Why were many old time boxers so scrawny looking

[thistle1]

Picture quality.

many pictures are much less sharp, then you'll see some that are obviously of much better quality and the fighters fitness and 'definition' becomes just as clear.

Like Film Footage it is poor quality, not poor fighters!

[highguard]

Originally Posted by john garfield

You said "scrawny" in your subject head, h. Did you mean that or "soft 'n flabby"?

to be honest i meant both


and like i said many of them did look in shape
but others lol

[highguard]

Originally Posted by gentleman jim

If you took the fighters from that era and time machined them to today, you'd probably see that they're not scrawny at all. We're used to seeing athletes in modern film and pictures. High definition color and up close camera angles using the very best in modern photography. Overall I would agree that the fighters today are bigger due to nutrition, supplements and other factors such as length of bouts, time off in between fights etc..A twelve round fighter may not have to train down as intensely as a fifteen or twenty round fighter would. Strength, body mass and power would then take a back seat to conditioniong and endurance. The old timers didn't have a McDonalds or Burger King or KFC on every corner while growing up but that didn't mean that they weren't tough as nails or physically strong..just generally leaner...and n many cases better conditoned.

your right about everything up until
the burger king and kfc part



i have my doubts that these guys had that healthy of a diet
and probably fested on white breads

and i am curious
how they made weight?
was there science to it
or just train and eat less????

and yes i know, they didnt cut a ton of weight like today
but still

[Synthetic Decay]

Genetics dictated more in the old days if you know what i mean.

[thistle1]

Originally Posted by highguard

your right about everything up until
the burger king and kfc part



i have my doubts that these guys had that healthy of a diet
and probably fested on white breads

and i am curious
how they made weight?
was there science to it
or just train and eat less????

and yes i know, they didnt cut a ton of weight like today
but still

fighters fought at in & around their natural weight basically, busy, busy scheduals kept them fit & active, mostly in catchweight contests and then coming down to the championship weight when involved in titles or eliminators for said weights.

[Seamus]

They just plainly weren't yoked. Today's fighters are much more yoked...ergo much better. Just compare...

[IMG]********i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/05/article-0-0599E6B3000005DC-578_468x286.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]***********.ikeibeabuchi.com/images/ike3.jpg[/IMG]

[MagnaNasakki]

Dat HGH...

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Seamus

They just plainly weren't yoked. Today's fighters are much more yoked...ergo much better. Just compare...

You're not wrong.....

[IMG]***********.teddybaldock.co.uk/images/opponents/al-brown.jpg[/IMG]





[IMG]********konews.net/web_images/shannon_briggs.jpg[/IMG]


It's irrefutable.

[john garfield]

Originally Posted by Seamus

They just plainly weren't yoked. Today's fighters are much more yoked...ergo much better. Just compare...

[IMG]********i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/05/article-0-0599E6B3000005DC-578_468x286.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]***********.ikeibeabuchi.com/images/ike3.jpg[/IMG]

Don't get the conclusion, S. Why does it make them better? Benny Leonard who was painfully thin -- without any muscles or yoke -- flattened most every muscled bad ass to face him.

What you look like in the mirror has nothing to do with how well you can fight.

[Boilermaker]

I think it has a lot to do with the emphasis on running in training. Look at the Chris Byrd vs Shane George fight to see how some of the modern heavyweights would look if they trained the way the earlier fighters did. Whether this is an advantage or not, i guess the jury is still out, as Byrd never went too well in that fight (although age might have also been a factor).

[Unforgiven]

[IMG]********24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5xbmuyCSA1qm9rypo1_1280.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]********i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/01/article-2010429-0CD3B4A300000578-818_634x615.jpg[/IMG]

[Theron]

Originally Posted by Synthetic Decay

Genetics dictated more in the old days if you know what i mean.

[janitor]

It is actually a very good question.

The answer is that they came from a different place, and were going to a different place.

A fighter back then likely came into boxing malnourished, while a modern boxer likely comes in needing to cut some excess body fat.

A fighter back then focused on stamina training primarily, while a modern fighter takes a more multi faceted training programme.

[highguard]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

[IMG]********24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5xbmuyCSA1qm9rypo1_1280.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]********i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/01/article-2010429-0CD3B4A300000578-818_634x615.jpg[/IMG]

to be honest
i dont think its far to
compare heavweights to featherweights lol


that being said while haye is very muscular
that 17inch arm is not big at all,
which ofcourse means nothing for boxing but still

[highguard]

Originally Posted by janitor

It is actually a very good question.

The answer is that they came from a different place, and were going to a different place.

A fighter back then likely came into boxing malnourished, while a modern boxer likely comes in needing to cut some excess body fat.

A fighter back then focused on stamina training primarily, while a modern fighter takes a more multi faceted training programme.

wonderful answer,

unlike some others who most likely never been in a gym
in their life and think
any slightly muscular guy is on roids or hgh