Have boxers gotten better as time progressed?

Clarify your case.

You have made a number of vague statements, but have done noting to explain why you have come to these conclusions.

Which fighters of the past are doing what wrong, and why?

 

I actually completely agree with this.
Boxing does evolve.
- Sparring evolves
- Training evolves
- Diet and supplements.
- A huge factor is that boxers also fight less often so there's less wear and tear going into their next fights. People are far better conditioned going into the ring now.
- It was also easier to land knockout punches back then because gloves were not as padded as they are now, and were more easily tampered with, therefore some boxers went into the ring without emphasising skill as much.
- There's a gradual movement towards different styles i.e the best heavyweights today are huge and like to operate from the outside, there's no real need for inside. Wlad would jab the **** out of Dempsey and land a brutal KO, there's just no other way around it tbh.
The very top boxers in divisions leave a mark, a way, a path, a lesson on what style of boxing to incorporate. We have people being mini-Mayweathers today with the shoulder roll for example.
- Ability to study tape - this is a big one and overlooked.


Boxers have gotten worse though over the last 20 years because of more stringent testing on PED's, changes in the amateur system - the administration of the amateur system is also a big one, other sports providing more allure so the best athletes go to other careers, the fall of a legit structure where you have 1 legit champion, attitudinal changes as people are receiving decent money now.

 

Absolutely.

Next.

 

Pretty darn good post Gann-
One point tho; yes if you dropped a 21st century Klit into a time machine and sent him back to 1923 to fight Dempsey he would probably annilalate him.
But...a 1923 Klit born in the 1890's wouldn't have everything he had available then, and would be smaller with less 'beef' and modern skills.
Had Dempsey, with all his power and moxie, been born in the 70's he would have stepped in against Lewis, Klit, any of them circa 2003, more chisled, heavier, and with all the modern technique available.
I'm the 'eras' guy Gann, you just can't compare IMHO.

 

I hate to be that guy, but if you look at all the other popular sports with large athletes... It really can't be argued... Only heavyweight boxers have that problem, and its usually because they're just going through the motions for a paycheck

This is more of a flaw to the sport itself, not of the fighters.


Two points:

It's not about the size of the gloves, its about the shape. Gloves back then were padded but formless. Nowadays you get that square effect with gloves which makes their fixed shape easier to block, as oppose to the formless 4oz gloves that you could sneak into all the cracks and crevasses of your opponent.

 

better is a relative term, the skills needed to be successful in any given era are often unique to that era, and to the style 'pool' of the era.
generally your average fighter seems better schooled today, but the standouts had true all time great skill meaning that they could be effective in almost any era provided the sizes/weights matched.
which of todays fighters could compare skill wise today with ray robinson, joe Louis, charley burley, archie moore, ali, holmes or Floyd Patterson to name a few.
The fantastic 4 all started pro careers over 40 years ago yet which modern fighters could compete skill - wise wth any of them?
Not too many.

 

The super-heavyweights have got better, and they've essentially turfed out the typical cruiser-sized heavyweight of the previous century. Other than that I disagree with the opening statement. There's nothing the best fighters of today do better than the top guys of 50, 60, 70 years ago.