Are Fighters In Better Shape Nowadays?

I believe this too.
instead of doing roadwork, they now have more options such as treadmill etc, but still it doesn’t beat roadwork.

There’s more option now, but the older methods were better and more boxing focused.

An issue is now is instead of doing roadwork in the cold mornings in your scruffy clothes wrapped up, they will be lazy and do it in a fancy gym on a treadmill listening to music and dressed to impress.

There is also the psychological aspect of suffering during training due to it being tough. This toughens you mentally.

 

I wonder, who came up with the idea... that if you wanted to develop into a super-conditioned fighter, it would be beneficial to have grown up under hard times?

 

It’s not an idea, it’s a reality that boxing is known as a poor man’s sport for a reason.

it’s a way out of hardship.

if hardship reduces, the desperation to get out of hardship reduces.

this isn’t horse riding

 

Yes, it's a reality, that boxing is known as a poor man's sport.

But that doesn't mean that boxers, generally speaking, were somehow better trained back in the day! All this talk about how they "wanted it more" (and therefore must have been better conditioned) is just something people say, because it's supposed to make the old-timers sound better. There's absolutely no proof, that this is the case!

Going back to the 20s and 30s, times were indeed harder than today in affluent western countries. But I bet, many recent fighters from poor countries have also experienced hard times, and took up boxing in an attempt to fight their way out of poverty, thus improving their (and their families') lives.

Are we really to believe, that these boxers don't have the same heart and willpower to succeed, as the old-timers?

 

True the fights can start slow but when they got into their pace they didn't slow down for the other rounds. And lets not pretend like Bowe and Holyfield didn't have throw away rounds too.

 

I think I’m coming to the end of this conversation as it feels we are going round in circles.

Poverty on its own does not create great boxers obviously. The opportunity, good coaching, management, reward etc needs to be there and the drive. Most poor countries don’t have good coaches and managers and don’t reward fighters enough to keep them dedicated.

The point is, as boxing is a poor man’s sport and a great opportunity to escape poverty. determined and passionate men could “fight” their way out of said poverty if they trained hard enough and listened to their trainers/managed right etc.

It is a requirement in boxing to have a desire to “overcome” a beating and inflict more punishment on your opponent. Desperation is inside most fighters.
hence it’s super rare to have affluent children become boxers. At one point the pain of getting punched is not worth it any more.

Was it hagler who said “it’s hard to get up in the morning to run in the cold when you sleep in silk pyjamas”.


the key about being poor in many western countries is it’s an individual problem and there are lucrative opportunities with professionals to get you there.
In the 3rd world for example, there is no infrastructure, gyms, coaches, reward, management or accessibility to tv deals etc to make it worth it.

I think you need to be clearer on your point.

Are you asking about western fighters compared to western fighters of the past?
or 3rd world people compared to western fighters of the past?
or what???….

 

In the 3rd world, there's nothing available to someone contemplating a pro boxing career, to make it worth going that route?

So we don't see boxers today, who grew up under miserable conditions, probably comparable to what could be found during the 20s and 30s in the US? Really?? Why would you say something as strange as that? Obviously lots of today's fighters from poor countries, have known about hardship.

And my point is, that I see no reason why these boxers have less heart, or don't "want" is as much as the old-timers did! I thought, I had already made that clear!

 

I’m not sure which eras, countries etc you are comparing here, you have not been clear hence me asking you to clarify.
20’s, 60’s, 90’s, it’s not clear?
International or just domestic and if so which countries?

The US has been the leading place for boxing for a long time.

If someone in Afghanistan/syria wants to be a boxer, can you explain what does he do?

 

I’m honestly not sure what point you are trying to make. Can you clarify your position please?

 

Look, let’s just get a few things straight, as this obviously offends you.


1. I am not saying that those old guys were superior.

2. I’m not saying that the modern athlete is inferior.

What I’m talking about, is the vast difference in their CIRCUMSTANCES.


Now if you want, I’ll rephrase my statement to:

“On average, the guys of the past were better conditioned throughout the year”


How’s that?


If you get a fighter today who is in top condition, coming out of his camp and ready to fight, then I’ll say that he’s just as fit as a guy of yesteryear was, who was also in top condition.

So: In peak condition, there’s no difference.


However, the fighters of yesteryear were more conditioned THROUGHOUT the year, as they fought much more often.

Do you understand this, now that I’ve rephrased my statement?


You had a group of WW’s from the 30-40’s.

You have a group from today.


When both groups were fully fit, they were all great athletes.


However:

The group from the 40’s fought 10-15 times per year.

The group from today fight 2-3 times per year.


Which means that the older group were better conditioned throughout the year, because they fought every few months.

They didn’t have as long to rest and put on weight.

If they were top fighters, they’d be in the gym between fights.

If they weren’t, they’d work manual jobs between fights.


Again, Ray Robinson fought Jake, then literally rematched him just 3 weeks later.

It was a different world.


I hope this helps you.


Their circumstances meant that the average fighter back then, HAD to better conditioned throughout each year than today’s guys, simply because they fought much MORE OFTEN.

That is pure common sense.


Again, nobody is saying that those old guys were superior.

But if one guy fights 15 times per year, and one guy fights 2 fights per year, then the guy who fights 15 fights per year, is absolutely better conditioned, simply because he had to be.


Fighters fought far more often back then. So on average, they were better conditioned than the average fighter of today.

It was just CIRCUMSTANCES.


That is it.

The end of the debate.

 

I'm obviously talking about the 20s and 30s, as I have already said!

But let's go back 100 years - say to 1925. How much more often do you think the average boxer back then fought, compared to today's fighters? Twice as often? 3 times or 4 times as often - or maybe even more? Or don't you know?

You want me to explain, what a boxer from Afghanistan would do, if he wanted to embark on a pro career! How on earth would I know that - or are you implying, that there are no pro boxers from Afghanistan?

Also, why don't you want to answer this simple question (which is my whole point): boxers who today come from poor backgrounds - is there any reason to believe, they don't "want" it as much as the old-timers?

 

You have replied to the wrong poster.

 

It’s not I don’t want to answer questions, you just seem a bit all over the place and it’s not clear what your questions are. you’ve skipped from point to point for several pages of a thread.

Regarding your most recent question/point; “boxers who today come from poor backgrounds - is there any reason to believe, they don't "want" it as much as the old-timers?”
No, not at all.

I wasn’t implying a single thing, you seemed surprised and found my comments strange regarding fighters today not being as desperate to succeed in a poor man’s sport.

You then suggested across the world there is still poverty and i agree, so I simply asked in a poor country like Afghanistan or Syria, would there be a viable option for a hungry person who has as much desire as the US guys in the past, to become a world champion boxer and get out of poverty…? It’s very very very rare this happens for a reason

 

Yeah, I see that now... sorry about that!

 

No problem.

Have you read my response?

Do you understand where I’m coming from?

It’s not that they were superior fighters in the past.

It’s just that they were generally better conditioned throughout the year, simply due to their circumstances.