True, I thought of Donaire and gamboa but couldn't remember his division:nut So why are big guys so unskilled compared to their smaller counterparts?
Why were "the oltimers" better ? Simple...When you have 10 times the amount of fighters than today, fighting so damn more often, under the guise of full time professional trainers, it stands to reason that by sheer experience learning your craft that the fighters of the past HAD to be better...Of course there are a few fighters today that would be competitive with the fighters of the 1940s, but only a rare few... If experience doesn't count, why is there 4 years to complete college rather than one year ? I'm for example, on the internet about 2 years, and I type SO much better than when I first hit the keys...Experience... When the boxers of the 1940s fought 15 or so fights a year, against all styles, fighting the fighters the PUBLIC demanded ,you get tougher and more well rounded fighters. Common sense I think...
Back then fighters would fight, they would go to the death to get a victory, i always think of Joe Frazier in the Thrilla in Manilla wanting to rather die than let Ali beat him, fighters back then had to fight for what they got, if you look at the way they grew up you can usually see why they fought as hard as they did.
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. Bull****, 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.
Clearly boxing has deteoriated technically. Lesser talent pool spread over more weights. Risk makes the fighter 'great' so the more recent operator will not garner the achievements to put him on the level of a great chanpion from era's gone by.This is not psychological. I'm not actually sure anyone in the last 15 years has a better resume than Gil Turner.
Because unlike the fighters of today, These fights were fighting for there lives, they're training regimens were far beyond anything these fighters do in training camp and that probably goes for the fighter for the past 50 years ( bad Training ), These guys chopped wood for eight and then would go run 20 miles or more, spend about 4 hours on the bags, and then go run another 20 miles. EVERDAY!..It was just a different breed of man and fighter than we have today tough times makes tough fighters especially when your fighting to literally put food on the table, that make you one tough Son of a ***** .
Dude this dude is Senile youll have to excuse him..Im pretty sure he doesnt even know where he is:yep
I think 24 hour weigh in's actually encourage fighters to try and shed more weight. Spending less time on honing their skills.
There's no "clearly", it's only an opinion that is not based on anything factual. If you decide to look for it, you'll find plenty of excellent technicians nowadays. Or, if you go from the opposite end, you can find plenty of technical mistakes about any supposed ATG technician. No matter how great Eddie Futch or Ray Arcel were, if they had an average boxer, they wouldn't be able to make a first-rater out of him. No matter how great they were, you'd find their fighters making mistake after mistake.
Biggest reasons: Greater mental toughness, dedication, fought more often(experience), and a better skill set(more body punching, and feinting), particularly in defense(open glove blocking, parrying and slipping, and shifting/only necessary footwork.)