At what point did modern boxers surpass old ones?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Mynydd, Feb 22, 2018.


  1. Mynydd

    Mynydd Member Full Member

    435
    570
    Oct 9, 2017
    Wasn't sure how to title this.

    One of the more frequent topics on here is "How would [fighter from 20's/60's/80's] fare against [fighter from 2000's/10's]? For example, how would Marciano fare against Lewis? There are always a few replies to the effect of "Different sport today, old fighter would be destroyed by new fighter, athleticism too advanced today, heavyweights too big today".

    So, assuming this is true, at what point does contemporary boxing emerge? At what point would Ali or Marciano no longer be able to compete? And is this a recent thing, or has boxing always been progressive in this way? Could Langford compete with Marciano? Could Marciano compete with Ali? Could Ali compete with Tyson?
     
    SnatchBox likes this.
  2. CST80

    CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

    242,353
    235,910
    Nov 23, 2013
    They already have, but romanticized nostalgia and rose colored glasses blind people to that reality.

    Sadly the same doesn't apply to music and film, art and storytelling have suffered and gotten worse with technological advancements. But athletes haven't.
     
    aaalbert, Hessu, eltirado and 3 others like this.
  3. uhd100

    uhd100 New Member Full Member

    50
    74
    Nov 8, 2017
    There is no specific point, it's a continuous evolution.
     
  4. Gil Gonzalez

    Gil Gonzalez Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    3,607
    2,859
    Jun 15, 2012
    Holyfield was the first roider I know of. It came in from pro wrestling.
     
    Reinhardt likes this.
  5. SnatchBox

    SnatchBox Boxing Full Member

    5,426
    4,686
    Nov 26, 2016
    Ali would retire Wilder. I think Ali beats Tyson as well
     
    Boxingfan712, escudo, DKD and 4 others like this.
  6. Bogotazo

    Bogotazo Amateur Full Member

    31,381
    1,133
    Oct 17, 2009
    Boxing modernized around the 40's and continued to improve until around the 60's. Then there was been a notable decline since the 90's. The idea that boxing has gone through a straight-line evolution towards improvement is false. It's not nostalgic at all to look at the top 10 of boxing's historic divisions in past decades and see a notable gap in the skill and completeness of fighters. Many fighters today can't rely on their jab or fight on the inside or don't know how to cut a ring off. Many 2nd and 3rd best contenders of yesterday would beat several of the champions of today. The Heavyweights have a size factor to consider, but until you get to the 30's, it's more than fair to compare fighters decades apart because the skill-set went largely unchanged.
     
  7. Jackstraw

    Jackstraw Mercy for me, justice for thee! Full Member

    1,801
    2,632
    Jan 28, 2018
    I’ve always assumed the opposite was true- that modern fighters pale in comparison to the older classic guys; say from 1940 thru 1980s. The only weight class where’s there’s any noticeable difference is in the heavyweights, who are much bigger but lack the skills and athleticism (Lennox Lewis being a notable exception). A couple of reasons for this might be that back in the day boxing really only competed with baseball as being the preeminent sport (in America) and people were just harder then. Also, money has increased greatly in boxing thereby allowing new fighters to fight much less for more. Guys like Robinson, Walcott, Charles and Moore had to fight more often. I seriously doubt if they could make 7 or 8figures for a hyped up ppv (think Floyd vs Ortiz) that they would’ve fought so often. Also, the old boys had 15 round fights and same day day weigh ins.
     
  8. On The Money

    On The Money Dangerous Journeyman Full Member

    29,548
    14,141
    Apr 4, 2012
    I think some divisions are stronger than ever. Usyk and Gassiev would probably beat any cruiser of the past including Holyfield. Golovkin and Canelo would be competitive vs any previous 160lb fighter. Heavyweight scene is improving, bigger men, bigger hitters, just not US fighters. Scene was centred on Germany for ten years and now it's UK ppv. But that can all change quickly.
     
    Sephiroth Rising 7 likes this.
  9. IsaL

    IsaL VIP Member Full Member

    50,540
    18,217
    Oct 7, 2006
    Good post Bogotazo. I dont understand how these so called hardcore boxing fans can look at 90s, 80s, 70s film and not see how much more complete and dedictaed boxers were compared to today's.

    Like you said, most top fighters today lack fundamentals that would be considered basic in those eras, such as feinting, using the jab, fighting tall, chin tucked in at all times, head movement, waist movement.

    It seems today's fighters are bulkier anf rely more on athleticism than skill.
     
    DKD, Loudon, langdell and 6 others like this.
  10. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,558
    May 4, 2017
    Tyson wasn`t that much bigger than Ali in terms of weight, in fact sometimes in the 70`s Ali weighed more than a prime Tyson plus no fighter has used the moves Ali used to beat Cleveland Williams since at heavyweight.
     
  11. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,558
    May 4, 2017
    Ray Robinson was ahead of his time so was Willy Pep, no-one can use footwork the way Pep did.
     
    DKD, deadACE and Bogotazo like this.
  12. J Jones

    J Jones Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,828
    1,414
    Jul 19, 2017
    Forget about Ali, Frazier would fold Deontay like a lawn chair.
     
    Boxingfan712, Reinhardt, BCS8 and 4 others like this.
  13. J Jones

    J Jones Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,828
    1,414
    Jul 19, 2017
    They also rely on:
    1. weight bully tactics
    2. challenging the weakest title holder in the division
    3. acting like businessmen and promoters despite the overall lack of formal education and contacts
    4. using the high risk low reward excuse to avoid perceived threats
     
    Boxingfan712 and Jackstraw like this.
  14. boranbkk

    boranbkk "ไม่ได้โม้นะ" Full Member

    7,706
    776
    Feb 19, 2012
    I agree with Bogotazo. I think technically fighters are no better now than they were in previous eras...as Bogotazo suggested probably a technical decline. But S&C has developed by light years which makes a fighter who twenty years ago wouldn’t have been able to live with a top contender or champion more able to “survive” or whether the storm of a superior fighter...hence so many anti climactic uneven, boring & ugly fights going distance these days. More guys are living clean and training right these days....
     
    Ph33rknot likes this.
  15. J Jones

    J Jones Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,828
    1,414
    Jul 19, 2017
    You make lots of good points that I agree with. However, I don’t believe the fighters would fight less if they had the final say. I believe fighters fight less often for a few reasons, namely:

    1. The insistence that all good to elite fighters MUST fight on TV. Think PBC who suffers from having too many fighters for the limited number of TV dates. As a result, the best PBC fighters fight no more than twice a year.

    2. High cost for the necessary insurance to put on local shows.

    3. The reluctance to feature fighters who do not own glossy records. One of the most recent exceptions to this rule, Orlando Salido, was initially brought in to help marinate the Gamboa/JuanMa López fight. He after the first win against Lopez, his record was 36-11-2