Originally Posted by GazOC
I think todays boxers are probably faster and stronger for the 2 or 3 fights they have in a year but I don't think they are better fighters than the guys that had 15-20 fights a year against varying opponents.
I know its dumbing down the argument a lot but I don't reckon being mechanically faster and stronger would make up for the technical experience of the guys who amassed hundreds of fights in their careers.
When I look at videos I can see the argument for the "crudeness" of fighters prior to around 1920 but after that and certainly by the 1930s and 1940s the top fighters were up with modern fighters IMHO allowing for the differing rules, gloves, distances etc.
I think you hit the nail on the head there Gaz.
Its not that sports science hasnt progressed its the way that athletes compete and train which has changed. They are now designed to fight 3 times a year and the cycle their training to be at a peak condition 2-3 times a year for a very short space of time.
Go back 50-60-70 years and fighters were fighting all year at a different pace. Against different styles, the game has changed. Technique therefore has evolved a fighter that fights hundreds of times will be vastly more experienced in the nuances than 20-30 fight career fighters of today. Maybe the strength and conditioning wasnt the same but the conditioning they did was perfecly adequate if not more than enough for the era and the way they fighting.