At what point did modern boxers surpass old ones?

Keith Thurman as well. Highly talented, great athlete, but sometimes his technique just makes me *shudder*

 

Modern boxing technique was fully developed by around the 1920s. Every weight class has been roughly on an equal playing field since then besides heavyweight where the athletes got taller and heavier with changes in nutrition. I would say that the 1990s were when the first elite superheavyweights came into the game Bowe and Lewis, then the Klitschkos in the 2000s, and Joshua in the 2010s. Only the very best of the previous eras could compete with them. Ali, Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, and Foreman would have a chance to beat the bigger stronger superheavies based on their advantage in skill, which would be needed to make up the physical deficits. All of them fought and beat superheavyweights of their own eras; so it's likely that they could do the same today. But besides the heavyweight class, most weight divisions are not in their golden era when skill and depth is at it's zenith.

I made this point in my thread about the golden years of each division, when skills were at their height.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/golden-years-of-each-division.586778/

When was each division the most stacked in it's history?

1991 Heavyweight top 10

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Mike Tyson
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Razor Ruddock
5. Ray Mercer
6. George Foreman
7. Tim Witherspoon
8. Tony Tucker
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Michael Moorer

1924 Light Heavyweight Division

1. Gene Tunney
2. Young Stribling
3. Kid Norfolk
4. Mike McTigue
5. Ad Stone
6. Jeff Smith
7. Paul Berlenbach
8. Tony (Young) Marullo
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Jimmy Delaney

1953 Light Heavyweight Division
1.Archie Moore
2.Harold Johnson
3.Joey Maxim
4.Yolande Pompey
5.Danny Nardico
6.Jimmy Slade
7.Gerhard Hecht
8.Floyd Patterson
9.Alex Buxton
10.Willi Hoepner

Middleweight Division 1959
1.Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Gene Fullmer
3Gustav Scholz
4.Ellsworth (Spider) Webb
5.Joey Giardello
6.Henry Hank
7.Carmen Basilio
8.**** Tiger
9.Paul Pender
10.Joey Giambra

Middleweight Division 1992
1.Julian Jackson
2.James Toney
3.Reggie Johnson
4.Roy Jones Jr.
5.Mike McCallum
6.Sumbu Kalambay
7.Gerald McClellan
8.Lamar Parks
9.Bernard Hopkins
10.Thomas Tate

1980 Welterweight top 10
1.Sugar Ray Leonard
2.Thomas Hearns
3.Wilfred Benitez
4.Roberto Duran
5.Randy Shields
6.Pete Ranzany
7.Adolfo Viruet
8.Joergen Hansen
9.Luis Primera
10.Clint Jackson

Lightweight division '38
1.Henry Armstrong
2.Lou Ambers
3.Pedro Montanez
4.Davey Day
5.Baby Arizmendi
6.Sammy Angott
7.Billy Beauhuld
8.Aldo Spoldi
9.Petey Sarron
10.Maxie Berger

Lightweight Division '88
1.Julio Cesar Chavez
2.Pernell Whitaker
3.Jose Luis Ramirez
4.Greg Haugen
5.Edwin Rosario
6.Azumah Nelson
7.Amancio Castro
8.Tony Lopez
9.Anthony Jones
10.Rocky Lockridge

2001 Featherweight division
1. Marco Antonio Barrera
2. Erik Morales
3. Naseem Hamed
4. Johnny Tapia
5. Derrick Gainer
6. Manuel Medina
7. Juan Manuel Marquez
8. Frank Toledo
9. Mbulelo Botile
10. William Abelyan


1985 Bantamweights
1.Richie Sandoval
2.Jiro Watanabe
3.Khaosai Galaxy
4.Miguel Lora
5.Greg Richardson
6.Gaby Canizales
7.Daniel Zaragoza
8.Freddie Jackson
9.Alberto Davila
10.Jeff Fenech

 

When Steriods were used, growth hormones, etc., otherwise the old timers were better...........

 

Javelin throwing is a repetitive motion that doesn't require strategic thinking or a varied skillset. Because the incentives and rewards and push factors have not dramatically shifted, neither has the talent pool, so everything but advancements in training and refinement in the body has remained constant. Not so with boxing.

The weight classes mitigate the changes you're stating for all except one division. Then the question still doesn't take into account size; the lighter heavyweights of yesterday could be competent light-heavyweights or cruiserweights today.

Which tactics have become obsolete? I've pointed out several fundamentals of boxing that a lot of elite fighters are missing, that elite fighters weren't missing when the competition had more complete skill-sets. Just because there's "not much in human history" where things declined doesn't mean you've proved your argument that boxing skills haven't declined.

If all you're saying is heavyweights got bigger, then yes, heavyweights got bigger. It matters more the farther back in time you go. But this thread encompasses more than that and there's no reason to believe boxing skills have progressed in the general sport over the past few decades. They observably have not.

 

Never looked at it that way but you might have a point, more durable bodies with less skill-sets can still hang beyond what the skill-set should be able to deliver at times.

 

In other words, you simply refuse to accept logic or data that runs counter to your beliefs. The fact is there are a wealth of tangible sports, all testing different athletic traits, all suffering from a greater decline in popularity than boxing, and all of which have seen records shattered and, significantly seen the same kind of size increase that HW boxing has seen.

You can close your eyes all you want and make specious distinctions, but all the logic is on the side of HW boxing at least, and probably lower weight boxing as well, having advanced considerably.

 

To be fair, in the first, third, and most of your last paragraph you seem to ignore everything I say and all the points I make. But your second paragraph is reasonable enough. Yes, many of my points only directly apply to HWs.

Personally, I think the likelihood is that lower weights have seen progress as well for the same talent pool reasons. But it's much more unknowable at the lower weights. So I'm much more agnostic about progress at the lower weights

 

You're making the claim that boxing has evolved simply because other sports have progressed, ignoring the fact that popularity shifts affect the talent pool in boxing much more than they do in relatively unprofitable and less complex Olympic sports, and having absolutely no answer to the reality that multiple fundamental skills are lacking in today's elite fighters compared to decades ago. Then you said certain ones were obsolete and didn't specify. I'm not closing my eyes, I'm pointing to observable trends that you haven't refuted, using the nonsensical argument that boxing must go through the same process as every other sport.

 

Spoken like a man who knows his boxing.

 

I haven't seen any HW that could live with a prime Ali By prime I mean before his politically influenced 3 1/2 year ban. He'd have made the Klitschko brothers lurch around like
Frankenstein

 

No, I'm addressing and refuting the possibility that the talent pool has mystically shrunken in boxing for the entirely made up reasons you claim to be different from other sports. And you are getting our arguments mixed up: I've pointed to "observable trends", and actual facts. You've pointed to subjective fluff.

Logically, there is no reason to think that boxing is some special snowflake that is different from any other sport that can be tangibly tracked. All those sports show progress commensurate with the same size increase shown in hw boxing. Many such sports have seen a decrease in popularity and have much less incentive to perform at a high level than boxing. Feel free to make phony, nonexistent or even outright false ways to distinguish. You clearly love your old heros and can't accept facts. But if this was a standardized test, comparing good analogies and bad analogies, you would be failing it.

 

Answer me this: why has arguably every dominant HW champion been either harder hitting or larger than their peers? Coincidence? Just like the coincidence that the size of the average HW champ has gone up considerably? Just like the coincidence that the size of competitors in most sports that have tangible records have similarly gone up dramatically?

Whole lot of coincidences in your world. Must be nice to be able to just tune out reality.

 

Spoken like a fanboy who dksab

 

I think the man does know what he's talking about. People tend to accept and glorify minor accomplishments and skill levels in the fighters of today as world class. That why there is so many so called champions. Yeah, for the most part fighters of today are bigger and stronger but the skill level required to become a champion has diminished.

 

What are "skills"? If you mean well roundedness etc, some specific traits, sure, I'll grant you that. If you mean a composite of what it takes to win H2H, then no. Today's SHWs are skilled enough that their size and strength advantage would generally overwhelm the older fighters.

Doesn't mean they have attained the glory, or captured the greatness of older fighters. I'd argue Louis and Ali probably can't be caught in that regard. But that's a different issue than H2H.