Heavyweights. Old timers vs modern.

Boxing is just like any other sport: Modern day elite athletes are much better than elite athletes from 50 or 100 years ago.

 

Agree.. I watch boxing and soccer and sometimes i can barely tell the difference between he two sports.

 

They wouldn't have needed to have bulked up.

They were fine as they were.

If they'd have bulked up, they wouldn't have been as fast and effective.


It's not what they train for?

You don't think it's odd that today's supposedly superior athletes, would need to specifically train for the extra 3 rounds?

The guys in Jack's era used to fight once per month.

 

If only modern trainers could get their hands on the magical tome of old school boxing techniques which has been lost to time.

Size, strength & power plus grade A PEDs
versus
Grit, moxie and gumption. It's a tricky one.

Give me the top man at HW from Bowe to Joshua against anyone in history. Holmes, Foreman and Ali wouldn't be drawing dead but they would be up against it.

Size not only matters, it is the king of all edges.

I'll add that I don't see (m)any posters changing their minds even slightly no matter what anybody says. It is easier to fool a person than convince them they have been fooled. If you have always idolised or looked up to a certain fighter as the ultimate HW it is hard to suddenly admit you are mistaken and some boring giant perhaps with a negative off-putting style would F him up.

 

How many times have we discussed this?

Boxing is not like any other sport.

It does not evolve in the same way.

There is no clear progression on a decade by decade basis.

You can't make a generalisation like you have.

Go and look at Robbo's era of MW's.

There's plenty of fighters from 50 years ago who would beat the guys of today.

Could you say that regarding other sports?

 

So out of all sports, boxing is the one and only one that stands out? That's a ludicrous assumption and not backed by any evidence.

Boxing is EXACTLY like any other sport. Athletes get better, decade by decade. Deal with it and stop making up your classic forum excuses.

 

Plenty of evidence.

100 million pound athlete MaGregor was recently out-stamina'd and out-worked by a 40 year old man.

No football (soccer) player , basketball , rugby player , swimmer etc in their 20's would EVER be out-performed by somebody in their 40s.

Francis Ngannou had access to best sports science had to offer , yet he was so knackered after 5 mins of physical combat that he could barely even walk. How is that possible?

YOU.. dksa sports.

 

That's a nice fantasy but it doesn't square with reality. If it did then we'd constantly see LHWs and CWs (which is essentially what Dempsey and Louis were) moving up and down at HW dominating both weight classes. That doesn't happen, and hasn't happened in a very long while.

Before you start formulating a response consider this. Why did one of the most skilled and meticulous fighters of the modern age in Andre Ward feel the need to bulk up to 200lbs recently if he knew he could have just competed at CW or HW as he was? And why don't LHW beasts like Kovalev or Beterbiev fight a few heavyweights to raise their profile and make a bit of easy coin? Why do we never see any fighter competing at HW nowadays under 200lbs?

Of course if Dempsey or Louis bulk up they wouldn't be effective. But how effective would they be if they didn't? The modern HW game is intensely physical, and smaller fighters have consistently found themselves outmuscled by bigger foes. That's essentially what happened to Steve Cunningham in the Fury fight. Cunningham was outboxing Fury till Fury began to lean on him and rough him up in the clinch. By the sixth round Cunningham's legs were worn out and Fury was able to get the KO. And Cunningham is by no means a small man, but he was dwarfed in there.

It's very difficult for modern top end fighters to fight more than a couple of times per year for a variety of reasons. It shouldn't be seen as a knock on them, just as it shouldn't be seen as a knock on earlier heavyweights for their constant defences against men in lower weight classes. It's just the way the sport is set up at the moment.

Many heavyweights could probably still fight fifteen rounds without any issues, but they would need to lower their overall output to do so. That's a small but important tactical change that might take a bit of getting used to.

 

And they would win based on what scientific facts? Loudon's fantasy world facts of fairy tales and classic forum science?

 

You know why Joe Louis is considered such a bad @$$? Because he had two handed skills when heavyweights generally didn't have two handed skills. Nowadays to be a top heavyweight you must have two handed skills. If Joe Louis was fighting today he would probably be a cruiserweight and his skills while being very good, would not be extraordinary.

 

Wilder wants to dig Joe Louis up and fight him..................

 

As a boxing fan, you should be absolutely embarrassed to write out the above.

Let's just be logical here and look at what you're saying:


You're saying that athletes get better decade by decade.

You're saying that boxing is no different.

So you're saying that the fighters get better decade by decade, yes?

Well if that was true, that would mean that today's fighters are the greatest fighters of all time.


So are you going to tell me that today's WW's are the greatest group of WW's of all time?

Are today's HW's the greatest group of HW's of all time?

Are today's MW's the greatest group of MW's of all time?

Are today's top 10, P4P fighters the best 10 fighters of all time?


Get out of here you fool.

You cannot generalise like you have done.

You can't say that the 60's guys weren't as good as the guys from the 70's as a whole, and the 70's guys weren't as good as the guys from the 80's etc. Because today's guys are no better than the best guys of the 80's and 90's.


Today's fighters ARE NOT the best fighters of all time.

Only an absolute fool would make that claim.


If you had a huge competition where today's best fighters fought the greats of yesteryear, you would end up with MIXED RESULTS.

If you can't appreciate that, then go and find yourself another sport.

 

You are an utter embarrassment.

Let's just look at a few ATG's of the past:

Louis
Moore
Robinson
Ali
Foreman
Charles
Foster
Spinks
Leonard
Hearns
Hagler
Tyson
Holmes

The list is endless.

As a boxing fan, are you seriously telling me that you'd need actual evidence, before you could favour any of those guys against the guys of today?

Know your history.

Use your eyes.

Appreciate what you're watching.

You don't need psychic powers or a time machine to realise that those guys would wreak havoc if they were dropped into their respected divisions in today's era.

You are so ignorant.

You can only be a casual fan.

 

Usyk beats them all.

 

Sports are not progressive. Why would you assume they are, because they say they are? Well **** man if your waiting for a sport to tell you to not give a **** about their current product yer ****ing dumb.

Sports are not regressive. Why would you assume they are, because some old **** reliving the glory days says so? Well **** man if yer waiting on old ****s to admit their generation wasn't better at everything no matter what yer dumb as ****.

Boxing is cyclical.