Are Fighters In Better Shape Nowadays?

I know, but I want to identify the ones with the stones to come out and be honest about how much they believe what they wrote. Because those particular ones would be worth having their opinions heard.

 

All it is, is an assumption.

And if you push them, they’ll normally quote stats from athletes from other sports.

 

Boxing is an old sport, most of the key areas of training have been developed and I feel most of the “new age” stuff is mere theatrics and a distraction from the core stuff.

running, bags, pads, skipping, sparring etc are core….foam sticks, fancy instruments etc are not core for a reason.

 

Fury is fat as a pig at times and could do 15 rounds easily, no matter his shape he is never blowing even fighting at a pace proper old school engine on him.

 

Having no choice is a powerful tool too. When you have no choice you do it, period. Having another option greatly reduces the chances of doing the extraordinary.

 

How is this any different from those who believe, that real old-timers from the 20s or 30s were generally better conditioned than today's boxers?

Of course there's no evidence, that boxers from many decades ago were better conditioned than modern fighters... just as there's no proof, that today's fighters are better trained than the old-timers! How is this not obvious?

 

So true!

 

They produce some evidence, as a few posters have done.
I will add some of my own to challenge the notion that modern training and nutrition is superior.
There is a native tribe in the canyons of northern Mexico who can produce runners, men women and children, that can pace or beat the best in the world in their class. They run in sandals and had remained untouched by civilization for centuries until my lifetime. They use no modern running shoes or diets or supplements outside their own natural foods they’ve been eating for centuries, and they can compete with any modern day long distance athletes. Look them up, they are starting to get more sponsorship for competition today.
I would say that suggests that modern nutrition, equipment, and technique are only as good as the athlete. But hey, everybody gotta make a buck.

 

Yes, we are all capable of extraordinary things, but there are what I would call dead game spirits that exist in a select few. Legendary hearts like Hugh Glass and Roy Benavidez. The type of men who carry a will most of us can barely understand. They are un breakable. Most of us are made of more fragile stuff. Whatever it is they had and we don’t, is the same stuff you breed for in a pitbull terrier.

 

Which one of fury’s wins do you think was fought at the hardest pace?

 

What "evidence" are you talking about?

That people grew up during harder times, does not prove they were better conditioned.

I know, a lot of posters on a site like this like to talk about the old-timers, as if they were some sort of superior beings, fighting every 3-4 weeks... while at the same time holding down a physically hard day job! The truth is, that the average boxer didn't fight nearly that often.

I have earlier in this thread explained, that the average number of fights for boxers active in 1925 was 3.17 for that year. However, I was told, that this number was unrealistically low - and that boxers around that time fought much more often!

I seriously doubt, if there have been years, where the average is much higher - or even just 4! Which translates to a fight around every 3 months. A far cry from one every 3-4 week!

 

Well let’s examine the evidence logically and see what it tells us. I offered some for my claims, which are easily verifiable, and made no claim that it proves anything, but it does say something.
Let’s start with the point you made about 3 fights a year being average in 1925. Where did you get this figure so we can compare your sources figures for 1960 and today, which should offer some context and a better understanding of the source and person using it as a source. A quick dig gave me nothing, so where can I look this up?

 

I was going to respond something similar to him, fury cannot fight at pace.

 

Yes, it’s not difficult to make a film comparison to show the reality one way or the other. I was curious if he had done it or was just talking to talk. Either case is cool, but it’s nice to know whose opinions can be taken seriously and who is just background chatter.

 

I've said nothing about 1960 or today (where the average fighter obviously has very few fights per year - maybe something like one every 4-6 months).

All I'm arguing, is that boxers, on average, didn't have nearly as many fights back in the 20s, as most people seem to think. That it was par for the course to have multiple fights per months (while at the same time holding down a day-job, no less!), is of course pure fantasy.

You can calculate the annual averages for all active fighters, from BoxRec's database. For that purpose, this is a very usefull thread:

Total Bouts in the BoxRec Database: By Decade - Page 4 - BoxRec

Here you can find the number of active boxers, as well as the number of fights they took part in, for every year since the start of gloved boxing... from which the annual averages can be easily calculated.


By the way: using these numbers as a sourse... what do you think, that tells you about me as a person? I'm curious to know, what you meant by that remark?