What Advantages Did The Old Time Fighters Have, Over Todays Guys?

It used to mean you were a slow learner who wasn’t ready for the pros yet.

 

Not anymore I guess

This content is protected

 

He’d be just an opponent in the old days.

 

Just curious... are there, in your opinion, any of today's boxers, who would be more than just opponents in the old days?

 

They fought far more often & against much better opposition, & they were tougher men. You can't learn your trade fighting twice a year. Same as if Djokovic played 2/3 matches a year he wouldn't maintain his level.

 

Competition

 

What does "far more often" mean? How much more active were the old-timers, on average, compared to today? Today we see boxers averaging between 2 and 3 fights per year... so how many fights did the old-timers, say back in the '20s and '30s, average per year, do you think?

 

I don’t think so. Especially when you consider true weights- imagine Duran vs Inoue?

 

I suggest playing a tennis match and then jumping in a boxing ring with someone who is trying to hurt you.

 

Your comment makes no sense.

 

A loss wasn't see as a disaster, unlike now. Often, it was regarded as a learning experience.

Level playing field - nobody was on PEDS back then.

 

There’s a reason why you wouldn’t want to box every week. No such reason exists for tennis.

 

O.K got you, but the point I'm making is you need as much activity as possible in your chosen profession.

 

Which brings me back to my question in #83... how active were the old-timers, (like during the busy '20s and '30s) on average, compared to today's boxers? Any Idea?