are boxers better from say 60 years ago to now..

This.

 

I agree, nicely stated there Bodhi :good

 

But the simple fact is that they wouldn't do as well today as in their own time. The physical demands in today's football are much higher.

You mean to say that today's cyclist don't get better times? Don't know much about the sport, but that would surprise me.

How is this "only"?

 

Based on what?

 

****. I was afraid of something similar to this just after replying. Maybe I should amend my answer: Theoretically I think that technique should improve because contemrporary fighters have guys like these to learn from, but right after replying it struck me that it is extremely hard (or impossible) to pinpoint technical improvements since these fighters.

So, I, at least provisionally, retreat to saying that training methods in terms of physical fitness etc have improved. If you strike "technique" from Reznick's post, I agree with the rest.

 

A lot of posters seem to be looking at this from a USA perspective where numbers are down, interest too, less top trainers perhaps and increased paticipation in other sports but boxing is more universal now in the pro game and this balances out in part.
The big advantage the oldtimers had was far more fights, greater number of intense fights than the current scene due to the fragmentation of titles.
Does this balance out the better knowledge of nutrition and training effects and the accumulative knowledge gathered over the years in the sport. This is of course a mater of opinion, my opinion is that the '50 guys had an edge. A marginal top twenty fighter then, would have had more fights with champions then than a current belt-holder have in general.

 

I think there have been plenty fine technicians in recent times. And technique has evolved in the sense that even the really big guys can have reasonable technique today.

When it comes to football, it''s so much that today's footballers to new things (they do to a degree, though) as it is that they do the same things but with less time and space. Theoretically one may think this would apply to boxing as well, but, again, I'm not at all sure that it is empirically based, though.

 

I am not that old and I remember kicking a football in the rain when I was young and it was like kicking a brick, give the players of today the old style balls and they won't look half as good. The balls of today seem to curl\ dip at a moments notice.


The boxers of this era are nowhere as good as from the 40's 50's. A lot of the less durable fighters of today would be done by the time they got a shot at the title, or would have a couple losses on their record.

 

I'm not convinced that the talent pool has decreased. Boxing is probably more global than it used to be (bigger pool). Places like Eastern Europe/Russia, Cuba, and places in Asia contribute more to the pro ranks than they used to.

 

I must too admit my statement was hasty. Now that I think about it, were talking the 50's here, im thinking the 40's for some reason. Yea the 50's were one of the greatest decades in boxing history. Your right, there have been no technical improvements. There is just training improvements (also questionable), and a much deeper talent pool.


lol at using Charles vs Harold as an example though. Charles is above an ATG, hes a legend. In my eyes at least. So even though I was wrong, using him as an example was kind of a funny choice lol

The boxers of today don't even compare to the boxers of the 50's. Honestly I could only see Pacquiao and Mayweather being ATG's in the 50's, and even that is very very questionable. Anyways sorry for getting side tracked. I hope you guys still consider me cool! lol

 

In general the answer is no. If this question was proposed the other way around the answer would still be no.
If we were to match up the best boxers of now and then we could compare them head to head and come up with an opinion one way or the other.