What evidence of boxing's "evolution"/improvement would you accept?

I don't think anyone believes boxers fought the same way back then as they do now. It doesn't mean that they progress at everything in absolute sense. Rules changed a lot since 1890s, boxers specialized to take advantage of these rules.

 

It would be very difficult to prove it, but it would be a starting point to define what these improvements are.

 

Boxing is an individualized sport. People compare the growth in size and athleticism of the average athlete in the general sense and apply that to boxers as if that has anything to do with individual ring IQ/Technique when it doesn't.

Hence why even today you have crappy boxers like Chris Areola or Dominick Breazeale who'd still be crappy in other eras. They're not exactly dazzling crowds with their skills.

I think I mentioned in a similar thread, that the easiest way to gauge improvement in technique and boxing ability would be to look at each decades top 10 for a given weight class, and compare stats like accuracy (punches landed vs thrown), how many times they were KOd, how many times they were able to stop a hurt opponent vs letting them off the hook, how often they were able to win clear decisions over rated opponents, how well they could slip and block punches, etc. You'd also have to account for the quality of the opponents they beat. A guy could be ranked #3 which sounds good on paper, but if he was brutally KOd 3x in his last 5 fights, stopping such a guy isn't that impressive.

 

I think that even people who are resistant to the idea that the sport has improved, acknowledge that things like training and conditioning methods have improved.

They just don't see it as a big game changer, in a sport where you can end a fight by hitting a man on the chin.

 

Idk, fighters still get knocked down, their face beaten up, body shots that make you winch, never mind the guy receiving it, cut eyes, cut lips, busted nose, sore hands, rope burns on the back.
Just the same as back in 1922.
So I'd say apart from rules, gloves, times of the rounds and length of the fight.. As anything really changed??

 

As you say "Hitting a man on the chin '
That's it back then and that's it now.
Just a few lick s of paint now and again.

 

As for the idea that boxing technique has improved, there are simply too many points of variation, to make such a broad statement.

For example even if it held true on some level, it would not mean that Ricky Hatton was a better technician than Benny Leonard.

 

There has certainly been safety improvements. That can't be disputed. Boxers can't fight for a # of days after being knocked out. Shorter title fights. Quicker stoppages. Thumbless gloves, day before weigh ins, many less fights in general. I guess it depends on what perspective your looking from. These are improvements but it doesn't lead to better actual boxing.

 

I think, it will be difficult to "prove" anything using factual statistics... along the lines suggested by GCC. How many punches were landed, how many knockouts suffered, how many rated opponents beaten, etc. - then compared to now. And of course you can't put a number on how well boxers were able to slip, feint, counter, block - not to mention things like heart and dedication! So I don't really see, how we can come up with some magical formular or equation that tells us, that this era was superior to that era. Like Janitor says, there are simply too many intangibles to make that possible.

Personally, I think people would have a hard time convincing me, that boxing has noticiebly evolved/improved since the 40s or thereabouts. Since the turn of the last century - yes, I'll buy that. But not over the last 70-80 years or so. Imo.