Why do people compare old time fighters to modern day fighters when they. . .

You must be one of those old timers. I hear your nurse calling.

 

Indeed. I've never heard this argument presented so eloquently before.

 

Most old fighters have the biggest tool needed to have in boxing that current fighters do not have...and that's heart. Prize fighting was a thing of beauty. To be the best, you have to beat the best was a true statement. All of us folks who have been watching boxing for years on end would agee it's better in the old days because fights had meaning. Now it's all about the Cash, Who's the better **** talker, and the Bling.

To retort to your statement, you are watching fights/fighters from the 20's? Then yeah, I have to agree with you. However, just like with anything, us humans have to improve: ie Technology. The sport of boxing now has evolved into what the great Louis, SSR, Ali, , Monzon, Hagler, and RRJ has shown in the passed 70 years. The sport, like anything, has been improved upon through out the years. Regardless, it can NOT be proven otherwise if some of the old fighters would/could beat today's fighters.

Funny thought tho: Today's techology mixed with today's athlete's who are bigger, stronger, faster, could NOT go X amount of rounds like the "old" guys could do, or even get up from 16 Knockdowns and "Want" to continue to fight...Like i said, Today's fighters lack Heart, the biggest advantage old guys have over todays guys.

 

<------ youre wrong

 

another Failey type of poter to put on ignore

 

All you people saying boxers are better now and mor eveolved and using examples of athletes in other sports like the 100m dash getting better to argue that are ****ing idiots.

I agree that most sports have evolved and the participants of this era would crush those of the 40's/50's but boxing is not one of those sports. In sports like basketball/football/hockey training techniques and game strategy have changed significantly for the better and there are literally 50 times more participants than there were in 40's/50's making the talent pool way deeper. The thing is with boxing it has actually regressed and was far better in the 40's- boxing in the 40's was the #1 sport in the world, now it's not even top 10!! It's like a reversal of the other sports where in the 40's there were 50 times more boxers making the talent pool way deeper and not only that but the training techniques and strategy for boxing has remained unchanged since that era (the same **** that worked best back then works best now- guess that's what happens in a sport that's had over 2 thousand years to evolve unlike others that have been around for lesss than 2 hundred) so the modern fighters aren't benefiting from better training/ strategy or the sport evolving and there's far less boxers making the talent pool way smaller. Not to mention they did far more sparring back then and fought 5 times as many fights meaning they never lost their sharpness, they were tougher and they were always in fighting shape, the best training is always hands on and they had far more of that in 40's too. Boxing was just better back then unfortunately and unless it regains it's position as a top 3 sport in the world it'll most likely never reach the level it was at during the golden age.

Anyone that claims boxing is better now just proves their lack of knowledge on the sports history. My guess is that people claiming this are youngins who've never taken the time to learn about this great sport with over 2 thousand years of trial and error and are clueless to anything pre 2000.

 

I think you raise a good point about the size of the talent pool, but the training and nutrition is not the same in the 40s as it is now. The technique and strategy deployed is not the same either.

 

that's straight up BS there.
the 21st century boxing has become a global sport in which any one can take part and have a shot at the top regardless of his nationality, gender, political orientation or race...which wasn't possible in the first half of the last century.

And as opposed to the past, most of today's pros are boxers by job who started at a young age and have an amateur career before turning pro.
You don't see today's HW division being ruled by a guy who started fighting in mine camps and barrooms at the age of 16.

Despite loosing face in US, boxing went global and is much much bigger today then it was prior 80's

Today a divisional champion can truly be called a "World Champion" as opposed to a champion from the past who fought only in north america against or mostly against north americans, meanwhile worthy opponents were hindered from their chances at the title because of different reasons.

 

We're not talking about if he had modern training techniques, we're comparing the boxer he actually was.

Obviously there is some overlap, the worst of today are not better than the best of yesterday. The best old time fighters would still be competitive now but not the best.
Ali (from up until 1970), i think, would beat any heavyweight boxer today, or indeed ever.

 

what a load of shite.

It is fair to say that a modern football player can run faster, kick the ball harder, have better physical condition and superior tactical knowledge as opposed to a player from the 60's due to better training facilities and technologies....but it's not fair to say that a modern boxer can punch harder, have superior defense, better stamina and footwork despite clear evidence such as videos proving evolution right.

I always laugh when i see the delusional folks in the classic picking old timers like Louis or Dempsey destroying modern boxers like klitschko's or Lewis.
The diferences are there to be seen for anyone having a drop of common sense.
No only today's fighters are physically stronger and bigger, they're also faster, more powerful and better conditioned.

 

nutrition is different yes but strategy no, not at all. the same **** that worked best then, works best now. everything was already being done by the 40's....there's no new punches/footwork boxings 2 thousand years old dude, since the 70's forward represents a very small percentage of that time. everything that worked best in the 40's still works best now in both training and in the ring. there's very little difference....only difference is nutrition but that gets negated by the fact that old fighters fought 10 times more and sparred much more often making them having superior stamina and toughness from hands on training rather than supplements and vitamins etc.... the fact that they were 50 times as many pro boxers back then who fought way more often using the same strategy/techniques as fighters nowadays (aside from vitamins/supplements etc) makes it obvious that it was a far better era

 

anyone who believes this era is better than the 40's is delusional and started watching boxing post 2000..... they obviously know nothing about the history of the sport.