evolution = adaptation to environment. some important changes in the boxing environment; fight length, glove size, # of fights in career, stricter enforcement of rules, footwear (and ring) quality, more money at lower weights. possibly if you knew those changes then many of the changes in figting styles and career paths would be predictable.
It's definitely evolved. But less so then most sports. It's such a basic concept, hit and don't get hit. The art of boxing has been around for thousands of years if I recall correctly. This is why, in my opinion, it's plausible to compare people from all eras in boxing. More so than any other sport.
I don't know I think stance and defense in general are better now, but feints are practically non-existent and fighters aren't nearly as tough as they used to be they just aren't, and they don't fight as often etc.
Well we're constantly told that it's evolved due to modern day training methods, diet, conditioning etc . Are today's fighters fitter and better conditioned than Sugar Ray Robinson, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Sandy Saddler and many others? Hell Rocky Marciano may have been the fittest and best conditioned fighter ever.
Heavyweights have evolved to the point that David Haye can return after 3 years with breasts and be on the cusp of a title shot.
Heavyweight has evolved into a different weight class. It is Superheavyweight now. But for the most part it is the same size men weighing more. There was giants before too. Crucially great fights make great fighters. So as long as there are great fights we will always have great fighters. And thankfully we do. So wether you like modern changes or prefer tradition great will always be great. I think for the most part what is gained in one hand is lost in another. So Things balence out quite a bit between eras. Competition and experience can match modern conditioning. Great fighters would be great in any era. To make real comparisons we must factor in changes and the availability of genuine advances or detrimental changes. Often it's personal choice what you Xxx like best rather than what is better. Perhaps fighters now would like to see some things go back to how they were and perhaps old timers would relish some of the modern changes? The evolution of boxing is a bit like the evolution of Dog breeding in that some Breeds of dogs (or boxers) are unrecognizable from the earlier standard. Is it better or just different? I hope things have not gone too far and that the line of progress has not been crossed. Boxers are being developed for different things. Trends toward weight advantage to neutralize the opposition, rehydration, cheating the scales has changed things. But this is to achieve what ever it takes to be successful in a different era. It's not necessarily an edge over another's era. A punch on the jaw in still the same.
When (if) you watch them, do fighters from the early 1900s look like fighters from the past 50 years?
In diet and conditioning yes but technique wise I don't think it's moved on in maybe 40 years. The modern boxer certainly ain't as tough as fighters from yesteryear. They simply don't fight enough.
I see people saying this all the time here but I couldn't disagree more. Boxers still feint all the time, it's just often more fluid and subtle now because a lot of them have feints built into their basic rhythm and movement. Most feints now only involve an inch or two of sudden upper body movement and a step. Even brawlers and sluggers use feints to close distance, conceal their punches, and create openings.
Yes and no. From the early 20th century it's changed a lot in all ways. During the last forty years or so - As far as conditioning and athleticism,yes. As far as skill ? No.