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

It proves nothing.

We all know, that not every modern fighter is better than every boxer from just a couple of decades earlier. No one is assuming that! Do you really think, that there was someone out there, who needed this one result - to finally wake up and realize this?

 

I would say that only an insane person could be oblivious to the millions of acts of God continually going on around him. Atheism is a type of willful ignorance. But that's a discussion for the lounge.

 

I remember watching a Lance Armstrong documentary before his confession. He was practicing his aerodynamic form in a wind tunnel. Then years later everyone was like "Yep, he was doing drugs." I mean, I guess some of that other bull**** helped a little, but not as much as the drugs. It's like how Hopkins was always going on about how strict his diet was. You always wanted him to slip up for a second and go "Oh, and after I eat my greens I inject a special cocktail of terranbol and HGH into my buttocks."

What are these advances in sports science? Because I just see doctors Atlas and Roach mostly prescribing padwork and sit ups. Modern boxers go jogging like everyone else. That rearrange a puzzle or touch lights on a board **** Lomachenko supposedly does is a sideshow. Most guys aren't doing that. These guys aren't scientists. A lot of these guys didn't finish high school. A lot of boxers are just strong and fast none too bright blue collar guys. Do you think James Kirkland and Ann Wolfe were diagramming **** up on a big white board? Or do you think they were playing loud rap music and punching a heavybag?

You can take a look at photos of boxers going back more than a century to see how in shape they look. People don't get more in shape than Young Peter Jackson circa 1902 or Battling Siki circa 1920.

 

The whole concept of having a training camp and having breaks and light training in between is a concept that was developed by modern sport science.
Using exercises such as box squats, deadlifts and so on and smartly incorporating it into your workout schedule are all results of sport science.

Back in the day fighters would simply fight and train all the time and their bodys were destroyed before they hit age 40.

Would you belief that sprinters massively benefit from strength training. It is one of the pillars of their work out. So of course pad work and sit ups will not get the job as much done as a variety of exercises. Just work out for more then 2 years and you will know that too.

 

Comparing this
https://www.google.de/search?q=pete...wKHb9PAGcQ_AUoAnoECAwQAg#imgrc=WQrzb1erIQjdxM

to this
https://images.app.goo.gl/5YSdVuvGTrtZiqHU8

Is crazy.

 

Er, you know that's partly the result of steroids right?

 

and? I have written in my prior posts that peds are one of the biggest difference makers of todays fighters. Were are not talking about which era had the best raw talent and would be better under the same conditions, we are making a straight head to head comparison.

 

I don't deny that PEDs are a big factor in why I think modern heavyweights (not so much other weights) would do a number on the HWs of the past. But the preponderance of fatasses in today's HW division belies how much greater today's training techniques are, or rather how much people are taking advantage of them.

 

Boxing was still evolving in the 1920's and most of us know nothing about the fighters from that era so its a moot argument.

Start at the 30's and move up , take the top 10 from every division and pit them against the top 10 of every division today.

Whose to know it wouldn't be a 50-50 contest? What scientific theory can disprove that the older guys would hold more victories? There is no scientific evidence to prove former era's would do worse.

Top 5 welterweights in 1950
Sugar Ray Robinson
Kid Galavin
Billy Graham
Charley Fusari
Johnny Bratton

2020
Spence
Crawford
Pacquaio
Thurman
Porter

Since i never heard of Fusari and Bratton , ill just predict the top 3.. I got 3-0 for 1950. Whose to know it wouldn't be 5-0?

Most people arguing for the guys of today have no clue how good the guys outside of the top 3 were back then

 

LOL, apparently you have no clue either! I mean, if you have never heard og Fusari and Bratton. Jesus...

 

Single events disprove notions all the time.

 

It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you.

It was a reply by him to a comment I made about Foreman knocking out Moorer.

 

Of course there are people who think that. You seem them on the board all the time. Someone mentioned Briggs would be considered the goat if he was sent back to 1930 lol.

 

Total BS. Ludicrous to suggest todays athletes are better. The same games are vastly different, especially with the rampant use of PEDs and training techniques, and rules (e.g. jordan rules; three step walk ok in nba) created to make certain players seem divine. Not to mention the homophobic slobbering of todays sportscasters that serves to brainwash the masses and sell the product.

I'll take the Raging Bull over any of todays MWs.

 

so ali sucked then?