''We don't want to admit it, but athletes gets better'' ...& Mike Tyson Mysteries

For all you guys saying fighter of the past are so much better.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF-sxSipAMs

 

Not much to see here. He says athletes get better, everybody says that (in general). He says there are steroids, everybody says that. He was asked would the Klitschko's beat him and says 'I don't know'.

 

Until I see it in the boxing I disagree with Mike .

 

It doesnt apply neccesarily to boxing.

 

Athletisim and skill (which comes with dedication to your sport, knowing it, practicing, learning the technics) are two different things which are meant to be combined so that someone mastered his sport. You can't denied that with all the science behind athletes that that side of sport improved. With all the nutritionnist, physician, kyneysiologist, physiologist involved (and sometimes good pharmacists), you can't say that athletes are not better nowadays. They are. And it applies to all the sports.

 

what about sports that are dying out, yet may re-emerge 100 years from now? in their 100 year nadir, do they continue to improve? NO.

 

Athletes are better nowadays, however fighters are not necessarily better!

 

You think boxing is literally the only sport that defys this rule?

You think a basketball team from the 50s would compete with a modern team?

You think a soccer team from the 50s would compete with a modern team?

You think a rugby team from the 80s would compete with a modern team?

You think any olympic athlete from the 60s would be able to medal in the current olympics?

 

As much as people dont like top admit it, skills improve too, as one generation learns from the last.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJkiwu_04dw

 

There isn't much evidence of it. And it doesn't apply to boxing much anyway.

 

There isn't as much difference as you think. Jesse Owens ran 10.2 100m in the 30s in dire footwear on poor surfaces.

 

Standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

there are plenty of sports where skills have diminished, but they are simply not ones that you pick up on, because they don't suit your agenda.

simply the way you worded your question so defensively shows your argument is under pressure.

 

It is true that it applies to most sports but not all. For example many weightlifting records from 1980s have not been broken yet. Also quite many of track&field world records have been done in 1980s. You can easily say that shot putters, hammer- or discus throwers were way better 30 years ago than they are nowadays.
Now you think that these are sports where tests for PEDs were not as good as they are nowadays. And it is true. Athletes were tested usually only after competitions and not so much during their off season.
But this is even more true with pro boxing. As far as I know professional boxers were not tested for steroids at all until quite recently. So it would be stupid to think that steroids were not heavily used in boxing from 1970s onward. And they could be used even just before a bout. And this gave them a huge benefit compared to boxers nowadays. And I am not to say that steroids are not used heavily in todays boxing. Yes they are. But you cant use them as easily anymore just before bouts that you could a few decades ago.
So it might be that boxers were better a few decades ago than they are now. And even if you dont like it, it might be cause of easy use of steroids.

 

Go ahead, name them?

Athletics?
Swimming?
Rugby?
Soccer?
Tennis?
Basketball?
NFL?
Golf?
Gymnastics?
Even sports like Snooker which require no athleticism have advanced!

Please, go ahead