Do you believe that IN GENERAL, fighters from previous eras were superior?

I don't believe that fighters from days gone by are superior. If anything the boxers of today would have an advantage due to advances in technology, dieting knowledge and years of technical details passed on down the years.

The main difference is the advancement of boxing itself. back then boxers fought more often and probably over double the amount of fights in average. there were less belts so we knew who was the main guy and how to rank them more appropriately. The top guys generally fought each other (on numerous occasions sometimes) and the sport was a lot bigger back then as well.

These days money plays a huge factor, there are more weights, more belts, top guys avoid each other and the political stakes have more of an affect on the matchmaking in particular. not that these things didn't happen in any era but it seems to have a more adverse affect in our generation.

 

the problem is quantity...i think earlier era's typicaly had a larger amount of very good talent producing lots of great fighters.

Today...that amount is that high...thus the production of ATG's or Elite's is far and in between.

Today there are maybe a couple that could last in any era. Back then there were a good number of guys who could last in any era.

It takes ATG's to make ATG's

 

Sure.. That's why 95% of all pro athletes today do weightlifting.. But you probably know something that the professional trainers/coaches don't :good

 

I use my eyes. Today's fighters just aren't as good.

That's not the fighters fault. If anything, humans have got fitter and stronger as the years have passed. It's down to there being few great trainers and the boxing climate.

 

Getting punched in the face is why boxing can't really be compared to most sports.

 

So, you're telling me, that you got two guys at 140, that the one that lifts weights and is all blown up to get to 140 is stronger than the guy that got there by only doing bodyweight excercises?

 

wEIGHT CUTTING CULTURE IS RUINING THE (oops caps lock) sport as well IMO.

 

The problem in this sort of debate is that there is no way to accurately measure the progress, if any, boxers have made over the decades.

It is not like athletics, where times or distance is measured. There is no quantifiable measurement to go on.

Also unlike athletics, which is almost purely a physical competition, boxing at the top level is more mental than physical. (I know that athletes in every sport need mental fortitude, but compared to boxing athletics doesn't test character nearly as much.)

We're left with a guess, at best, as to if modern fighters are as good as or better than old-timers.

I think today's guys enter the ring in better shape, no question. They are more trained to peak fitness. (Except the fat heavyweights.)

Fighters in the 40's 50's and so on just fought too often to operate at a peak constantly. Ray Robinson for example defended his title one month after winning it. A month!

Wear and tear on their bodies must have been something else, and of course those days a knockout was actually a knockout, unlike today. So if a guy came into a fight having lost his last fight by KO, you can be sure he took some heavy punishment.

I often wonder just how close to peak fitness some of these fighters were when we watch old-time fight film. I'm not just talking physical fitness, but mental fitness too. Fighting 12-20 or more times a year must also be hard from a mental aspect.

Modern guys have more time to prepare for a fight today, definitely do lead healthier lives generally (Although I wonder sometimes) have about three different coaches preparing him for different things, and in SOME ways, the training and access to training facilities have improved.

So in general, the fighters today I'd say enter the ring closer to peak physical fitness than the guys of the past, and are at least as prepared mentally, or more so.
They also have access to the opponent's previous fights, whereas in the past you'd have to catch an opponent fight live to see what he is about.

Weight training has been generally very beneficial to boxers too. Spinks, Holyfield and since then a ton of boxers have benefitted from using the correct weight training to aid their fighting abilities.

One thing though, is that I do think that there has been a big overemphasis on the weights. Too much importance is placed on lifting the iron and getting stronger, and maybe not enough on the skill side of the sport.
There are too many guys with big, bulging biceps that can't seem to slip a jab or throw a counter right over a jab.
Sam Peter comes to mind. Yes, he's a big strong guy no question, but I was horrified at just how raw and crude he was even after more than 20 fights.
What were they doing with the guy?

Also, what I see a lot of today is people taking the same technique they were practising in the past, and calling it a different name now and treating it as some new technique.
Wind sprints? Geez, Bob Fitzsimmons did wind sprints way back when; he just didn't call it that. It's nothing new or revolutionary.

The deeper talent pool that past boxers had definitely comes into the equation as well. Competition breeds further competition.

They say boxing is more of an international sport these days and that's true, but the talent is in small, sporadic pools spread across the globe.

I think it was McGrain who pulled a statistic a few years ago that showed in the 20's, there were more active pro's in England than in the entire world today.
That's telling.

Scenes became hotbeds of boxing activity. Harlem in the 30's and 40's had a gym on just about every corner, packed to capacity with young, hungry fighters.
What else was there for a young, athletically talented kid to do those days but box? There was basically no other outlet available.
All these boxers needed trainers, who were in no short supply.

I'm sure there was a fair bunch of crap fighters and trainers back then too, but the wheat and the chaff usually got sorted pretty quickly simply because so many young guys were fighting those days.

With so much competition, and remember virtually none of the hand-picking and record padding that goes on today, fighters were gaining invaluable experience against some of the best fighters around.

And experience, I don't care who you are or what sport you do, cannot be replaced with a weight regime or fancy diet. Experience is truly the greatest teacher and greatest asset.
Nothing can replace experience.
Old-time fighters had that in spades, and I don't think a lot of today's guys have enough of it.
Maybe they're too afraid to lose that '0' or maybe they're just being too protected by management, but again, when you have a guy with 20+ fights under his belt and he cannot slip a basic jab, then there is a serious problem.
That's one of the first things they should be teaching as amateur level, nevermind the pros.

In short, I see it as a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Today's boxers may be more physically prepared, but the old-timers had by far the greater experience and were fighting from a wider, richer talent pool.

 

Wepner was drinking champaigne between round against Ali. (No jokes.) Obviously that wouldn't fly today.

About Duran...it took him years to get that respect back. Panama even revoked his tax exempt status over there. He copped a shitstorm for the Leonard debacle.
I think though, that hanging tough with the best middleweight on the planet (See, the experience thing again. He was physically completely outmatched against a bigger, stronger foe, but he had the smarts and ringcraft to make it a competitive fight) and beating Barkley - another bigger, younger, stronger foe - was enough to restore his status.

 

If this was the 50's or 60's, Pac and Mayweather would have fought three or four times by now. A damning indictment on the modern scene.

 

some and that is due to advance training, nutrition etc. but in general humans got softer/weaker and lazier. You would find more fat asses today than during the early days.

 

...but Floyd knows how to shoulder roll. And he does the pull counter! I mean, what more do you want?

 

So fighters from previous eras were superior?.. :think

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Experts of every era from James J. Jeffries and on have said that the current generation is crap. That includes playing down the 70's & 90's HW generation and everything else in between. Somehow they were all wrong but we have it figured out? No, we just love to recycle the same talking points about yesteryear.

If you look at the number of overall fights according to boxrec, we have more today then the 70's and 80's generation. Only the 20's stood out to have had more fights.

 

now show pictures of Cory Sanders flexing next to Wlad or Ali next to prime Foreman. This just shows they are bigger, but it isn't EVERYTHING.