A question for those who use athletics as the argument for modern fighters.

The Bob Graham Round has an argument for being the toughest distance running event in the U.K.

The current course record has stood since 1982!

 

He certainly is.

Well, 800 (and 400 meter) aren´t sprints but neither are they endurance contests, you need both their. I guess you need to dope for both if you do so and to find the right mix might be quite hard.

 

This could be due to simple variance, which is greater in boxing than in timed sports. There are many more variables, and therefore more anomalies that divert extremely from the mean.

Simply said -- just because it is more likely for an extreme talent to show itself during a period doesn't mean it will. In this case, the consensus GoaT was active in the sixties and seventies, but he was more likely to have been in action during the 2000's.

I believe there is a little truth to each viewpoint. Older fighters were more experienced, less protected and fought the best available more often. This contributed to their quality. Modern fighters are slightly larger, prepared meticulously, fight sparsely and brought up to avoid damage or loss of confidence. This contributes to their physical peak.

 

tell that to roy jones jr:thumbsup

in some ways athletes are likely better, in other ways they're likely not. I do seem there are some facets of athleticism that are improved over time but boxing is a little different in that there is much more skill involved and critical to success than many (if not most) other sports

 

No doubt that a fighter like Wlad Klitschko is strong and fast and fit. Probably as much as anybody to ever do it.

Athleticism can't be ignored. It'd be asinine to discount something that clearly exists, and is a clear difference even between fighters today.

But I agree with somebody who said it takes more to get to the top. To continue using Wlad, he has good skills, but his game is basic, and often has only one pace. We can see a fighter like say Larry Holmes do all the things Wlad does and even have more tricks in his bag(Uppercuts, pull counters).

Wlad is probably stronger than Larry, definitely hits harder, and might be as fast or faster, but that Larry just plain boxed better is hard to dispute, imo.

He also achieved more than Wlad at this stage in his career. So its fair and understandable he rank much higher on the legacy charts, and is also perfectly understandable that he ranks several places higher on the head to head charts.

 

anyone agree with this observation, re- boxers and poverty living (state of mind attitude), in general?

 

I can't help but wonder what role experience plays in this. A lot of the boxers from earlier periods had good amounts of amateur experience and fought fairly regularly. Boxers today don't generally fight with the same amount of regularity. Look at SRR, for example, or Greb, versus Mayweather Jr and Pacquiao. As much as nutrition and training can help, I'm not sure that there is a substitute for getting into an actual fight in the ring on a regular basis.