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

Ooh, somebody should do that and then upload it.

 

Maradona would definitely be one of the world's best players if he was around today, no doubt about it, his sheer natural ability would dictate that. But the players (defenders) are faster today, most centre backs are rapid, you cannot afford not to be anymore. Maradona would be faced with new problems, not just needing to improve his mentality. But he would be on better training regimes and could get quicker and fitter. He was also a better leader and captain than Messi, able to work in poorer teams. I still don't think Maradona would be able to do anything with the current Argentina side though, they are god awful and woefully mismanaged.

Messi would have been great in any era, he's been kicked his whole career, it has hardly affected him. In the 80's he would have run riot even worse, it would be a joke to see how fast he'd be compared to players of the 1980's. You saw Maradona who was not really that fast compared to Messi, tearing through defences at will. The amount of tactical analysis that must go into trying to stop him must be insane, yet he still delivers.

Maradona also had the chance to make Barca his own during his prime and he wasn't up to it, he was the most expensive player in the world and caused a load of problems and was bombed out. He's in the top 5 players in history for sure but nobody has ever been better than Lionel Messi in any era under any rationale.

 

I think you can't generalize, as I said earlier, so, is it possible that some people who never knew hunger have a natural aptitude for combat? Sure; but I do think they would be very, very unusual. Maybe it's genetic, in which case if they are only a generation or two away from struggling, they could potentially have a "fighter gene" or whatever you want to call it. Still, I am also reminded for every 2nd generation boxer who does well in the ring, the children of former World Champions, often do not come close to approaching what their father's did: see Marvis Frazier and Julio Caesar Chavez Jr. Those two men certainly would have had the DNA to be ATG champions; but it didn't happen. On the other hand, you have Floyd Mayweather Jr., who's father was a very good fighter, whose uncles were also very good fighters and he ended up being better than Sr., Roger, and Jeff.

So, what gave Floyd more success than JCC Jr. and Marvis Frazier? I would argue it was the level of struggle. JCC Sr and Joe wanted their kids to want for nothing. They had great financial success in the ring, whereas Floyd Sr. did not.

Nature vs Nurture.......in those cases I just cited, the "nature" was there in all three; but the nurture was only apparent in one to forge a champion.

As far as old timers are concerned, I'm not saying modern fighters are "cowards". No man who has the cojones to put on a pair of gloves and face another man for a living is a coward. What I'm talking about is an "edge"....and "X-factor" which can't be measured; and every fighter is different, modern and old-school, so there's always going to be fighters across eras who can overcome other fighters from other eras, which is why one can't generalize. I'm simply stating that one can't just write off those "old fighters" ad-hoc....because the best of the best from older time-lines did have that "x-factor", they had to; and the bar for the "x-factor" then was a lot higher in "most" cases....not all...but "most cases".

 

Old Foreman fought more or less like when he was young...on the contrary, he was even slower and yet he beat boxers of another generation. This is a prove of the fact that not all the fighters of today are better than those of the past.

 

I agree with most of this!

As I said in my previous post, I won't rule out the possibility, that tough times can manifest itself as increased courage in the ring. It would be silly to claim, that it will have no effect at all - I'm just wondering how big the effect really is. Is it a defining factor - or is "heart" primarily something you just happen to have? You know, like chin and punching power.

I'm not at all sure, that Marvis Frazier's failure to emulate his father, was because he had a "softer" childhood. Maybe he simply didn't have his father's talent.

This makes me think of the "Naked and Afraid" show! I don't know, if you have seen any of the episodes - but even if you haven't, I'm sure you know, what I'm talking about.

In attempting to complete these challenges, I've seen participants starve almost to the brink of collapse, going from heat-stroke during the day, to shivering with cold every night… all the while being eaten alive by mosquitoes, and fighting off ants, ticks and other creepy-crawlies. Some don't have the stomach for this - while others will go through almost anything, just to be able to say that they completed the 21-day challenge (there's no big cash price for those who make it).

What is it, that makes it possible for some to endure this - while others simple break down, and tap out after a day or two? I don't know, what it is... but I'm pretty sure, the answer isn't different levels of hardship during their upbringing.

 

I'd say if you can really see what is happening by playing close attention to the old black and white videos, you really appreciate the skill in display.

A lot of modern guys/posters don't know what they are looking at anyway so they've no chance.

 

Heart - An indication of how tough and brave you are while always trying to win.
Doesn't matter when in history you were alive to gain this strength.

Character - every boxer/fighter needs it and it could be gained from any era.

They are 6 punches in boxing.

Jab/back hand cross

Right hook/left hook

Right uppercut/left uppercut

These same punches have existed from day 1.

There are so many variables in boxing that are required that simply new era in time can't guarantee it is better than previous generations.

Another thing posters on here seem to forget.

A boxing match is a fight.

 

Lol no. Try it.

Go into a ring and box an outboxed, if you are an outboxer yourself, and try to outbox the guy who has that much reach, height and size advantage over you. And bare in mind that guy is also a world champion.

It’s why Wlad was shut out against Fury, a tall guy used to relying on his reach and now having to fight a completely different way to how they fought before.

You really can’t visualise this fight and picture Ali winning at all if you have at all set foot in the ring and being honest with yourself.

So he sets up an angle, fury twists away but he’s still a step or 2 away. And Ali isn’t a knockout artist so he can’t go inside and finish it on the inside.

Ali gets absolutely wrecked by fury. Stop the nostalgia. Henry cooper put him on his ass, fury would do worse.

 

As far as "Naked and Afraid" participants are concerned, that could be a relative psychological trigger actually shared by many would-be champions, past and present: The desire to be known, to be famous, to prove they are somebody. People, IMO, who desire to be on any reality television show have serious self-esteem issues, in that they have this overwhelming need to be seen and admired, which may or may not be related to their family life; but most certainly is an affliction in today's celebrity-worshipping society.

"Don't nobody don't want to be on television" is something one of my favorite professors used to say. This same need to "prove oneself the best" in boxing, and the varying degrees of it is what determines who makes it to the top, in many cases, if their skills and dedication to their craft equal their hunger for notoriety.

So, that is a psychological similarity, there....a common ground between the two.

 

Mark, who says Messi is more skilled than Maradona? You? Ask Gary Lineker (who has some great anecdotes about playing with Maradona) and he'll say Maradona was better than Messi, just. Ask Xavi and he'll probably say Messi was better. Both opinions but highly educated ones and prejudiced and coloured by direct experience. Also, in Maradona's day, the pitches were far worse and attackers had far less protection from physical defenders. If Maradona was playing today (or Zico, Platani, Socrates etc) they'd have comparable figures to Messi and Ronaldo I am sure. Just my opinion but if you were to ask any professional players the vast majority would say the same.

Define 'better'. Sure the stats are better but is the entertainment? The '82 Brazil team is the most entertaining team I've ever seen (even more so than the great 2008-2011 Barcelona side) but they would get hammered today, due to the significant changes in the game since then. But for me in this example, more entertaining = better.

What was the better Champion's League final? The 1994 one where Milan crushed Barcelona 4-0 or the 2019 one where Liverpool beat Spurs 2-0? I am a Liverpool supporter but last year's final was deathly dull for a neutral observer.

More modern does not always mean better and that certainly applies to boxing.

 

Boxing is apart from others sports. It has a chaotic element to it. You could be much better than your opponent...then you make a mistake.

Running spikes and football boots actually boost your performance. Modern boxing gloves don't, they just change things. And that's the key word. There is no linear evolution. 1930's fighter were, generally, much better inside fighters than today.

One thing that has already been mentioned which is a huge factor - the talent pool isn't as big as it once was - and so many of the top fighters you see today are a product of smaller harvests.

 

Oh my god is this cringe. Dude its simply a matter of growing up with violence and having no other option in life. If your buddys end on the cemetery or are drug dealers you decide to box cause it might give you a chance in life. If you grow up in relative wealth you prefer doing something else.
No x-factor or secret fighting gene, you guys really think that boxing is lord of the rings or star wars

 

talent pool is bigger then ever before with fighters coming now from country's like japan or the ex soviet countrys.
You guys might call it infighting reality is it was nothing then a slugfest. Why do you think people are so careful about infighting today? Because its very dangerous it is much safer to stay in distance and go into infight in controlled bursts.

 

bolt retired 2017 that 3 years. It will be broken with in 5 years no problem.

 

Ok, let's look;

What do I take this to mean, @ertwin ? What is the poster saying? Please advise.

It's not the hundred-meter dash. There are guys now with slower hands and feet than guys who fought in the 40's. The opposite is also true.

At heavy, sure. At every other weight, the difference is only the difference between same day weigh-ins and day before weigh-ins.

Because Amir Khan was eating special dietetic lunches while Breidis Prescott was eating whatever gristle he could lay his hands on in that warzone of a neighborhood he lived in, and we know who came out on top when they met. Oh, wait.

This is even better than sports science. Reasons. Stuff. I'm sold.


I'm not trying to knock @lynx_land. Assuming he posted entirely in earnest, he's just unfortunate enough to be the 27,619th guy to start this thread and make these arguments since boxing forums began.



Boxing isn't about who can run fastest or throw furthest. It's a multi-skill-based sport, with unforgiving intangible demands, t'boot. We see great athletic specimens come and go, they almost always come unstuck at the hands of some scar-tissued artisan or other before too long, exceptions being a.) they're Roy, which is rare, b.) they happen to be as technical as they are athletically prodigious, which is rare, c.) they operate in dead weight divisions in dead eras.

A sport like soccer got 'better' because it got more professional. Soccer players had a club to answer to on a week-to-week basis. As managers became more inclined to start breaking up drinking cultures and raise standards of professionalism, players had to get on board or fall behind. Proper diets and S&C were a part of that. Do we think the stalwarts of the top soccer divisions of the 1980's and 1990's couldn't compete if we dragged them forward in time and put them in the care of clubs as we know them now? Maradona, Baggio and Van Basten would all be ham and eggers?

Boxers have always had to diet and S&C. That's not a new thing. Contemporary nutritionists don't all think alike. Contemporary S&C gurus don't all think alike. Fighters tick boxers so that they can say they've left no stone unturned, but, after it's all said and done, they have to climb through the ropes and fight. Mike Watson's S&C was build around distinctly old school methodology, his dietician was his mother and her homecooking, is anybody going to watch his rematch with Chris Eubank and tell me that he wasn't an incredible athletic example?

What boxing didn't do is get any more professional. Many fighters are still blowing up between bouts and living the party life while fighting far less frequently and for fewer rounds in championship bouts. What exactly is professional about a top fighter staying up late boozing and flipping his 'rrari like an idiot?

I think most fans agree that the sport is generally regressing from where it was 20 years ago, let alone 70. We're not hurting so badly for stars for no reason. I like Canelo's boxing, it's very good, but he's the poster boy? Where is there a crop like the 147-154 crop of DLH, Tito, Shane, Feroz, Winky, et al? Where are the Eriks, Barreras, Juan Manuels, Pacs, all passing through the same divisions around the same time? Where do we encounter that depth of such high quality competition anymore? Cruiserweight? God help us.

Most also agree that the game is getting softer, that fighters are becoming more pampered, more spoiled. These aren't ideal traits for a sport like boxing.

It isn't evolving, but devolving. Generally, the average skillset is getting thinner and the fighters are getting dumber.

What the boxing fan doesn't know about will bug him, because the boxing fan is desirous for knowledge of the sport. But it requires real effort to seek out surviving film and pore over it and build up pictures of who these guys were. YouTube makes it an accessible pursuit, but it doesn't make it an easy one. On the other hand, it's temptingly convenient for 21st century boxing fans to say that most everything before (name your cut-off year) is primitive and/or sucks – it absolves a guy of the nagging feeling that he might be missing anything or that he should put in the effort to go back that far. So, faced with the options, some just go the easier route of dismissing anything that predates their own birth by too much. @George Crowcroft is certainly an exception. We're told that his is a hipster's pursuit, but it's anything but. Hipsters go the path of least resistance, they reach for the Ryan Adams album, they never seek out Gram.

But I surrender. Maurice Hooker KO3 Billy Graham.