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

Less people box now and the ones that do fight a fraction of the fights of people in the 40's. The techniques of fighters like SRR, Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore to name a few would translate to todays era flawlessly. Boxing pre 40's had some primitive techniques, but there are definitely guys from those era's as well that would translate to today. Technology, and nutrition have improved, but for the most part the sport has declined quite a bit IMO.

 

i agree

look at the damn tapes

some of those guys wouldnt last 3 rounds with average B-level fighters of today

 

more goldfish - look back a few posts!

 

not a chance man. boxing was huge in europe/UK/ Japan/ Thailand... at least on par with where it is today. In most boxing countries it was wayyyy bigger especially in America/Mexico/Puerto Rico/ Cuba/ South American countries. other than the Eastern Bloc countries allowing pros and several European countries getting bigger on the sport there hasn't been much of an increase anywhere and in it' largest markets there's been an astronomical decrease.

 

Beat me to it. Cant find the numbers from the 40's though so it's impossible to say 100%. But Im positive there were more fighters back then.

 

Ring Magazine was rating over 2000 World Class fighters among Boxing's Leading Nations pre & post WW2, and there were only 8 divisions.

 

I know, seriously, the old timers make Mayorga look like a master technician. They are so overestimated. If only we had a time machine to prove these fantasy matchups.

 

The talent pool in boxing is at a low. Good fights can be made, sure, but when fighters like Khan, Rios/an old JMM, a 46 year old B-Hop/Chad Dawson, Martinez, and Cotto are the best in their divisions, you know the sport isn't what it once was. Ayub Kalule would be a top 5 pound for pound fighter now.

 

I see that as a way to prove how boxing as a "craft " has evolved. Hopkins isn't beating people because of speed or power or any typ e of athletic advantage, it's more with boxing skill. Back in the days Boxer's weren't really skilled as boxers of today.

 

Hopkins beating young guys like Pavlik and Pascal are indicative of how average they are. Both would be fringe contenders in better days. I love B-Hop, but there's no way he'd do what he's doing in a stronger lhw era.

 

Old pugs schooling younger fighters is nothing new.

 

Really? The 50s were better than today for who, exactly? Southern blacks? Mexicans? Women? Lower class whites? Sorry, buddy. Anyone who subscribes to the whole "the past was better" argument is delusional. That goes for sports as well. Life in the 50s kicked ass for middle class and upper class white men. Today, the republic is enjoyed by more people, regardless of sex, class, race, religion. It is not perfect, but certainly better than the 50s.

As for athletes, they are now full-time, with full-time staffs with specialty training, they have the ability to learn and build on the past, so it is obvious that athletes are superior to athletes of the past. And in 50 more years, the trend will continue. We evolve, not devolve.

 

Stop it. Really. Stop it. You are generalizing that boxers from the past had heart, but today, it disappeared. Martinez, Vitali Klit, Marquez, Manny, Morales, Ward, Mayweather... these guys lack heart? Stop it.