitive with no skills.

        Comment

          #5
          Well, I'm certainly more fond of guys like Naz, Barrera, Morales, Pacquiao, Tyson, Oscar, Holyfield than say Garcia, Porter, Brook, Fury and so on but would it be wrong if I felt that at 147, Oscar would embarrass todays welters? I certainly don't think so.

          Comment

            #6
            Originally posted by soul_survivor View Post
            Well, I'm certainly more fond of guys like Naz, Barrera, Morales, Pacquiao, Tyson, Oscar, Holyfield than say Garcia, Porter, Brook, Fury and so on but would it be wrong if I felt that at 147, Oscar would embarrass todays welters? I certainly don't think so.
            As would Tommy Hearns, SRL, Emile Griffith, Henry Armstrong, SRR, and others.

            Comment

              #7
              When the nostalgia glasses come on, it is difficult to discern fact from fiction from love but it also works in reverse. Not every current fighter is better than every fighter in the past and not ever fighter in the past is better than all of them today. Someone like a Pacquia or a Mayweather are timeless pugilists, ranking highly in any sensible list.

              However, one thing I have noticed is that the caliber of fighters, in the upper tier of the sport has decreased in both quality and quantity. There was a time from the 60s to probably the late 90s that each division had a whole host of challengers who would probably have hall of fame careers by modern standards. The welterweight division was a particular highlight, as was heavyweight. Can we say the same now?

              Comment

              Working...
              X
              TOP