7 Comments

Excellent stuff. Late-career Holmes deserves respect on his name, and Mercer was no slouch. That was one of the first fights I remember caring about, even if the narrative was always “the division is dead” (when aren’t divisions of heavies dead, in any sport aside from sumo?)

Expand full comment

Sorting through boxing history is amazing. The current fighters are almost always cast as inadequate and compared unfavorably with legends of the past. Then, twenty years later, are remembered fondly as standard-bearers.

Holyfield is a great example. Incessant criticism at the time. Like, endless. Today? A legendary warrior!

Expand full comment

Yeah, it was something — at least as a kid, with less “history” behind me — that I took for granted. But now that I’ve lived through a few iterations, it’s fascinating to watch. There were always gods walking the earth in those days (except during those days — the older gods walked the earth a few decades earlier).

Expand full comment

The reporters really seemed to enjoy not liking things. A badge of honor.

Expand full comment

This is very specific to boxing by the way.

Look at the way the NFL is presented. Last night on ESPN they called Mahomes the greatest ever. It's conceded the current crop is the best.

Even UFC is lazer-focused on the present, always showcasing the new guy as the best ever.

Expand full comment

Yes, boxing is definitely where things ain’t like they used to be (and they never were). Wrestling has a bit of this — usually people seem to hate whatever wrestling wasn’t popular in their formative years as a fan — but it’s not clouded with this kind of veneration, especially from “literary” sports journalists eager to tell us how great some old timer was

Expand full comment

Foreman’s ’dead-eyed smile’ is exactly right.

Expand full comment