1949 heavyweights v. 1999 heavyweights

Where's the proof that the talent pool has enlarged anyway ?

Most old-timers say there were far more gyms and fight venues back in those days. But especially before the war.

 

Thanks! I certainly am one that agrees with your post. The weight divisions being key - especially the Cruiserweight which is effectively a 25 lb weight class and next largest after heavyweight -- considering it is often viewed as a laughing stock despite there being divisions separated by under 5 lbs. Maybe a money grab, but I do think there is more to it than that.

Sent from my Lenovo B8000-F using Tapatalk

 

If that's the case then why can't anybody beat Taranenko's and Krastev's 30 yr old clean & jerk and snatch records? Why can't any women beat Flojo's 100m record from '88? If there was such an evolution taking place these records would have been blown away years ago, but they haven't. Stiffer drug testing regulations are responsible for blocking off progress. Humans haven't suddenly started evolving in the last 30-40 yrs.

 

The evidence such as it is, implies that the talent pool has declined.

 

Majority of Olympic records were set in 1984 but there was probably more drug use back then. Which is interesting because quite a few think the best boxers come from the 80's and 90's there.

 

This could just as equally be that more giants began to make the grade once the glove size changed.

but the numbers of participation per head was much higher before. Boxing was a higher profile sport than it is now. Gyms and fight clubs all over the place. No tv. Less records.

it's absurd to say Ali and Louis could be competative today??

athletics not combat sports.

or it could be the nostalgia boxing fans acquired a whole lot more knowledge over lifetimes in the the sport?

Classic is the best place to get an education and debate among more intelligent fans.

 

If you judge athleticism based on work rate, the old timers have you beat into a ****ed hat.

There are early lightweights who averaged 80+ punches per round, over 40 rounds or more on film!

Don't even go there!

 

You misunderstand me. I don't mean that there weren't more boxing gyms in America (although not remotely as many in most of the rest of the world) in the old days. I mean that the overall population is much larger. There are plenty of Olympic style sports that are much less popular now than in days past, but the records are still being broken. It's because many of the best physical specimens still tend to find their way into all sports, regardless of how popular it is. There's just too many athletic 6'5 etc guys around nowadays. Even if football etc is more popular in America now than boxing, there is still a large enough glut that they will try out boxing and excel.

Also, another poster mentioned that there are still records from the 80's that haven't been broken. 30 years or so seems a good measure of time for how long a person can stay competitive "h2h" in any sport. (Although PED use in the 80's was rampant, which may make some of those records especially hard to break). I don't discount the possibility that Mike Tyson, on his best day, could beat any HW in history, but he's the last HW I would allow that to be a possibility.

 

That is very fortunate for you.