Fighters today are well conditioned to do 12 rounds 3 times a year at a peak level for a very short time frame when their fitness peaks after a training camp. Fighters of yesteryear were well conditioned to do 12-15-20 rounds every other week with an inferior diet and forms of transport to travel across the country. I suppose its personal preference as to what the definition of "fit" is
Exactly. The fact that fighters back then fought more regularly and were in longer fights doesn't prove that they were more conditioned. Not in the slightest.
Some were some weren't. Generally they were more conditioned back then, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to. The main reason being is that fitness is a natural attribute. A lot of work goes in to it, but if You get Wlad or Haye training exactly the same way that Ali and Marciano did, then the latter are going to be fitter.
Without really getting into the debate, couple of points here - 1. Old time athletes are like historical buldings - we think the victorians built stuff with much better qaulity than modern buildings, but it's only cause all the crap stuff fell down years ago. In the same vein, nobody remembers the fat, unfit chuggers of yesteryear. 2. What hurts boxing IMHO is the lack of a proper governing body to promote the sport and carry out research into the development of boxing specific training and development. The likes of the FA, LTA, RFU and ECB spend a lot of money developing these things and applying them from the grassroots up. The result is tennis players that can serve at 150 mph and 16 stone rugby players who can do 100m in just shy of 10 seconds flat. No organisation does that for boxing.
I don't know - that's my point. Are you suggesting that ALL boxers who fought in the black and white era could do 15 rounds at a pace that would put Pacquiao to shame, 12 to 18 times a year?
Pac is the kinda' fighter I'd imagine prospering in most eras to be honest. But you're way off base IMO. Most top-notch fighters who had stamina issues have been identified and analysts take these things on board when judging a fighters abilities. Tony Galento, for instance, was out of shape and prone to bad facial damage, but we know he was pretty handy with his crouching style and toughness and had some good wins against contenders whilst failing at the biggest hurdles. I think most serious posters would take all factors into account, not just give 'black and white fighters' a free pass. You will also find by looking at old newspaper accounts but even the reporters of the Victorian era knew the difference between 'The Sweet Science' and mindless brawling.
I think all the above is based on the individual, for example I've tried different ways of training for boxing, one would be what Joe Calzaghe and Carl Froch, old school stated by Calzaghe on that Running with Joe programme a few years back, i do 4-8 mile runs, hill sprints, body weight work (press ups, sit ups etc) and then boxing training, secondly I've done, pure sprints, short recovery, strength and conditioning I.e weights, boxing training. When I have sparred me personally I'm so much fitter in the ring when i have done a few weeks of the first plan rather then the second plan but everyone body responded differently.
