I been watching 50s, 60s, 70s boxing, and I grew up with 80s and 90s boxing... It's clear as day boxing used to be not just more exciting, but fighters used to have much better footwork, faints, head movement, waist movement, and athleticism. Prove me wrong.
It's easy to point out flaws when you're watching every halfway relevant fight as it happens such as Catteral vs Linares but these aren't the fights people will be watching highlights of 30 years from now.
I wouldn't be shocked if the top guys today had greater one punch power or VO2max or anything you can easily measure and manipulate, but there are levels to any skill that can only be unlocked when the best compete against the best regularly. But it's easy to overestimate how much better it was because you can cherry pick the best of every decade now, but you're living through the present one week at a time. There were delays and disappointments then too. For me, the only sport that is definitely better to watch now than it ever was is football. We're in the Golden Age of the NFL and FBS. Modern baseball and basketball teams could probably beat their ancestors, but they're less fun to watch. Football is both better and generally more fun, but with flag football in the Olympics its days are numbered.
I think youre right. I respect Mayweather and Pacquiao as the last truly great fighters who could succeed in any era. Guys like Crawford(maybe, just by the eye test) Inoue(i dont know that much about the sub 126 divisions) and Lomachenko(against 126-130lbs guys) as well possibly. Usyk and Fury im unsure of simply because the heavyweight division is so slow and unskilled since 2000 But Gervonta Davis, Canelo, ryan Garcia, Golovkin, Spence, Ward get dominated and embarassed by the true Greats in their weight classes. Guys like Stiverne Charr, Martin, Sam Peter and 99% of the Alphabet beltholders since Lewis get absolutely embarassed by the non great beltholders of the 80s like Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, Pinklon Thomas etc even on their worst night after a drug binge. To be honest just on the eye Test even someone like Gerry Cooney looks so much more skilled than similar size men today. Its starting to get better hut there were years where the only guys who could box AT ALL were a 100 years old Luis Ortiz and Tyson Fury. The one thing the modern guys deserve credit on is being more professional
Some boxing beasts definitely still exist bounding through time and space to the old-school greatness of Pep, Duran, Leonard, Saddler, Napoles, Robinson, and the likes. Sure, more weight divisions, decreasing popularity, lessened cultural impact, and shifting socioeconomic reality (less young, black fighters pretty much living in gym, waiting for a fight) did hit the sport, but we still are privileged to watch the likes of Inoue and Usyk (ATG on the scale of their respective divisions already), Kazuto Ioka, Juan Estrada, Roman Gonzalez, Gennadyi Golovkin, Vasilyi Lomachenko, or the Money. The 0 tactic, top fights not being made is more of a problem. Heck, if you would condense some weight divisions, with flights actually happening, you could get an immense throwback vibe as to how their history unfolds.
So waist movement used to be better in the old days? I'd like to see what statistics you have, that backs up this claim?
Welfare and more economic opportunity ruined American boxing. Jack Dempsey said "I had to get up, if I didnt get up I didnt eat". The best fighters today come from Eastern Europe. These men have lived hard lives.
Regardless, every new decade was labeled slackers and no-goods by the previous generation of an established greatness. The matchmaking standards are feces, but there are stars which might shine bright in the coming years. NFL and the likes taking a lot of the finest young athletes likely impacts the sport in the USA. No Ali or Louis, or overwhelming cultural significance to draw boys to boxing over good money, and even better benefits.
So you like the old-timers? So do I... but that's not enough to prove, that they were superior to modern boxers in almost every aspect of the game.
the local gym owner and one of his co-trainers had this argument the other day What I will say is the old days had less titles, less weights, so fighters had to fight each other to get title fights. IT was harder to accumulate belts and move up divisions. I also feel the sport was just harder in general back then with out door fights, more rounds, fought more frequently i do think the best of this era can hang in any era of course we are always a little biased to the past because we only really remember the quality and forget the crap while seeing the good and the crap in the present
How about if we transported prime Golovkin (for example) back to the 50s... how would he do? Is there any time during that decade, where he would make it into The Ring's Top-10... or would he simply drown in a sea of superior boxers?
Take something like feints (just to pick one thing)... is there any objective way to determine/prove, that the old-timers were better at this than today's boxers?
