Originally Posted by Senya13
Been repeated many times. The idea that old-timers were more skillful and better in general than contemporary boxers is a psychological fallacy. Read the experts' or trainers' opinions about contemporary fighters from 30 years ago, 50 years, 100 years ago, they all claim that the past boxers/trainers were better, and many old-school skills have been lost, modern boxers are crude and tough, lacking skills, and champions and top contenders are not fighting meaningful fights very often and are all about money, picking weak opponents, etc etc. Bullshit, plain and simple. Experience is important, but not as much as many like to believe. If the fighter is average, he'll stay average even if he has 500 bouts, he'll still lose to a youngster with better physical attributes and only 10 fights.
I think Wladimir Klitschko (vs Puritty) might disagree with that notion.
How many times have we seen a comparatively average fighter upset a future champion due to an advantage in experience? Countless times.
Experience is not all about competing in a hundred fights though (see Wlad's 24 fights before Puritty). It's about taking on quality opponents and learning from those experiences. A fighter who competes a hundred times against the same type of opponent won't learn much more than he would have from his first couple of fights, that much I can agree with.