In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

You are 100% correct. It is an interesting time, as an American boxing fan...at least for me. I remember when the Klitschkos began their rise to fame and my thoughts, at that time, were, "There's a shift going on, here," as boxing became more international....or, at least the fan base shifted. I watched several of their fights in Germany and was in awe of the presentation....same with the main events which I watched and still watch, which took/take place in Great Britain, Monte Carlo, France, Bulgaria, etc, depending upon the home country of the star fighter.

Boxing has been on the decline in the U.S., as a mainstream sport for years; and has become more compartmentalized and almost cultish, though that's not quite the right word, while it has grown in popularity elsewhere, around the globe. The way fights are presented in other countries has a really special feel about it, compared to American fight cards, which come off as some WWE ripoff, by and large...at least to me. In other countries, there appears to be a legitimate feel of, I dunno, nationalism around the fight, a real comradery, a celebration, almost of their hometown, national hero, whereas here, I keep waiting for Captain Lou Alabano, to jump in the ring with a chair just to spice things up. It's almost as if American promoters are trying too hard to convince the audience that "this is a big event", a sales-job as opposed to the real thing.

This is not to say the fighters aren't just as dedicated to their craft by any means; it's simply a "feel", for lack of better word. In America, a star boxing card had become a "packaged product", while across the pond in the old countries, it is still and "event".

Once again, correct or incorrect, that is my perspective on what it "feels like". Here, promoters are overworking the sale, while "There"...the event sells itself.

That's a huge difference.

 

Yeah but I can assure you that guys like kovalev, ggg or canelo grew up in conditions that were worse then many of the old guys with tough backrounds.

i would have preferred to grow up in the usa in the 60s then in communist Kazakhstan in the 80s or 90s.

 

Good points, but I disagree.

The level of overall skill back then wasn't what it is today, especially in Italy.

Maradonna done a fantastic job, but Batistuta done the same in Seria A in the 90's.

Personally, I don't rate Messi as the best. Ronaldo has done it everywhere, THAT is world class.

Ronaldinho was better than Maradonna. Zidane was probably the best I've seen in my time.

 

I loved Batigol when I was a kid, but I've never thought of him as a pure playmaker or even as a playmaker-cum-striker. Pure striker, for me, and a brilliant one.

 

Yes, the overall skill today is higher.

I’m specifically looking at Diego Maradona though.

Gabriel Batistuta didn’t do the same as what Diego did. Nowhere near. It’s not even close.

Ronaldo has done incredible things. I’m sure that Messi could also play in any of Europe’s top leagues and be successful too, but he’s content in Barcelona. He’s been there since he was a kid.

I don’t think Ronaldinho was better, but it’s subjective.

There’s a lot of criteria to consider. But in terms of prime for prime ability, I think Diego is the best. He may not be the greatest ever player, but I think he’s the most skilful player that we’ve ever seen.

 

Debatable. I'm not dismissing the severity of the living conditions of the fighters you mentioned; but, at the very least, I would say they were on par with some of the circumstances faced by the "old greats" in the early parts of the 20th Century. Dempsey, himself, began his career fighting in bars for the right to eat, after going 4 days without, on occasion.....and that's not even getting into the extreme racial discrimination that all of the older greats of color faced growing up and coming up through the ranks.

Like I said...debatable; but I'd be willing to concede conditions in the Soviet States were, at least, on par with many early American living conditions.....of course, this is not considering the comparatively "pampered" lifestyles Soviet athletes had, after they gained value to "the state"....but that doesn't diminish the hardships they faced before they acquired said value.

 

Wilt Chamberlain and basketball is pretty much the only exception in all of sports. Wilt kills it, any and every era, TBE...

 

Sports science has progressed massively in the last 100 years. Boxing is a sport. So yes, modern era fighters are massively more skilled, faster and more durable than their 1920s ancestors.

 

If Best had been born 40 years later, then yes, he'd be a top player today because he'd have trained like a modern athlete, complete with his natural ability.

My point was more taking players from those eras and transporting them with a time machine.

Training evolves and tactics etc evolve too.

Each generation should be building on the previous one.

Even in non-physical sports, you see it. Watch a snooker game from the 70s and it looks club level compared to modern guys

 

I'm just stating that another striker has also been a one man army in Italy, in a better era, and done the same thing to a degree.

I don't know if he could. The physicality of the Prem would eventually overwhelm him, IMHO.

Ronaldinho done stuff with a football that I have NEVER and will NEVER see again. Phenomenal talent.

A friend of mine was a season ticket holder at Barcelona and saw both men play. He said it was no contest, Messi couldn't touch him.

 

Agreed. He was phenomenal at scoring.

He, Baggio, Maldini, Weah, Papin & Co. What a time to be alive!

 

These ineffectual, sophomoric 'skillsets, handspeed and tuffness are better today because sports science' arguments are hilarious in their interminable regurgitation. Pure noxious discharge.

 

The ponytail is my boy;

This content is protected

 

It's dangerous to make sweeping statements like that!

Especially where durability is concerned, I don't believe there's anything to suggest, that boxers today are "better". As everybody knows (or should know!) "chin" isn't something you can train - you either have it, or you don't. Sports science has nothing to do with it.

 

And you don't think statements like the above aren't dangerous. Where's your proof that training does not improve "chin" or "durability"? Also, what makes you think reflexes can't be trained, which are very important in mitigating punch impact.