It was arguably the greatest era in the history of boxing

With respect, I disagree, delboy. As I just mentioned in my post above, fighters are fighting on to such advanced ages (for boxing). Physically, even with improvements in science) you can't be as good aged 30-40 as you were early 20s on.

Look at a P4P list of the top ten fighters from the last 20 years. I am willing to bet that the average age is well over 30. Then look at one from the 70s, 80s or 90s. The average age will drop drastically.

Similarly the number of fights per year will increase with the fighters from yesteryear. Physically, doing something regularly should mean better performance.

Finally, as the saying says 'So the heavyweights go, so does boxing'. Never before have we seen so many heavyweight titlists and contenders be so fat. Leroy Jones was an anomaly in the 70s but nobody bats an eyelid now when a heavyweight, even champion, enters the ring with a gut and jiggly manboobs. Another point which, I suggest, contradicts the notion that the sport has improved physically.

I agree that advances have been made but these are more than offset by fewer fighters competing regularly and fighters carrying on when their physical boxing prime has passed.

 

There is no argument, athletes are fitter now than they ever have been. Supplements, technology, drugs and methods have all improved a fair bit.

Why would u think boxing would be different from ever other sport out there.

There is an argument to made over the talent and skill set being superior back then, but in terms of fitness, na athletes of the 80s were not better than current athletes from a fitness stand point.

 

I think if you look at the punch outputs, there certainly is an argument to be had, delboy. Heavyweights might not be the best example as they don't have to make a specific weight but the eye test alone should tell you that the likes of Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson were considerably fitter than some of our recent champions such as Fury or Ruiz, and that's not just because of body shape. Look how much busier they were. Even those who look in shape, like AJ, flatter to deceive. He can't maintain a burst of activity for long before he has to pause.

At lower weights, I would also suggest, without evidence I admit, that same day weigh-ins would have meant fighters had to stay busier to avoid climbing too high in weight between fights. That activity would have kept physical levels honed. Also, the point I made about the average age of fighters being so much higher now cannot be ignored. Look at the relative youth of top fighters of the 80s compared to now. No amount of supplements, legal or otherwise, can compensate for those additional years on the clock, in my opinion.

It basically can't be proved without a time machine but I would honestly be surprised if fighters from the 80s didn't match up fairly well in terms of strength and stamina, as well as technique. Bear in mind, too, that some of the finest fights of the early part of that era - Gomez-Pintor, Pryor- Arguello I being two obvious examples - were decided over 15 rounds. Those extra three rounds, when already exhausted, required a level of conditioning that has not been asked of today's fighters.

We don't know because we can't know if the advances made in technology have improved boxers' performances. It can't be measured like track and field. I'm not saying I'm right putting the case for the 80s' boxers being physically better but nor do I think a case for today's guys can be made so conclusively as you have.

 

Your defining fitter as having better stamina, fittnes cover far far more than that. Heavyweights are far bigger than those of the 90s hence why punhh output is less.

There is no debate in terms of fitness of today's athletes. There is an argument to be had as to where and what sport athletically gifted people do now and as a result the talent pool for boxing is prob a fair bit lower than it was back then.

 

"Fitness level" has nothing to do with anything. The question is quality of the fights and fighters. Nobody cares about ****ing bodybuilders.

 

I think we agree that the talent pool of the 80s utterly dwarfs the current pool. It's not just the range of sports available to athletically gifted types. We have also lost a lot of that pool to gaming or multi channel TVs; athletic potential is lost to consoles and TV screens, whereas in the 60s and 70s, when 80s fighters were growing up, there wasn't as much to do indoors. The only real options, recreationally, involved physical activity.

In terms of fitness, I maintain that 80s fighters had better stamina. That isn't just down to size as I feel that lighter weight fighters as well as heavyweights are less busy, despite having shorter distance fights. I think one of the reasons might be carrying too much weight that has been put on quickly from the day before weigh in.

I also think the top fighters of the 80s were fitter as they were a fair bit younger on average than top fighters now.

What other criteria are you basing fitness on, other than stamina? That's not being challenging. I'm just genuinely interested to see if I can put forward a case in other criteria.

 

I agree with this especially the gaming point, I'm a 22 year old guy. And this generation were all playing video games, glued to our phones, Twitter social media etc. Distractions you didn't have back then.

 

How do you know that? I'd like to see the numbers, that support this idea.

 

Also diet and nutrition are limiting athletic achievement. The proliferation of sugary drinks and snacks that are still relatively cheap.

Families in England, where I live, who are on low income are often grossly overweight. It's the crap that is going into food and drinks that is destroying bodies before they get chance to develop their athletic potential. Previously, kids from impoverished backgrounds usually looked like little whippets and often they would go on to be the best fighters, that tough upbringing not having been softened by sugar and processed fats.

As a rule, the most fit kids now come from prosperous families where there is enough money to buy fresh food and the parents are educated in the value of not consuming processed foods. And boxing is not going to be a sport that these kids will be hothoused in or drawn to. Boxercise maybe but not full on, 'getting smacked in the face' boxing.

Fast food is wreaking havoc on the athletic potential, indeed the health, of so many of our young people moving forwards.

 

I think the number of active licensed fighters is available. I have seen it in a thread previously but admit I don't have it to hand. It's an enormous reduction on what it used to be and, by the law of averages, with less fighters, there will be less talented practitioners. It won't necessarily be proportionate; it might well be that the proportion of talented (however you measure that) active fighters nowadays is higher than previously but there are just so fewer young men doing the sport.

Then there are the number of gyms, fight cards and promotions where fighters learn their trade. Both hugely reduced. Again, I have read this in various places but can't recall where.

Without the evidence to back it up, I'll withdraw the point unless someone else posts evidence to support the points I am making. But even though I withdraw the points, I'd be willing to bet my left gonad that I'm right.

 

I grew up as a boxing fan in the 1990s, from about 1993 onwards, but I always harked back to the previous era of ‘80s fighters - there was something more compelling to me about that time period. The sport seemed to matter more then, whereas in the ‘90s, in the US at least, boxing seemed on a downward curve.

But in the UK, the early to mid-‘90s was a glorious era when many of the fighters were household names who you could see for free on national TV. Benn, Eubank and Watson were massive stars that captivated the nation’s attention in a way that the likes of Amir Khan and Anthony Joshua could not because you had to purchase their bigger fights.

I can only imagine that the ‘80s was like that for American audiences. I think it says a lot that 7 of my top 10 favourite fights took place in the 1980s.

 

Ignorance is bliss. If it has nothing to do with anything why spend so much time conditioning the body?

 

Love This!!!
Boxing is a young man's sport. When we look at boxing from say the 1920's thru the 1990's the best fighters were in their early/mid 20's. Very , very few were successful after their 30's. Is it because of better conditioning/modern pharmaceuticals fighters today are good after their 30's or, because of the lack of the grind past fighters had, like fighting at least 5 times a year, meaning the fighter is consistently in the gym sparring and training , honing their skills to the point of being instinctive as opposed to thinking about what they are doing?
Very few fighters today are instinctive.
The sport has turned into you punch , I block, I punch you block.
One doesn't see the brilliant slip and countering of say Jose Napoles in today's era. Napoles didn't hop in and out like a jack rabbit, he used parrying, and slipping , always in position to instantly retaliate from any misstep his opponent made.
That type of ability is only gained by being in the ring consistently, fighting or sparring. The split second difference of a missed opportunity, or landing a ko blow. Instinctive as opposed to thinking.
The downside of becoming instinctive and training to that point is fighters burned out earlier in yesterday's boxing Especially at the lighter weights.
So yes fighters may last longer In today's era, but they are nowhere near as good, or as instinctive as yesterday's.
Not because of any real physical advances or pharmaceutical, but because the sport isn't nearly as hard as it was in years past.

 

They may have had better stamina but that can be through many different reasons. Less muscle, specifically training more for stamina rather than power, bigger pool of people taking up the sport, being better technically can improve your stamina ie better and more fluid means loading up less, being more relaxed composed in the ring benefits your stamina.

There is a multitude of reasons as to why they seemed better.

But in terms of physically improving the body, athletes are better now than they were in that era. We have more knowledge, better technology, more experience, better supplements, better peds. If you think athletes were better in the 80s or 90s then you are wrong.

 

I think I feel exactly the same. I got really into boxing as a teenage in the late 80s and my interest hit its peak early to mid 90s with regards to the British scene whereas I felt that the Fab 4 and the buzz of title winning Tyson were never quite repeated in the States in the 90s.

Another thing that has dulled my interest in AJ and Amir, besides them not being available on ITV The Big Fight (love that theme tune) is the marketing and packaging that goes with them. AJ is just a load of buzzwords and hashtags. He never says a single thing of any interest. That may not be his fault. It's just that the marketing people, in the same way they value an unbeaten record, also like vanilla personalities. No controversy.

They're missing the point. We're fight fans. We hate the culture of people being offended by everything while being judgmental. Carefully crafted comments on social media don't endear our heroes to us. It's the off-the-cuff, heat of the moment stuff that we love - it's what helped make Benn, Bruno and Eubank so popular - and the suits are denying us that pleasure.