In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

No one was able to stop Shannon Briggs in the 2000s but he got KOed twice in the nineties, one by a willowy non-puncher in Darroll Wilson. It's doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot.

 

It's only old people who think like this.

Some ****ing caveman like jack Dempsey is a one round job for Tyson Fury, FACTS

 

George Foreman proved this wrong when he came back 20 years later to knock out the HW champion of the world.

 

No he didn't

George foreman came back 20 years later and robbed Axel Schultz, got schooled by bum Tommy Morrison then caught glass jawed blown up light heavyweight moorer with a one hitter after moorer had battered him up until that point. And moorer was never "the heavyweight champion"

People like you need to educate yourself on Foreman's comeback, he got lucky agains moorer who was undersized, not very good and whooping Foreman's ass until he decided to square up, and moorer had an ABYSMAL chin at HW, good on George but let's not act like he was some dominant force in the 90s when he was anything but

 

Most sports

 

Fighters from the former Soviet Bloc are absolutely what I'm talking about. The reason they did and are doing as well as they are is because of how tough it was where they came from.

Proof....just statistics. You are going to find comparatively few kids from rich backgrounds who will do well against kids from rough ones. Nationality doesn't matter. Like I said, I'm not saying all "old-timers" would be new bloods. I'm simply saying that they did have it harder, times were tougher back then and that plays into a fighter's desire to win...just as fighters from the former Soviet Bloc are proving their hunger, in many cases, supersedes that of fighter from less harsh areas.

 

I never said he was a dominant force.

However facts are facts.

Tyson unified the division. He was knocked out by Douglas. He was knocked out by Holyfield. He was out pointed by Bowe. He was out pointed by Holyfield. He was out pointed by Moorer. He was knocked out by Foreman.

Foreman who 20 years earlier had been knocked out by Ali. Foreman who 21 years earlier had knocked out Joe Frazier.

Pick any world champion today who's been knocked down out in his most recent fight, to then go on and knock out the lineal champion in 20 years time.

Boxing is two men fighting within a prescribed set of rules. Now amount of advances will ever change that.

It's the same reason Pacquiao was knocked out as a flyweight in 99 and managed to out point arguably the number 1 WW 20 years later.

It's the same reason Mayweather was able to knock out the number 1 SFW and then out point the number 1 WW 17 years apart.

Advances in sport can't change that some people are just harder than others.

Foreman proved it, others have proved it since.

 

I can certainly follow your train of thought… it's tempting to believe, that boxers who have known hardship will show more courage in the ring, than someone coming from a protected upbringing. And maybe that is indeed true (at least to some degree) - it's certainly something that is difficult to argue too strongly against.

But maybe it just LOOKS that way, since boxing probably recruits most of its participants from young men with a very different (poorer/harder/tougher) background than, for example - tennis and golf!

What if all the top golfers and tennis players from the last half century had shown absolutely no aptitude for their sport at an early age, and instead (to the dismay of their parents, no doubt!) wanted to give boxing a try? Could some of them have made it to the top - or would they all be running crying home to their mom, the first time they got a bloody nose? Would they all be sissies, because they never went to bed hungry, wondering where the next meal would be coming from - or would some of them (irrespective of their upbringing) be blessed with the intestinal fortitude, necessary to make it big in as tough a sport as boxing? There's no way, we can know the answer to this.

Anyway, and as I've said before… I'm pretty sure, that not all of today's fighters are cowards, who would find themselves out-couraged by the old-timers!

 

I think the point isn’t really the freakish exceptions to the rule, some of which you point out quite rightly. Isn’t the point here really about the general quality of previous eras versus the greater athleticism, training, understanding of body mechanics, punch technique of the current era (let’s say 90s onwards)?

 

The point was specifically about Ali and Foreman.

Foreman was a champ in the 70s and proved he could be a champ in the 90s.

Ali knocked prime Foreman out so obviously he would have been capable of knocking out the old man who held the belts 20 years later.

So actually I think you're completely wrong, the point is specifically about those who quote the freakish exceptions to the rule.

 

You don`t get fighters quicker than Ali or Leonard, how the hell is Wilder a more skilled fighter than Ali was? A modern backhand? Fury is a fantastic boxer, but what he does in the ring is not as complex as what Federer does on a tennis court, boxing is all about fundamentals not nutrition, unless AJ wants to beat a prime Foreman in a sprint, it`s not as simple a that at all, athleticism isn`t the only important thing in a boxing match at all. Modern welters do not hit harder than Hearns did, yet Federer serves harder than John MceNroe did etc.

 

body mechanics don`t mean crap when he have a combo puncher like Tyson or Louis hitting AJ on the chin, they were simply more skilled offensively and better tutored on fundamentals than most modern heavyweights.

 

There are more UK world champs now than in previous decades also, they are better tutored and more savvy than most Brits in the past however American fighters have gone in the other direction.

 

Lionel Messi is more skilled than Maradona was and Ronaldo has better goal stats by a mile, defenses are far better now in soccer and it is much harder to score than it was in the 80`s, soccer is far better now than in the 80`s.

 

I think I've been pretty clear that a) there are exceptions within EVERY era, and b) that I don't consider the late 80's or 90's to necessarily be 'in the dim mists of time'.

For the avoidance of doubt, what I've said is that the overall pool of talent is weaker the further back you go. Particularly so in the heavyweight division imo.