Would the average boxer today win a round v the best boxer 50 years ago?

It's one of many factors imo. But it's one that can be overcome. Just like, say, having a poor jab can be overcome or compensated for by other things. But given the choice I'm sure that they would all prefer to have a good jab.

 

What? How? Who?
Average fighters today, probably about 9/10 by ring today, so I'll use 9 to be generous

HW
1969 Ring Champion - Muhammad Ali
2019 Ring Rated 9 - Adam Kownacki

Ali would be equally sized, have the chin, speed, Defence and footwork advantages he usually enjoyed and having faced both Floyd Patterson and Joe Frazier would know how to beat him.

LHW
1969 Ring Champion - Bob Foster
2019 Ring Rated 9 - Sven Fornling

C'mon we both know this ends with Fornling getting the Tiger treatment

MW
1969 Ring Champ - Nino Benvenuti
2019 Ring Rated 9 - Kamil Szeremeta

Again, same thing happens. Kamil gets shut out.

WW
1969 Ring Champion - Jose Napoles
2019 Ring Rated - Egidijus Kavaliauskas

Prime Napoles outshines everyone in the current WW division, this Schmut doesn't land a solid punch

 

There's either a lot of ignorance on this thread, or there's people that have misread the post.

 

yeh i am harsh, thats unfair, but hes not close to a good champ from the past.

 

i cannot see it.

 

The question was whether today's average fighter could win a single round. That question obviously depends on what you mean by "average," but probably yes. That's a very low bar.

But yes, fighters of equivalent stature between the eras would go in the direction of the modern guys. Training and nutrition have advanced dramatically since the old days, albeit Andy Ruiz is sitting there with a milkshake as HW champion. The best argument for the older fighters is that youth participation was up during prior times, whereas today boxing in the United States has essentially no youth component.

All that said, you have to consider other factors that aren't getting mentioned here. In addition to training advantages, the pool of fighters was smaller in some respects because it was more difficult to line up international matchups. And boxing did not become fully racially integrated for quite some time. Maybe you'd argue that the top 10 are equivalent, but 11-50 are far better identified in modern boxing and thus would beat the snot out of the 11-50s a half century ago or more.

Ultimately, all of this is unknowable. If you want to go out on your shield defending the 1969 or older champs, it's cool by me.

 

Boxing is a dying sport, which was much more popular in the past. With a much larger percentage of the population in boxing the fighters would statistically be more likely to be better.

How would today's best do against Charlie Burley and the Murderers' Row? I don't give today's fighters much of a chance, and these were not even the champs.

Today's boxers fight for money and to keep that zero for the big payday - the art of ducking. The boxers of the past generally fought everyone, although there are exceptions. By fighting better boxers you'd assume they get better.

Without a time machine no-one knows for sure, but based on evidence boxing was a much bigger sport, past generations fought more often and against better boxers, which makes me believe they were better.

 

Because the other guy shared similarly short training camps and preparations.

 

The only thing that ever matters is how they match up stylistically.

It doesn't matter what era they fought in or how much they weigh etc.

If you stood Wilder next to Mike Tyson, the difference in size would be huge. Some fans may even say ridiculous. Wilder would have huge height and reach advantages. But in an actual fight, those advantages would soon become disadvantages for him.

 

Carlos Monzon was coming through in 1969. I reckon he could beat top 5 P4P rated Canleo

 

I would be interested to see the numbers/stats you have, that backs up this contention.