Are the past Eras overrated or the new generation just not that good?

This debate always creates interest.

I’ve been a hardcore fan of the sport now for about 30 years.

I can tell you for sure, that the sport has progressed from it’s roots, but it now just ebbs and flows like it has done for years.

Sometimes divisions are great and thriving. Sometimes they’re average. Sometimes they’re weak.

There’s great fighters in every era.

If you held a huge tournament between the best guys of today, vs the best guys of the past, then you would get mixed results depending on how they matched up on the night stylistically.

The fighters do not keep getting better over time.

The sport does not keep progressing each decade.

There’s many greats of the past who are superior to today’s guys.

Ignorant people claim that the fighters are better today, based on data from sports like swimming and sprinting, that are based more on power, where their objective is to race between 2 points in the quickest possible time, which are recorded in milliseconds.

Yes, today we have sports science etc.

Yet not everyone takes advantage of it.

Yes, sports science can aid a fighter. But the fights are still determined by skills and styles.

Being a superior athlete doesn’t make you a better fighter.

Fights will always be determined on how the styles mesh on the night.

Even if every boxer today was better athletically (they’re not) than every guy of the past, it still doesn’t mean that they would have better skills and that they’d have beaten them.

I discussed this with someone just yesterday.

We can use AJ as an example.

AJ is the epitome and the poster boy of a modern day athlete.

His statistics in the gym and on the running track are extremely impressive.

He used to train with Olympic athletes at the Institute of Sport in Sheffield.

He has very respectable sprinting times.

He has very respectable numbers in the gym.

He has a chef.

He has a strength and conditioning coach.

He has a masseuse.

He has a nutritionist.

Yet 3 years ago, he was ran over by a guy with man boobs who eats snicker bars and burgers.

So don’t let anyone tell you that today’s fighters are better.

They’re not.

There’s a big number of divisions today that aren’t as great as what they were 30 years ago.

Some fighters today simply aren’t as skilled as some fighters of the past.

If anybody asks you to predict a fantasy fight, don’t look at what era they fought in, look at how they’d realistically have matched up on the night. Because that’s the most relevant thing to look at.

 

The boxers haven’t got more talented.

From the sport’s roots, yes. But not in decades now.

Yes, many boxers of the past are more talented than what they are today.

The fighters don’t keep getting better over time.

The sport doesn’t keep progressing over time.

There’s many divisions today which are weaker than they were 30-40 years ago. And not just in depth, but in talent.

The sport just ebbs and flows and has done for years.

 

The fighters today have more resources if they choose to use them.

However, fights are still determined by skills and styles.

AJ is a supreme athlete who is less skilled than Tyson Fury who has man boobs.

AJ would humiliate Fury in a gym and on a track.

Yet Tyson would more than likely beat him in the ring.


Saying that today’s fighters are better athletes is a big statement in itself.

Because not every fighter today is fitter and stronger.

Not every fighter takes advantage of sports science etc.

There’s guys of yesteryear who were probably just as fit, if not more so, as many of them fought frequently back in the days of same day weigh-ins, where they lived in the gym and walked around at just a few pounds over their fighting weight. Guys who had a huge number of fights back in the 15 round era.

They were weaker as in - they took more punishment and didn’t rest as much. But there’s no data to say that they were inferior athletes.

Even if we had undeniable proof that all today’s fighters were superior athletes to all guys of the past, it still doesn’t mean that they’d be better fighters who were more skilful.

Nobody can say that today’s fighters have superior skill sets.

 

I don’t agree.

Are they the most athletic?

Are they the best trained?

Are they the most fit?

And even if they were, it doesn’t mean that they have superior skill sets.

If today’s fighters were the best fighters in history, they would all be noticeably better than the guys from years ago.

Yet they’re not.

If today’s guys were the best, nobody would be able to claim that they were several divisions from 30-40 years ago which were better.

Today we have some tremendous fighters.

We’re lucky.

Yet we also had tremendous fighters in the 70’s, 80’s, 90, 00’s and 10’s.

Nobody can make a clear distinction of which was the better era.

No boxing fan can say that today’s best fighters are on a completely different level to the best guys of the 90’s.

 

From which point in time?

There’s been no noticeable progression in 30-40 years.

 

Because you’re ignorant and don’t apply context.

 

I see the point of evolution. Couple that with film studying(science) you get better. Fighters today can easily watch tape of the greats and apply what they have learned to their skill set. Science, nutrition, I think can be trumped by ring IQ and heart.
I think a huge advantage fighters had in the past was hunger. Guys weren't making millions with less than 20 fights under their belt. Plus, they fought way more. A 50 fight career was short. Not uncommon for a 80+ career. Is there an active fighter today with 80 fights or more? That has to be an advantage for the old timers in my opinion.

 

This post is simply moronic.

How long have you been watching the sport?

The sport has progressed but it doesn’t keep progressing.

The fighters don’t keep getting better and better each decade.

The sport ebbs and flows and has done for years now.

There’s many divisions today that are noticeably weaker than what they were 30-40 years ago.

Tell me why today’s era is better than the 90’s era.

In what way?

The best guys today aren’t noticeably better than the best fighters of the 90’s.

There’s more politics, more belts, less activity.

The fighters today are still great, but the sport has regressed more than what it’s progressed over the last 30 years.

 

We don’t have big fights constantly.

 

Stop posting on a subject that you have zero knowledge on.

Pre-90?

Get real.

There were pre-90 divisions and fighters who were superior to many divisions and fighters of today.

 

There’s no clear evolution or progression though.

Theoretically, every modern day fighter can gain access to old tapes and sports science etc.

Yet we know that they don’t all gain access to those things.

There’s many fighters of the past who possessed superior skills to many of today’s guys.

 

Let me clarify....in the US and ONLY the US, in the ears up to the late 80's there were a lot more Olympic, Golden Gloves, PAL (Police Athletic League), and college boxing teams. And there were many inner city boxing gyms especially in the east. We all know how huge boxing had been in the 20s-50s.
There were probably thousands of boxers fighting for cash; maybe I'm off maybe just many hundreds. Take a look at records of guys like Greb ....he fought MANY guys who were just local tough guys.
Its IMPOSSIBLE today for anyone to have 100-200 bits because there just aren't that many boxers around and yes, no one wants to fight that much anyway.

Yet there are many very good to excellent US boxers and proportionally there are way more good to excellent boxers because there just aren't that many boxers anyway.

Yes they are better trained, more fit (like every other sport), and better athletes than many of the old,guys who were fighting and paddling the records of the Grebs, the Robinsons etc. There is no "bum of the month club" now but there was for Joe Louis.

And there were no Lomachenkos, Usyks, GGG's, Beterbiev, Bivols, etc!

You've seen many of my posts for years. I love the old guys, many who could win titles today.
I just believe the current crop are damn good and could win belts in any era.

 

Fighters had to fight for supper back then. Some of the best never even got a shot at the title. Look at the record books.....Roy didn't get gold at the Olympics

 

Like I said. I can see the point. Doesn't mean they are better. I give the okder guts the edge due to hunger and fighting way more.

 

boxings prime, as a sport, was between 70s and 90s. thats when the level of competitive boxing reached its zenith. before that the skill levels were lacking in comparison. for the most part. after that, the skill level dropped, and continues to drop. for the most part. physical stamina has also become inferior to that high point in the 15 rd era.