Would the average boxer today win a round v the best boxer 50 years ago?

Stop it. Wilder has an enormous wingspan and Ruiz weighed 268 for Joshua. These are distinct differences between them and Jack Dempsry

 

Lomachenko is easily the best ever, the heavyweight division is the best it has ever been. Enjoy living in the past.

 

I genuinely pity any boxing fan who doesn't believe that some fighters of the past could beat some of today's guys.

You've got so much to learn.

 

He's never seen Ray.

 

Honestly, I pity you.

I'm serious.

Your posts make me cringe.

Your level of ignorance is off the charts.

You've got so much to learn about the sport.

First off, why are you pretending that you know about Ray's career?

You clearly know absolutely nothing about him.

Regarding Loma, he's a great fighter. But what would you be saying if Floyd, Roy or Pea were in their prime now?

Regarding the HW division, you've got to be joking.

Yes, there's some great match ups to be made with some great characters, who all possess different styles. The next few years are going to be very interesting. And hopefully, it will be very entertaining. But the best it's ever been?

Please!

If you think AJ, Fury, Wilder and Ruiz are the best there's ever been, all you're doing, is screaming out to the board that you're a newb/casual, that isn't familiar with the sport's past.

I suggest that you refrain from making any more ridiculous claims until you've gone away and educated yourself.

 

I thought the size fallacy was disproven when blubber boy beat Joshua. Can you imagine lard lad cut down to pure muscle with the stamina to throw bombs for 15 rounds?

 

These guys are absolute clowns.

Anybody who compares sprinting to boxing deserves a good slapping.

How can you compare 2 guys fighting in a ring for 12 rounds, to sprinting between 2 different points against a clock??

It's mind boggling.

Sprinters deal in milliseconds.

The blocks make a difference.

The surface makes a difference.

The shoes literally make a difference.

Give Usain Bolt a pair of Chuck Taylor's, out of Owen's blocks, on Owen's surface, and then see how close he gets to his Beijing record.

Boxing is a stand-alone sport.

Any great fighter from the past could beat a fighter from today, if the styles meshed to his advantage.

 

What about IQs, why are IQs today 15% higher than 100 years ago? Certainly, our genetic foundation is unchanged from just 3 generations ago. So why are people so much more intelligent today? This completely destroys your entire argument of boxing fundamentals being 'unchanged'.

Whatever metric you look at, humans get better over time. Intelligence, knowledge, training, conditioning, nutrition, strength training, sparring, sports science. Somehow some clowns on this forum here think that somehow boxing is the ONLY DISCIPLINE in the history of mankind that didn't progress during the last 100 years. I am not even talking about athletic domains exclusively, I am considering any type of domain where deliberate practice leads to improved performance (so, pretty much any skill or performance).

 

The younger Ali probably wouldn't even have taken those shots to begin with, although he too was quite vulnerable to the left hook.

 

Where have I said that boxing hasn't progressed from it's roots?

I haven't said there's been no progress.

Boxing has progressed from the invention of the Marquais of Queensbury rules.

What I've repeatedly said, is that it does not keep progressing every decade, in the way that other sports have.

There has been no progression in the last quarter of a century.

Boxing just ebbs and flows.

Sometimes divisions are hot, sometimes they're weak, and sometimes they're just average.

The JMW's of today are not better than the JMW's of the 90's.

The MW's of today are not better than the MW's of the 90's.

The SMW's of today are not better than the SMW's of the 90's.

The HW's of today are not better than the HW's of the 80's and 90's.

That's 4 divisions today that are currently weaker than in past eras.

Nobody knowledgeable is going to argue against that.

There's been no progression there.

No progression in half a century.

If the sport continually evolved/progressed, then today's fighters would be head and shoulders above the guys of even 25 years ago. Yet clearly they're not. Today's best fighters are not the best fighters of all time, in the way that today's sprinters are the fastest.

Only an absolute fool would argue otherwise.

Carl Lewis and Linford Christie couldn't beat Bolt, Gay and Blake.

Yet Tyson, Leonard and Jones would wreck their way through today's divisions.

Boxing is diluted today.

There's 4 main Org's, and lots of smaller ones.

Euro level fighters are able to claim world title belts.

The fighters fight less often.

They don't come up the same way as in the past, where they encounter lots of different styles.

There's certain techniques that aren't as common today, even though they're still needed at certain points in fights. Shifting, parrying, in-fighting, double hooks, uppercuts and body shots.

In the last 30 years, the sport has regressed more than what it has progressed.