How do you think old-school boxers (pre-1950s) would perform against today’s top competitors?

This is a reoccurring debate and I don't have the motivation to go in-depth nor I give any real thinking to it.

BUT, I do think they would lose. I'm not talking about getting **** on. But they would simply lose. Every one of them.

 

The premise was if those old school guys were brought up with more modernized training techniques, and in their primes.

 

He was hard to hit on the inside, if you run you are too far away to counter.

 

On new training methods...I remember Kelly Pavlik used to pick up this big giant tractor trailer tire. Would that be considered modern?
I'm not sure modern training can mean anything different than drinking blood, eating eggs raw, seems within any era that is considered modern, there is always an old geezer of a trainer who wants to take his fighter back to the old days.

What training does Manny or did Floyd do that could be considered as modern? I've seen Holyfield & Anthony Joshua train in modern facilities, but neither guy ever developed amazing powers. They hit hard enough, but really look the part more than play it.

Even though Rocky was a film, I still dig the concept that Creed took Balboa back to the ghetto, funky, stankin' sweaty gym. No nautlis weights, that stuff distributes weight so U either can or can't lift it.
Free weights?
Tells the truth..how many of us have seen someone trying to bench press and one arm lifts the weight higher than the other? That teaches; gotta work on the weaker arm.

I'm not poo-pooping on modern training, rather questioning it. Shavers, Lyle, Hearns, Julian Jackson , McCellan, Pavlik, Edison Miranda, Sam Peter, David Tua, Mike Tyson these guys seemed to use no major protein shakes, black bottle, Ariza shakes, creatine.
So even from a nutrient POV, not sure what exactly is better as opposed to just different.

And as many have pointed out, there have been a few busted for substance and it did little to help them. I can see how these illegal substances help those in American football & baseball, but not the sport that isn't a game; boxing.

 

'soccer' , cricket, tennis, rugby are all more poplular in the uk than boxing, just saying

 

forgot cycling

 

Of course you're right regarding that training technique has developed, but I'm not sure that the average boxing coach today knows more about boxing than before.

I'd say boxing is a tacit knowledge that you really can't pass (or write) down to generation as, let's say math.

So I wouldn't hold today's boxers as more technically skilled, even thought their techniques are more suitable for today's boxing.

But as in all sports, the tactics/techniques are like fashion. When no one else uses a technique you can adopt it and win success because no one's how to deal with it.

And maybe I'm off topic by now, but if yesterday's boxers where brought up in todays world, they would fair as good as today's boxers in the ring. Naturally. Our spices haven't developed in 50 years.

 

lol, they are terrible. You are only kidding yourself by pretending otherwise. Like someone else has already said, their boxing is so crude and rudimentary by todays standards that you can't even compare them to other boxers, you would have to compare them to MMA fighters, some of whom actually have better boxing skills. Put either of them in the ring with an elite fighter of today and they would look as hopeless as McGregor did against Mayweather. Both Spence and Porter would box them up, despite the size difference.

 

GGG/Chenko reminded me a bit of La Motta & Sugar Ray...ha ha

 

Because the Eastern Euros are more intelligent, tougher and have better brains in their corner. Simple as that.

Add the whole world together today....There were more active fighters and higher quality trainer in the US alone back in 1950 than globally today. The depth of the game has significantly decreased.

 

Robinson, Cerdan, Graziano , etc eat him alive.

You pretend that these trainers today are students of the game that have studied the past an improved upon it.

They absolutely have not. By and large they absolutely have not.

Roach learned from Futch. Goosen, Nazim, etc....there are elite trainers today. But that's only considering the most elite echelon out there...

Then quality of trainer in the game, outside of the very most elite, is soooo far down.

We had many more registered professional fighters 60-70 yrs ago (especially as a percentage of population) and correspondingly had many more quality trainers.

 

I have asked you before, so I'll ask again… please give us the numbers that support this idea.

 

[/QUOTE]

Usurp doesnt mean what you think it means.

 

Uhm, that exactly the opposite of what I said?

 

Why would Eastern Europeans be more intelligent?