At what point are past heavyweight contenders viable to compete in every future era

Luis Angel Firpo oughta do something, right?

 

I disagree with the first sentence. Boxers will probably continue to improve their physical abilities. Presumably gene doping is next. Talent pools might also improve.

That said, I think it's a moving spotlight. Training didn't change much between the 30s and the 70s, although the Boomers might have had more athletic big men. The 90s weren't too far off from today; the fighters were smaller, but were allowed to use more steroids. The professional trainers on here seem to largely believe that pro training isn't as good anymore, so that's a point on the other side...

Anyway, some heavyweights from the 60s and 70s are viable to compete. I just don't think even someone like Ali would do as well today as he did in the 70s.

Even the 70s fans are willing to admit this process exists if you ask them about times before their favorite era. Create a Marciano vs Lennox Lewis thread and it's obvious.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to make a lot of sarcastic threads designed as parodies of people who think modern fighters are better. Usually taking positions that you consider extreme versions of the pro-modern arguments.

If that's all correct, then your thread doesn't really provide an answer to my disagreement, or an argument against it, so I can't really reply intelligently to your actual reservations. I would need to hear them first.

If I'm wrong, then my apologies.

 

Which ones?

 

For physical training or technique?

Technique was mostly completed by the 70s, presumably.

Physical training took a big lurch in the 90s, with drugs and modern training. It's slowed down since then, but there may be another lurch. Presumably with things like bionics, gene therapy, and other assorted cheating.

Talent pool size is debatable, but the bigger the pool, the better your potential guys. It might eventually flatten asymptotically at a long enough time scale, but I don't think either of us knows where on the asymptote we currently are, since we don't know the required size of a talent pool needed to produce ideal heavyweights. Historically, I think it took a big leap forward from Sullivan to Dempsey or so, with an ascent thereafter at a less serious rate.

 

The only VoxDei comment in your link theorizes that there's probably a limit to how good a human athlete can get (I agree), how big they can get and remain viable (I agree), etc., but I didn't see any film studies backing him up in his post. He thinks the margin between the 70s guys and the 2020s guys is closer than between the 2020s guys and the 1920s guys. Again, I agree. Though I do wonder whether the jump between the 30s and 70s is larger than the one between the 70s and the 2010s (which it would have to be if progress is slowing.)

Thing is, without further training improvements, I'd agree that we only would improve by selecting better athletes. And eventually, we will max out the talent pool. But if we start screwing around with people's genes and adding hardware, we may see a massive leap, since we aren't even dealing with natural human bodies anymore at that point.

 

The change occured in the 1905-1915 period. It didn't happen overnight though theres no magic date. While I don't think the whole top 10 in 1910 could compete today by 1920 the top 10 was among the best its been since.

 

First, he was small by today's standards. Second, he sucked as a boxer. He had no upside.

 

In all honesty, the 90's is when the majority of the top ten could compete with today's top ten. You may get the one off in times previous, and certainly more in the 80's, but otherwise they were few and far between.

We live the in the best of all possible worlds.

 

When I watch Foreman the biggest difference between them is the colour of the film.