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

Boxing isn't a sport it's just a series of fighting contracts made in back alleys. In many other sports all teams play each other once or twice a season so you can accurately gauge improvements between teams or between eras. In boxing you don't have that so you can never know make any real comparison.

 

Yeah you right. I was just saying that punching power can be trained very well. But you are either born with a good chin or not.

 

If I went back in time 10000 years, would I fancy my chances chinning a random caveman? Probably not.

Boxing is a sport yes, but it's a combat sport and this natural progression people bang on about is nonsensical imo.

People have access to better equipment and better nutrition yes, but does that mean Canelo would knock out Jack Dempsey?

Not imo no. And those two are the same weight so its a valid comparison to prove how daft this default progression notion is.

Foreman proved all of this nonsense.

 

I remember watching Diego do kick up's with a football, then a tennis ball, then a gold ball...

World Cup '94 it was, and that was great WC. Ireland did well enough from it.

Saw Diego's documentary on Sky? The Napoli thing was crazy! He was in there with the Camorra etc. Madness.

Good shout on the freestyle part, around the time when "FIFA Street" got released.

You know your Football, mate! ;-)

 

Agreed.

 

One 50 year old knocking out a belt holder is not proof for anything. Science works using representative averages, not single outlier examples.

If we take 100 elite boxers from today vs. 100 elite boxers from 1920 today's fighters will be far superior in any objective measurement. Still, you will find 1-2 guys from the 1920s who can find a lucky punch and knock out a guy from today. That obviously does not take away anything from the overall hypothesis.

 

The difference is you will never ever be able to get 100 elite fighters from today vs 100 elite fighters from 100 years ago.

However we have had an elite HW from the 70s defeat the lineal HW champion in the 90s.

The only thing we know is that we don't actually know any outcomes of fights that haven't happened.

 

And this is supposed to prove what exactly?

 

You're right, of course - we'll never be able to do that.

We are also not able to match Louis with Ali, so we will never actually know the result of such a fight. So instead we try to imagine what would/could/might happen. Isn't that what we do with all fantasy match-ups between fighters from different eras? So why can't we discuss what would happen, if we matched 100 elite fighters from today with 100 elite fighters from 100 years ago?

 

It proves you cannot just assume the modern fighter is better.

 

It is what we do.

We can discuss it.

I don't understand your question.

 

I tried in various ways to explain this concept. It won't get you anywhere with the black and white mob I'm afraid, but hang in there champ!

 

a single fight doesnt proof anything, i could also say ali won against everybody from the 60s and then all the sudden lost to the first good guy from the 70s era he faced.
Ali won the previous 2 fights by ko and didnt look like he had any ring rust at all, he was 29 after all when he faced frazier.
Maybe he wasnt any worse, he just didnt look as good against frazier because frazier was from a newer era and therefor better.

Between the beginning of fraziers career and liston patterson etc, are almost 15 years

 

I hear you.

 

Yes, of course you understand my question!

When madballster suggested, that if we match 100 elite fighters from today with 100 from 1920, the modern boxers would likely prove superior - your answer was, that we would never be able to match these two groups against each other. That to me does not sound like you are willing to discuss this.