Why fighters in the past were less muscular than more modern fighters?

Different training methods and diet. Muscles alone don't win you fights though.

 

Dehydration, different diet, different training, anabolic steroids...

 

You can add different upbringing, recruitment patterns, and jobs / society. And then end the thread.

That said, Carnera was a very muscular man even by modern standards.

 

Old timers prized endurance and explosiveness over raw power. They actively advised against weight training in many cases.

 

Roids?

 

Barbados Joe Walcott was ripped!

 

Alot of old timers were ripped. Don't really agree with the author here

 

Are they more Muscular?
I've seen some photos of fighters like Zale and Graziano and they looked absolutely jacked, but not in a weight lifter look ,but like boxers.
Same with prime Ali.
Most old time trainers shunned lifting weights for boxers. The thought it made boxers stiff, slow, and less explosive. ( And it certainly looked that way for Holyfield when he started putting on muscle/ weight, he looked slower , he loss some flexibility, along with endurance so they may have been right)
Also, there wasn't much steroid use in boxing of the 20 century.
Most of the top level fighters today are more than likely using some type of "muscle enhancement" supplementation today across all weight classes for the last 20 yrs and more.
So they may "look" Muscular. Doesn't mean they have close to the skill level of fighters of the past.
I'd like Buster Mathis Sr, Tim Witherspoon, Jimmy Young, and a few others chances against most heavyweights of today's era. They looked sloppy, but they were skilled.

 

Raw power and explosiveness are synonymous no? How can you train for one "over" the other?

 

Yah others beat me to it.
But to sum things up, more & systemized weight training + PEDs.
Secondarily nutrition, pool of applicants available-range & total number.

You saw Willard when he was inactive for some years in the Dempsey fight-he had lost some muscle & gained fat.
CC is of course correct about Carnera.
I do not see his back as underdeveloped, & his arms & other proportions were measurably large.
Just look at his real height (6/5/5"), weight (seen him listed from 260 up to 284, & the latter seems near the start of his career after he was a Strongman)...At a quite moderate body fat level, & of course he had to be carrying a great deal of muscle.

Did not even eat much. His genetics/condition allowed a level of muscularity only some HWs achieve WITH much modern training...And usually PEDs.