are current boxers of today better than boxers of yesteryear?

i agree, and vice versa..

 

Yawn. At least try to understand what I'm saying before rattling out such a **** response.

The boxers of now probably would beat the boxers of yesteryear... purely because they are physically superior.

BUT, the boxers of yesteryear were clearly more skilful. The evidence is on film, if you ever want to learn anything about this sport.

 

Fighters of the past where more hungrier to fight because they where poorer so they had the balls to fight even a bear. Today fighters are more money focused fighter and they like to watch out about his health to. But skill wise the maturity of fighter are more skilled stronger than fighters of the past. The guys that said that boxers of the past where more skilled are death wrong. Fighters of the past are overrated because they are legends and legends are always be remembered.

 

Depends on what era you mean, the guys of the 70's and 80's are pretty similar to the guys of the 2000's so those fights will be virtual washes, but the guys of the 30's and 40's would get smashed by the guys of now. Marciano would get decapitated by Lewis or one of the Klitschko's.

 

I always get a kick out of people who mention the so called "advanced training techniques." Here are some fine examples of modern training techniques.
-

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

 

Well maybe todays boxers are more athletic overall because of better nutrition and more 'scientific' training methods. You still have lots of boxers gassing in fights these days, not making weight and whatever, despite all those modern techniques. There were also lots of 'yesteryear' fighters that had great stamina because generally they fought more often and the fights lasted longer.

Athleticism is only one part of the game though. As Popkins said, oldschool fighters were generally more skilled and experienced. Plus there's heart and toughness.

As a whole, I wouldn't say that todays boxers are better than the old timers, but there are some modern fighters that could have been competitive in any era.

 

Marciano would fight at CW, maybe even at LHW in this era, and he would rule.
A better question is: how would Sonny Liston fare against Lewis or the Klitschkos?

 

Well certain techniques have evolved and obviously have got better since the 50's etc.

fighters of today are in general bigger and more athletic, but one thing is fighters of the past were more hungry, and they had to be. Most had to fight more regular because they got pennies literally.

If those same fighters were around today they would be the same as our fighters now because of the materiliastic environemnt we live in today, and if you put the fighters of today in the past they would be as hungry as them also.

That does not mean that just because they are frm the past they would ul;tyimately beat the guys now.

One thing that pisses me off is historian of the sport and other enthuiasts who say that jack dempsey was the greatest etc.

All of these ATG from the old era fought bums. yes bums.

A majority of their records are filled with fighters making debuts and being new comers, that goes for joe louis sugar ray robinson and many many more. Also they fought each other in some cases six and seven times now what is the need for that.

no taking nothing away from them but it is true, in terms of matchups i.e. in prime or near prime boxers facing shot fighters and the likes it has always been like this yet when an old timer is mentioned that name was apparently great that they beat.

No tht fighter was shopworn and on losing streaks.

joe louis is one of the greatest heavyweights of all time but he made a title dfense of 24 i think against pub crawlers and yet when a fighter such as joe calzaghe (im no fan) makes the same defenses he is a bum and not acheived nothing.

oh really.

it is the same double standards.

 

I dont think there is a right answer to this as I think the history of boxing is littered with peaks and troughs, as each decade is not neceserrilly an improvement on the previous one.

But I would agree that there is an improvement over 90 years ago, because for all the laziness or ducking of today it's light years ahead of a system whereby the champion can take 3 years off and remain champion compounded by not having to fight a black man. A sign of the times for sure, but when compared to today a sign of a weaker time...

 

old timers wore smaller gloves and fought more rounds on a regular basis, they fought anyone and everyone when boxing had less weight divisions and less belts. Today boxers fight twice a year for millions, they have longer to prepare for there opponent, they have videos of there opponent, fight less rounds, bigger gloves, more protection from the referee, less corruption, more weight divisions, more belts and more bull****! the question of who is better should be based on individuals and not time period.

 

There are a few very big heavyweights but overall most of them aren't all that tall, they're just overweight. In the lower weightclasses because they don't have to weigh in on the same day they basically fight a weight division below. If they had to weigh in the same day they couldn't pull that crap.
I don't anything to suggest they're more athletic either.

 

Liston would have started his career at cruiser as well.

 

I keep on hearing how boxers are bigger , stronger now . Heavyweights are bigger i agrees , but are they in shape? can any of them throw a jab like sunny listen? Todays boxers are not as good as the 80's leonards hearns , pryors. Not as good at the 70's Heavies. Not as good as the 60's welterweights.

And it a simple answer, the sport is smaller now than in past decades . Level of competition seperates the best from the very best, and the competition is smaller .

Wrestling and UFC were considered smaller sports in the past , but they give so called meaningful fights and people watch.

Leonard vs Duran iii the fighters split 30million $. Doesnt happen anymore.

 

A very good point here.

I'm of the opinion that if we teleported the champions of the 60's into todays boxing scene, 90% of them would get well beaten. Great, great men- but many of them have alot of flaws. They may look good on tape against guys of the same era, but I really believe boxing has evolved quite a bit.

 

Fighters of past era's were superior in ring skills, toughness, and desire then today's relatively "coddled" boxers who get paid far too much and fight far too little.

Some idiots who know little about boxing will refute this claim by presenting stupid and unverified statements like;
"Today's boxers have better food and better equipment and are larger."

That's as stupid as saying today's singers are better because they have a "golden box" and superior studio equipment to smooth their voices because they can't sing, and the proof is they are paid much more. Idiotic statement of the year because as we all know, today's singers are far less talented than those of yester-years.
The difference is, their fans are far less capable of judging and appreciating true talent. Therefore, with their audience being "dumbed-down" promoters and producers can offer INFERIOR talent, make more money, and perform less.
Simple Business 101.