Are Fighters In Better Shape Nowadays?

I have kind of stepped back from this conversation for a reason, this started out as a discussion on the levels of fitness during differing eras.

I think it’s pretty simple to investigate, we just need to see the calibre of the top guys, to understand the levels of those beneath them.

however, as I stated earlier, it’s just been turning into creating new goal posts, changing them and picking certain aspects to justify a certain perspective.

Now it’s zoning in on 1925 vs 2025, and the lower down/part time fighters (who, without disrespecting, bear no relevance).
I for example have been keeping in mind times like the 60’s-80’s as we discuss, but zoning in on 1925 makes every other year irrelevant if that is the topic, but it’s not!

There is no need to look at part/time or lower down fighters, all you need to look at is the high ranked and recognised ones to see the calibre of the era. The era is defined by the top guys, not the lower guys.

 

There is every likelihood that most of the stories about Hugh Glass are just lies. Regarding Benavídez it looks like different, he seems to be a national hero.

But yes, I agree, there is something genetic and that cannot be learnt in certain kind of people that makes them different fighters in terms of will and heart, I'm 100% sure. It allows them to achive things that we can't even imagine.

Nevertheless, doing something starts by trying it, so it is not enough to have heart, they have the will to try what is not possible. Some kind of crazyness. Imho Benavídez's most brave movement is the first one, to jump in there when he doesnt have to. That's not heart, the rest is heart, but jumping from the chopper has nothing to do with heart, but with some kind of freaking insanity.

I'm 100% sure that all of us have an extra of will and heart that we don't know, and that we will never know unless we are extremely unfortunate and unlucky. Most of us don't have that crazyness. We would never jump from the chopper. If we are forced in this situation some of us fill perform exceding any expectations, but none of us would jump like benavídez jumped from a safe position to a living hell that will 99.99999% kill you.

 

Your source is boxrec, which places it in a category of reliability similar to Wikipedia. Even more, your source is a poster on the boxrec forum, not boxrec itself.
But let’s go with it still. I will have to pick figures from just one of his lists, as he provides more than one, and they contradict each other.
He claims that in 1925 there were 28366 matches fought by 19382 active boxers. That averages out to 1.4 fights per boxer per that year. Which is different from the figures you posted. Unless I’m mistaken, which I hope you would correct.
So my post doesn’t get too long let’s start with that first, before I point out further data discrepancies that are immediately obvious.
To your last question, your sources of information and how you use this information shows us your ability to evaluate data logically, and your willingness to use the results ethically, free of personal bias. In other words, are you a smart straight shooter or are you willing to just talk out the ass to sound like you know what you’re talking about.

 

I’m sure there’s plenty of exaggeration in Hugh’s story, depending on your source. But there are plenty of reliable testimony about the important facts. And they paint the man as extraordinary.
I met Master Sgt Benavidez in 87 or 88, can’t remember exactly. But he was the most humble and unassuming man for the average soldier, never mind for a giant like he truly was.

 

Oldschool conditioning and resilience was insane

 

A few comments:

It's not some random poster ... the numbers are from one of the editors of BoxRec. He has obviously not counted all the boxers and fights himself, but extracted the numbers from their database. So the numbers are actually from BoxRec itself! How is this not obvious to you?

I have no idea, where you get the number 28366 from! In 1925 19382 boxers took part in 30709 pro bouts - which means that they, on average, took part in 3.17 fights (as I have already stated).

What are those other data discrepancies you talk about, that are immediately obvious?

 

Look, there’s nothing to argue about here.

Again, nobody is saying that the older guys were superior.

But the fighters fought more often back then, and especially more of the top ones.


The data from your source, literally says that the most bouts were fought in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s.

The 20’s and 30’s specifically had more fights than any other decade.

We don’t need to focus on each year.


We know who the best guys were of those eras.

Guys such as:

Benny Leonard
Tommy Loughren
Willy Pep
Harry Greb
Mickey Walker
Ray Robinson
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore

Look at their number of fights.

Look at their opponents number of fights, even some of the lower level ones.


There’s nothing to even debate.

There is nobody from the modern era who’s fought even 100-150 pro fights.

Yet in those eras, it was common for guys to fight 200-300 times.


The best fighters of yesteryear fought more often than what they do today.

Most of today’s best guys fight between 2-4 times per year.

Again, in Robinson’s era, it was often once per month.


Again, nobody is saying that they were athletically superior. Only that many of them had to be better conditioned throughout each year, as their circumstances were vastly different, where they fought far more often during their careers.

 

You're absolutely correct - no discussion is needed, when it comes to which era had the most fights. Also that the TOP old-timers generally had a much buiser schedule than today's top men... yes, we all know that.

But when you say, that no one is using these numbers to claim that the old-timers were superior to today's fighters... well, isn't that exactly what a lot of posters here on classic do? I mean, don't we hear all the time, that today's fighters are crap, and wouldn't be able to compete with the old-timers - exactly because they don't fight as often as the oldtimers? That's the only thing I'm arguing against!

 

It seems to me you keep changing your main arguing point.

the thread is about fitness compared to oldtimers….
inactive fighters cannot be as fit as active fighters.

how many times has fury retired?
We only need to look at top old-timers vs the top guys today. For example, Usyk has fought 23 times in 11years, fury 37 times in 16years.
compare that to others in the past for one measure.

 

No, I'm not changing anything. I have said all along, than the busy schedule of oldtimers, doesn't prove they were better conditioned. Nor is there anything to suggest, that today's fighters are better trained than the old-timers. We simply have no way of knowing. At least that's how I see it!

Does Usyk's less than busy schedule (to put it mildly!) mean, that he isn't as well-conditioned as the old-timers? I don't really think so!

Joe Calzaghe, another modern boxer, had 46 fights over a period of 15 years. That's about 3 fights per year. Nothing compared to past greats - and yet I can't think of many fighters with a better engine!

Pacquiao was another recent fighter, who did not look, as if he would have had problems with a 15-rounds distance.

 

You just have to ignore the ignorant posters here.

There’s plenty of knowledgeable posters to debate.

 

This is why there’s different debates here.


This is why I’ve said that fighters back then were more conditioned throughout the year.

Because that is different than comparing guys from different eras, when they were both at peak fitness.


A guy today at full fitness, is probably just as fit as any other guy, from any other era, when they were at peak fitness.

But again, not in general, throughout each year, due to their circumstances.


Joe Calzaghe had an insane engine. Because he was literally running about 7 miles per day up in the Welsh mountains, even as a kid.

So at his peak fitness, he could have rivalled any fighter from any era, even a guy like Greb, who was said to have shared many similarities.


However, Greb would have been fitter/better conditioned than Joe throughout the average year, as he fought every other month, whereas Joe only fought around 2-3 times per year.

And when Joe wasn’t active, he went up to 200 pounds.

 

28366 comes from the very first post your source provides in the link you provided.
But let’s go with the numbers you’re using. Immediately obvious, by looking at your numbers, of roughly 20k fighters fighting a total of 30k matches in 1925, is the results you got of 3.17. Can you see it? If 20k fighters fought 3 fights a year, what’s the obvious number that immediately pops into your head as a total? Is it 30k?

 

Ok, I now see, where 28366 comes from. It's the number they had in their database, as of April 9, 2017.

As you scroll down, the posts get newer - and 3 years later, in their most recent update as of May 15, 2020, they had obviously become aware of some additional fights, they didn't know about before. Which is why they corrected their numbers (to 30708 for the year 1925).

As for the other question: if we have 20k boxers taking part in a total of 30k fights... then yes, those boxers would have had an average of 3 fights.

If you find this strange, imagine a year where there are only 2 active fighters. If they are the only ones, and they have both been active during the year - then they must necessarily have met each other, right?

Let's say, they fought each other once. That gives us a year where the number of active boxers is 2, and the number of fights is 1. So, on average, how many fights did the 2 men engage in? The answer is obviously 1, even though there is only 1 fight during the year.

That's because every fight shows up un the record of 2 fighters! In other words, if we want to find the average number of fights the boxers have participated in ... we need to multiply the total number of fights with 2, and then divide that number by the number of boxers.

That's why a year with 19382 active boxers participating in 30709 gives us an average of 3.17 fights per boxer (30709 x 2, devided by 19382).

I hope, this clears it up!

 

I don't agree with this idea that just because fighters of the past fought more often it means they were in better shape. In fact I think it works against them as anyone who has done sports knows you can't be 100% at your best all year round and competing that much and training so much for fights all year round would mean you wouldn't be able to reach your true peak. Training cycles are pretty much all the same, you have a base building period, a period of increased intensity, taper to a peak, perform, rest/recovery and then repeat. But you can only do that so many times in a given period of time otherwise you can't truly recover and each peak is diminished.

I'd say fighters of the last 30 years or so are in better shape than fighters of the 30 years before that. Just look at the records for most punches thrown in fights, they are dominated by fights in the last 30 years or so and look at the 400 club, no fight before 1988 I think. So the idea that back in the first half of the 20th century fighters were in better shape seems kind of a stretch.

Every athlete in every other sport has improved in terms of physical ability, I don't see why boxing would be any different. Though I'd add the caveat that boxing is more a skill based sport, being fitter doesn't on it's own make you better.