T O P
SniXSniPe

Absolutely. Look at all the fighters who have moved up multiple weight classes, and lost to bigger fighters. They get dismissed quickly, no matter how good their opponent was/how much of a size advantage they had. ​ A fighter in the present who suffers an L is detracted from. A fighter from the past with a L was seen as taking challenges, or gets excused from the loss and still viewed highly. Probably because of some hero worship mentality. People grew up watching the fighters of old and idolize them, compared to the present fighters who came up while they were already involved with the older generation's career.


Feeling-Pipe-7461

Back then moving up was real, take Canelo for example, he was only the massively bigger guy exclusively in his career until he hit 168. That's just not the same compared to Duran who was already small at 147 and still became champ at 160. Both 4 division champs, but vastly different in accomplishment


SeymourCruz

This comment definitely confirms the post. Current fighters are discredited and pinned against the wall using older fighters, for seemingly no reason besides guys like you not letting go of their nostalgia. How can you possibly say that Canelo, who started his career under 147, was “too big” until 168. He looked a perfectly fine size against guys like Trout and Lara at 154/155. And at 160 you can’t POSSIBLY believe he was bigger than GGG and Jacobs… You unintentionally proved what the post was questioning to begin with


Box-by-day

Because he cut hella weight and ducked G with it. Duran never did shit like that


SeymourCruz

Canelo ducked GGG and had a trilogy with him? 2 fights of which were against GGG in his prime? And also, you know at 135 Duran used to walk around at about 160 lbs right? When he used to fight at 160 he’d walk around at 200 lbs. So you’re wrong in the two points you attempted to make. But this is just exhibit B of what this post is asking. Why are current fighters discredited compared to older fighters, especially when in examples like these they do the same things?


SniXSniPe

>2 fights of which were against GGG in his prime A 35 / 36 year old man **is nobody's physical prime**, unless you're trying to imply that Golovkin suddenly improved his skillset, which I'm sure most of us can refute.


SeymourCruz

Good point. So that suggests that 34 wouldn’t be his physical prime either right? If so, that would also mean if Canelo fought GGG in 2016, it still wouldve been Canelo fighting GGG “out of his prime” according to you guys. So there’s no scenario at all where Canelo wins with you fans. If we go back another year and then 33 is his “prime”, that’s 2015; and Canelo fought at “middleweight” for the first time November 2015 so 2015 a fight wouldn’t have been possible. There’s no scenario where Canelo can win, so there’s no point in trying to convince his committed haters on anything. I think 2018 was the tail end of GGG’s prime, therefore 2017 was peak GGG.


dirt_shitters

0 fights with ggg were in his prime. Canelo literally dropped his belt to duck the fight and age him out another year. All while claiming that he was too small for 160, and then fighting above the 160 limit. Canelo was also rehydrating more than most which makes him a weight bully. Fighting at "155" but weighing 175 on the night of the fight.


SeymourCruz

I love this rhetoric. 2016 Undefeated GGG: Prime unstoppable monster being ducked by Canelo (which I agree he was) 2017 Undefeated GGG: Old and washed fighter. Only reason Canelo took the fight is because he’s old GGG is the only fighter to go from a prime beast, to old, in one year, in the history of boxing. All while staying undefeated while that single year took place.


dirt_shitters

Golovkin wasn't washed by the time they fought, and I never said that, but was starting to slow down. Then he still outclassed canelo. If you think canelo wasn't trying to duck/age Golovkin out by literally vacating his belts to avoid having Golovkin as a mandatory, then you're gargling canelos nuts too loud to actually listen to reason. Also, Duran cut a ton of weight because he partied and drank a ton in between fights. Canelo cut a ton of weight because he was outgrowing weight classes and didn't want to fight guys the same size as him.


Box-by-day

Bruh, nelo dropped his belt saying he’s “too small” Duran was a fat 200 walking around not a roided beefcake. Nice try tho


Feeling-Pipe-7461

Because very obviously he was out sizing all of them and cutting giant amounts of weight. They could only hang with him because the skill difference was bigger, but size was on Canelos side. Also it's not about believe. Canelo was heavier on fight night than GGG, that's just straight up a fact. Not Jacob's, that's true, but GGG is a fact. Canelo also started with 15, if Usyk started that early he would've been a middleweight and no one says now he is a middleweight fighting at heavyweight, people grow as they get older


Vendettaa

Read the room my boy.


Feeling-Pipe-7461

No need to play ball when I do not agree and do not think it's true.


Colest

> A fighter in the present who suffers an L is detracted from. > > A fighter from the past with a L was seen as taking challenges, or gets excused from the loss and still viewed highly. This is an unfair comparison. A past fighter has the narrative of his whole career to contextualize every fight whereas it's stupid to think a present fighter losing a fight shouldn't have their ranking reevaluated until they can contextualize that loss in a better light themselves. Look at Pacquiao for a good example of that, he was memed for his Marquez knockout but that narrative went away when he started winning again. People flatout ignored the Bradley and Horn loss for him as well.


tearjerkingpornoflic

They box so much less. Boxing also was much more popular (at least in states). It stands to reason that there was a greater depth of talent in the past. And they would go 15 rounds through some absolute wars. We know more now about what is safe for boxers and boxers know more about how to maximize their revenue. In the past it seems like a lot of fighters would fight whoever the best was. Seems they cared more about their legacy than their bank account. Can't fault newer fighters for wanting to take less risk to make more money but it does stand to reason that a guy with 300 professional fights might be a tougher fighter than a guy with 60. I do feel the science of boxing has progressed a bit though and some of those older fighters were a little cruder. Though some of those guys, like Willie Pep had a whole science of their own.


DramaticLocation

Yeah I agree with this. Also the times when boxing was popular in the US on par with Baseball is when basketball, football and soccer weren’t as popular , at least in the US , so a lot of athletic talent is being diverted to other sports.


dennyk91

That’s true but there’s way more humans now too.


ethnicbonsai

One of the problems modern boxers face is that they fight so seldom relative to fighters in the past, that they can’t really afford to waste the few fights they have in their prime. And with cross promotional hurdles, and fighters wanting to establish themselves as the A side to prioritize their earnings, you have shit like Spence and Crawford dragging out their inevitable coal for years. 60 years ago, most of these guys were fighting every few weeks. So they could fill their pockets barnstorming against regional guys, and then take on two or three world level fights a year. Today, you have a scenario like AJ fighting in August and then declaring that he wants to fight in December being met with disbelief or even scorn. On the other hand, you’ve got Fury sitting around for months, offering to fight AJ, then fighting Charr or Chisora. Some of the criticism is unfair - it’s better for them to fight two or three times a year - but some of its deserved (not fighting the best when you have the chance).


sir_brockton_

Yes. But that’s true of any generation, in any sport. Unless you’re an ATG, it takes a while for that appreciation to settle in.


Commercial_Badger_37

It's also easy to underestimate the power of nostalgia. The fact is, sport doesn't tend to move backwards. Our understanding of sports science and nutrition is better than it ever was and particularly in HW boxing, the fighters are enormous compared to years ago. Once the millennials replace the boomers, I'm sure there will be plenty of "the fighters these days have nothing on Fury, Wilder was the hardest hitter ever, Canelo would kill this new guy in his prime" etc


Masterandcomman

Boxing is unique among the major sports because information doesn't accumulate as smoothly as in other sports. Kronk gym is still notable for huge weight cuts without losing power and stamina, and that weird technical advantage isn't common in other sports. Even relatively low income sports, like wrestling, have far better knowledge accumulation because of institutional support. Boxing trainers silo their knowledge, and training ability is too talent driven, so much is lost when individuals retire.


CristiaNoConsento

Also the fact is boxing is unique to all other major sports in that its so old. Like take football (soccer) as an example, the guys in the 50s weren't as technically gifted as today's players because the sport was about halfway through its overall development so loads of things were still undiscovered Boxing has been a thing for literally thousands of years and fundamentally its a basic human skill taken to extreme measures. Obviously certain things develop in boxing but as a whole boxers today are doing largely the same things as they were 50-100 years ago because the right things to do in boxing are already pretty clearly defined. Also explains why training methods have developed way less than any other sport Id say the same thing about athletics too. For everything nutrition has done to make people more physically athletic, look how many world records are still several decades old. That's without any athletics sports being as technique driven as boxing as well


redditlurker53

Not in soccer, some of the best ever have played in the past 15 years, and arguably future GOAT tier players like Mbappe and Haland are in their early 20's now.


sir_brockton_

I think you misunderstood what I said. Other than Messi and Ronaldo, who are you talking about as being appreciated as amazing now? I honestly don’t know enough about soccer to argue with you. The only other name I know that plays now is Naymar, and I always hear about how past Brazilian players were better.


9inchjackhammer

Haaland is looking to be the next best thing after Ron/Messi he’s putting up crazy numbers.


Im_A_Sociopath

He is to an extent. Messi is known for more than just scoring goals, which is what Halaand is doing at an insane rate, and Ronaldo also did the scoring goals part and more when he was younger. Even if Halaand ends up out scoring Messi, he isn't going to be considered a better player. I could more see the argument for him over Ronaldo in the future once Halaand is retired, but not Messi.


sir_brockton_

1. Thank you for the knowledge. That’s cool to know. 2. That reinforces my point that unless you’re an ATG talent, you’re not really appreciated until your time is done.


Chadoodling

Or tennis the era of the Big 3 is probably the most dominant ever.


redditlurker53

Yep, undoubtedly the 3 best players ever.


Chiefmiest

The level of soccer players definitely doesn't compare to the past. Countries like italy, brazil and england which historically had an abundance of talent has been lacking. If it wasn't for Cristiano and Messi you wouldn't be saying this


9inchjackhammer

But they are literally the best players to ever play so of course going to say it lol.


RedstripeRhapsodyHP

This is just nonsense. Italy, Brazil, and England having relatively weak sides compared to the past doesn't mean the standard of play is lower than previously. Even if it did, all three have pretty strong sides right now, England particularly has as good a group of players as we have ever fielded.


badaboom888

the football (soccer talent) is as good as ever its just alot more even amongst countries and widespread. African / Asian players are moving to europe much younger and local coaches are much better with a more even distribution of knowledge. The game has also become more uniform in terms of style between continents. Previously the dribbling skills of south american vs physical / tactical skills of euro players. The south american players now match the europeans in tactics and physicality while the europeans match them in dribbling / ball control in tight spaces for example


unclepoondaddy

England literally has a golden generation rn?? Their manager is an idiot but the talent is undeniable


Chadoodling

Yeah sports is just like that. Especially in the NBA, Charles Oakley said Giannis wouldn't even be a starter in the 90's. Lmao old heads are crazy.


jmchamakito

Yes, people discredit fighters from the present but at the same time praise fighters from the past that did worst. Example: Canelo cleaned out the 168 pounds but all the fighters were considered bums or not really good. While JCC gets praised like he fought elite competition in all of his fights. Chavez after being a champion fought dudes who were making their professional debut, 0-1 fighters, 4-3 fighters, while Chavez being 83-0 he fought some dude with a 10-10 record. Imagine one of the top guys now actually fighting real bums. I know it's all about eras, but you can't discredit one fighter but then praise an old school fighter who did worst things.


necrosythe

Absolutely. They also act like they are objectively way worse fighters when tons of older fighters were horribly untechnical and had plenty of holes in their game. But all the legends are pretty much infallible to most boxing fans


mRPerfect12

People get far too caught up in nostalgia.


ThatDudeMarques

Yes


Sweetest_of_Sugar

nostalgia from grandpa + hipsters picking old-timey boxers to not look like casuals (bonus points if its an obscure guy like george benton or charlie burley)


vHezoTheGoat

[“Harry Greb would beat GGG and Canelo”](https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.915342566.2748/flat,1000x1000,075,f.u2.jpg)


apessimisticdreamer

harry greb hipsters are truly a blight on the sport


Muffinbutton96

It makes them seem more sophisticated. I'm so glad other people see through their shit


Psychological-Emu287

Yes. It’s annoying lol. People need to stop comparing stuff to the 80’s


SuperTupac

Definitely, I mean, this sub constantly shits on fighters all the time. Never would have thought a boxing subreddit would have so much people who hate 'modern' boxing and its boxers.


Reynbuckets

Ive noticed the exact same thing. You dont even have to look as far as hip hop, but other sports as well like basketball. People are always enamored with the competitors of the past, and seem to hold them in a higher esteem than modern ones cus of it. Despite that modern training and medicine naturally means that modern competitors should have the advantage.


chetdesmon

The "modern training and medicine" point is bullshit. Comparisons between fighters of different eras have to be done as compared to the circumstances the fighters were in otherwise they are pointless. If you send Joe Joyce back in time and put him in a ring with Jack Dempsey he likely beats him but you'd have to be inane to consider Joyce a greater fighter than Dempsey.


RedstripeRhapsodyHP

It isn't bullshit, it is the reality of the situation. Jack Dempsey is a legend and has greater achievements in the sport, but he simply would not win a fight against any model heavyweight. That's sort of the point being made, the comparisons are pointless because modern fighters simply are much better - despite this people refuse to admit those in the past had severe disadvantages.


chetdesmon

That type of direct comparison is pointless, yes, that's exactly what I said. But comparing fighters as they performed WITHIN their respective eras is not pointless, although it can be fairly subjective. Dempsey was at the pimnacle of his weight class in his era, Joyce is not, its not pointless to say Dempsey was the greater fighter because he achieved more in comparison to his era. Also, you say Dempsey would not win a fight against any modern heavyweight, which is likely true (assuming we're talking about the elite fighters) but what if Dempsey had access to modern medicine and training methods? That's a whole other question. These types of comparisons are similar to P4P, obviously Joyce would also wipe the floor with Lomachenko, Canelo, Inoue etc. Would you also call P4P pointless?


RedstripeRhapsodyHP

>Dempsey was at the pimnacle of his weight class in his era, Joyce is not, its not pointless to say Dempsey was the greater fighter because he achieved more in comparison to his era. I can agree with that, but equally I reject any insinuation that he was a better boxer. A lot of people out there genuinely pretend people were better back then. > if Dempsey had access to modern medicine and training methods If this were the case, he wouldn't be anything like Jack Dempsey, which makes it a rather moot point. >These types of comparisons are similar to P4P, obviously Joyce would also wipe the floor with Lomachenko, Canelo, Inoue etc. Would you also call P4P pointless? Yes. They are an utterly valueless ranking, which exist only to hype up lighter fighters following Sugar Ray Robinson. They amount to little more than conversations such as 'my Dad would beat your Dad in a fight', or alternatively 'Superman would defeat Thor in a head-to-head'. I cannot put into words how pointless I think they are, because you are often asking someone to imagine 'what if a fighter fought at a weight they physically can't make' but then pretending that these guys wouldn't fight completely different 40lbs lighter or heavier. It's just devoid of any sort of reasonable analysis.


chetdesmon

I'm sorry but it's a pretty boring view to just completely throw out any comparisons between eras and weightclasses. Yes, the newer, bigger boxer will almost always be favoured to win. Great discussion. I highly disagree that P4P rankings are devoid of any sort of reasonable analysis as well, taking into account level of opposition, style of performance, context of the fight and more all plays a part in determining who you consider "better". I'll take that over "the bigger guy wins". Do you only watch and care about heavy weights?


RedstripeRhapsodyHP

>I'm sorry but it's a pretty boring view to just completely throw out any comparisons between eras and weightclasses. Yes, the newer, bigger boxer will almost always be favoured to win. Great discussion. I didn't do that, I said that fighters of the past are worse. If you want to talk CVs by all means do so, but so many people want to suggest they actually fought at a higher standard. > I'll take that over "the bigger guy wins". Do you only watch and care about heavy weights? I didn't say anything remotely like this, at least try to respond properly.


Spyder-xr

In some ways yes in other ways no


fanaticfun

Every single boxer is a bum and here is why: Every champion is a bum because every opponent they've fought is a bum because their opponents have only ever fought bums. Therefore, just being a pro boxer automatically makes you a bum. This is usually only repeated by guys who have never even taken a boxercise class.


Lamertofar8

Old boxers may have better resumes, but in terms of skills, technical abilities, and opponents it's usually worse


serg82

I actually think the opposite. Todays fighters are much more athletically gifted, but the fighters of the past had way better skills/technical abilities. B Hop was an example of a modern fighter with a lot of the old school skills and craft that newer fighters lack. It allowed him to compete at the highest level way until his 40s.


Lamertofar8

I would also say that older fighters have more stamina, either that or they preserve their energy a lot better


adonisrambo

I think the business side of boxing now has become so transparent that everyone is paying attention to the details way more then before and now adult boxing fans who grew up on sugar ray and Oscar and other old time fighters kind of gloss over how much business happened in the past. Like sugar ray waiting on rematches, Roy Jones fighting Gervonta level bums the majority of his careeer because he didn’t have a decent promoter and HBO shelled out the big bucks. Me and you can fight in a ring and probably earn $5. These guys want to fight but every fight they lose could be their last so they want to maximize profits. It’s just transparent now. Can’t click on the wiki pages of half the fighters these boxers in the past fought but they were legends. I just think we are jaded as a sports community. MJ is still the best, Ali and Sugar Ray are still the best, football is soft, the shift ruined basesball, and Ronaldo is no Pele.


[deleted]

The cherry picking is not discrediting for the sake of nostalgia. The guys today just don’t fight each other.


Icy-Sugarr

Wrong. Usyk fought everybody at cruiserweight .AJ has fought everybody win or lose at heavyweight. Beterbiev has run trough light heavyweight, Canelo cleared out super middleweight. Jermell cleared out jr middleweight. Spence has almost cleared out welterweight and Crawford had fought some other top names after already clearing super lightweight which Josh Taylor also fully cleared out. Loma nearly cleared out lightweight and now Haney has nearly cleared it. Inoue cleared bantamweight. Etc etc. Quite literally nearly every weight division currently has at least one or two fighters who have fought all the best available competition. The big difference is that the protected hype jobs/paper champions like Wilder, Jermall, Andrade, Davis etc, get more publicity. Not that no one's actually clearing out their classes


[deleted]

AJ hasn’t fought either of the top 2 heavyweights (wilder of fury) Beterbiev hasn’t fought the other best fighter in his weight class (Bivol) Spence hasn’t fought the other best fighter in his weight class (Crawford) Haney / tank / Ryan Garcia all have not fought eachother and none have fought Loma Jermall and GGG havnt fought I don’t know what you’re talking about these are all AAA fights that would get fan interest. Edit: I’m not saying no one has cleared out division, but there are PLENTY of big fights that we have not seen. Inoue / Canelo / Jermell fight everyone. Can’t say that for others.


Icy-Sugarr

The 3 top heavyweights in 2017 were Wladimir, AJ, Wilder. AJ unified and beat Wladimir as a step in to Fury who pulled out of his fight with Wladimir. In 2018(early)the top 3 were all unbeaten reigning heavyweight champions, Parker, AJ and Wilder. AJ beat and unified against Parker. 2018(late)the 3 best were AJ, Povetkin and Wilder. AJ beat Povetkin. And Whyte was top 3 for a while aswell who was beaten by none other than AJ and Povetkin before Fury beat him(which is Fury's 3rd best ever win). On top of that he also fought(but lost)against the undisputed champion and pound for pound number 1 Usyk. Wilder hasn't beaten a single legitimate top 5 heavyweight, his best win is a way past his prime 40 year old "contender" Ortiz, and he only ever lost to Fury. He has been proven and even admitted to ducking Wladimir(same time AJ chose to fight him)Wilder never unified, never beat a quality fighter who was in their prime either. And Fury's best 3 wins(which are also the only 3 fighters he ever fought that were top 10)are Wilder, Wlad and Whyte, the latter two having been beaten by AJ as well. How the is the(false)narrative still around that AJ hasn't fought the best? People ignore the entire decade of heavyweight history and only focus on one point in time when Wilder, Fury and AJ were top 3 and only take that as proof that AJ never beat the best at any point in time, when in fact he's done that back to back. AJ thus far is the only heavyweight(besides Usyk)who qualifies to be a future hall of famer, Wilder nor Fury have not done enough to make it. Beterbiev literally steamroller light heavyweight, beating Aleksandr was pure greatness, demolished Smith just recently etc. What do you mean? Again same with the AJ bs, just because right now the best are Bivol and Beterbiev doesn't mean Beterbiev never beat the best, when he fought Gvozdyk they were the best. Etc. Spence also cleared out Welterweight and fought the best fighters, just because Crawford(former super lightweight champion)moved up again doesn't mean Spence never fought the best. My man, you are picking and choosing points in time, and ignoring history and fights itself just to support a false narrative. Why?


[deleted]

I’m pointing to the biggest fights in boxing that havnt happened. Every fight I listed has not happened yet, unless I missed them People want to see AJ Vs Wilder or fury They wanna see Spence Crawford Ryan garcia / tank Davis / Haney all fight Beterbiev Bivol Did any of these happen? No. Fans want them and these are the kind of fights that get people watching. I don’t even understand what you’re arguing. Pacquiao & Floyd cleaned out their divisions, but the thing everyone wanted to see was them fight. It happened too late.


SuperTupac

you can compliment/hype up a boxer without shitting on other boxers. I think Jermall, Wilder, Andrade, Davis are great boxers as well and have fought whole-heartedly. No need to diminish them to make your point


Icy-Sugarr

Davis hasn't fought any of the top names in any of the divisions he's fought in. Wilders only good win is a 40 year old contender(not even former title holder)who he nearly got beat by, he was quite literally gifted his title shot(Malick Scott was rated 26th yet somehow beating him made Wilder eligible for mandatory status, and Scott took a dive to top it off), and nearly all his "title defences" were against unrated opposition, he openly avoided unifying against Wladimir, AJ as well as any other top heavyweight, again its quite crazy that someone who holds a "world" title hasn't beat any top heavyweights and only a really old contender. Andrade hasn't fought anybody that was at any point considered "the best" he's been cruising around at the middle rankers but not the best available. Jermall hasn't fought anyone of note and even his brother(Jermell)who is a legit future hall of famer has confirmed that Jermall is protecting himself. I don't discredit the work these guys put in, the blood, sweat etc. But I factually point out that they haven't fought/beaten the best, and "comparatively" are overrated, protected and or hype jobs(which is anyone who gets their title/status from hype alone instead of fighting the best/exactly like Wilder)


EstablishmentNo4865

Boxing is just not THAT big anymore.


Prudent-Instance-739

Absolutely true, SRR and Ali are the best just the same as Tupac and Biggie.


[deleted]

Don’t feel sorry, they get paid millions for a fight, you’d expect they don’t give a shit to what fans think


[deleted]

Boxing is one of the few sports that you can make a legitimate comparison. Bigger, faster , stronger only applies to heavyweight. Guys who fight a couple times a year just don't have enough experience to compete with guys from the past. Also the fact that the talent pool was much larger then.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hodgsonnn

You could train for 500 years on all the PEDs there is and still wouldnt survive a round


RBQSM5

As if his opponents weren’t using PEDs


lovesrois

I think the discredit has validity. So no, I don't think it's too much. Probably not enough. This only really applies to the HW division so I'll qualify the statement with that. The lower weights are getting better or the same. Definitely not decreasing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Due-Mango1379

What do you think the current boxers are worse at in particular?


[deleted]

[удалено]


SuperTupac

man, you are being too harsh and stubborn, there are a lot of amazing contemporary boxers


SignificanceOk1804

Not only were they better they actually fought each other too. No comparison.


SignificanceOk1804

Maybe if you new to boxing. I'm not


IAmtheeOne

Why do you think this is one of the only sports? Do you think boxing has lost athletes to safer and better paying sports. Especially with knowledge of cte now?


Incubus85

Yes.


Queefinonthehaters

I think nostalgia being applied to sports and arts kind of highjacks an ancient system in our head of grand storytelling. We were probably pretty dependent on taking the lessons of our hunter/gatherer ancestors because they figured out how to not die in a brutal world, and we took that as almost literal gospel. We just apply that to everything whether it is warranted or not.


Mundane-Document-810

Doesn't seem too bad to me. We are a little slow to give credit where it's due, but it's way easier to fairly rank a fighter based on their career once it is complete. The best boxers of the last generation or so get ranked very highly amongst those from previous generations. Lewis and Holyfield are right up there in the top 10 HWs of all time. Floyd and Pac get rightfully mentioned in terms of P4P greatest of all time. People have gotten pretty high on Fury at certain points in time recently too (though is daft shit talk often brings rapidly divides opinions again after any performance). Usyk has rightfully entered the conversation of greatest CW of all time, and pending his last three fights (if what he says is correct) then he has time to cement a pretty serious legacy that people are already appreciating. The people that get the most flak are those that seem to have dodged their most important fight (Floyd and Pac rightfully got flak for that since they met well past the best before date). Spence/Crawford are getting that flak now. Fury came out of ultra-fat retirement to beat the most dangerous man in the division, Usyk moved up and faced the HW with the most complete resume. Most sane people give credit for that. Canelo will be very favorably viewed when he retires, his only detractors really being those that with GGG had gotten the fair results in the first two fights. If Spence/Crawford can finally fight and then the winner strings along a few good wins afterwards then they will eventually get the credit they deserve too.


chetdesmon

Hip-hop is art, it's completely subjective. Boxing is not. Comparing across eras has elements of subjectivity by necessity but there is still an objective basis of the comparison. I'm going to disagree with this thread and say no, people don't discredit present boxers too much at all. I mean you had people crowning Fury as the best HW of all time. You didn't have this system where the best never fought the best in the past, like imagine if the Four Kings never fought? Imagine if Ali-Foreman-Frazier never fought? Wilder, Joshua and Fury are all in their prime in the same weight class for a number of years and there's a good chance we'll only see one matchup between those three.


aWeebLawyer

The sad thing is, it typically takes around a decade or so before someone gets the flowers they deserve for their work. It is a recurring thing in sports, people mostly get their deserved props once they're retired.


davlar4

I mean re hip hop it’s fair enough, overall quality today is dreadful. Totally agree on boxing tho!


Ol_TaurenSquinter

FUCK YEAH. PEOPLE SUCK THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF CONTENDERS OF THE 80S 90S SAYING THEY WOULD DOMINATE THE HW DIVISION, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND TOTAL BULLSHIT. I'VE SEEN PEOPLE SAY THAT RAZOR RUDDOCK WOULD AND I QUOTE "dominate the heavyweights of today". I mean... WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU ON ABOUT? RAZOR RUDDOCK DOMINATE FURY USYK WILDER AJ? TOTAL BS!!!!! WHO HAS RUDDOCK BEAT TO SAY THAT HE WOULD DOMINATE??? MIKE WEAVER?? Fury, Usyk would be CHAMPIONS in ANY era. In the top 5! AJ, Wilder, in the top 10 ALSO possible champions in ANY era. When you hold that much power and heart, you would be a problem for anyone.


GodOfBlobs

people make excuses for ali and Tyson’s losses all the time, like there’s no shame in losing to frazier/Holyfield/Lennox etc. but with canelo losing to bivol or joshua losing to usyk it’s like “he’s been exposed!!!”


Due-Studio-65

Its not a question of eras. Almost noone from the pre Jordan era of basketball is considered among the top players ever, no QBs pre marino should be in the top 10. All of this is because old school players faced worse competition. Slower opponents, less complicated schemes, it was just an easier game. Boxing is completed flipped, modern boxers face worse competition. The new boxers have more athleticism but less technique, and they hone their technique against lesser competition. That's why Canelo thought he could jump up a bunch of weights to light heavy, because he believed that noone's technique was on his level. This is why the last great boxer is probably mayweather, who developed his technique growing up with guys from the previous era. Who out there now is even teaching those skills? From all accounts Mayweather's gyms are just madhouses.


dennyk91

No it’s just different styles. The Eastern European style of bivol was not allowed to compete in the pros back then and neither were the Cuban fighters. Boxing is becoming more international and instead of just the western fighters going pro after the Olympics we are seeing much higher rates of Olympic boxers going pro which is great for competition (not great if you are a nationalist fan)


chetdesmon

What? Russell, Magic, Bird, Kareem and Wilt are regularily considered amongst the top 10 players of all time, in fact its rare to find a top 10 list without then.


Due-Studio-65

They all played in the jordan era except from Wilt, who noone thinks is a top 10.


chetdesmon

Russell did not play in the Jordan era, Kareem only had the last 5 years of his 21 year career intersect with Jordan's career and Wilt has been listed as top 10 by Athletic, Backpicks, Complex, HoopsHype, ESPN, Bleacher Report and many more. You're talking out your ass.


Due-Studio-65

[https://www.complex.com/sports/best-nba-players-of-all-time-ranked](https://www.complex.com/sports/best-nba-players-of-all-time-ranked) Russell is out of the top ten, and if you aren't just randomly grabbing different era guys Wilt is usually out too. They are historically relevant because their accomplishments far outpaced their contemporaries, but they don't have the skill set + athleticism that any of the other guys on the list have.


chetdesmon

One list with Russell out of the top 10, every other list I posted has him top 10, most have him top 5. How are you saying Wilt is "usually out" when every list I posted including the one you just posted has him top 10? Your last statement is irrelevant, these lists are almost always based on their accomplishments in comparison to contemporaries because athleticism will obviously favor newer players.


SimplyTheJester

No. Especially the HWs. Any time I watch some old boxing footage, it verifies how trash today's boxers are. Usyk is the only one who holds up well.


dennyk91

With HWs you need to watch HW AND cruiserweight as those are the size guys competing in those days.


Jet_black_li

Because most of them aren't that good relative to all time.