Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

An interesting implication here is that boxing might be complicated enough that we don't know what constitutes superior training.

But I wouldn't go that far. I think there's near unanimous agreement throughout history that hitting power, strength, stamina, and even size are advantages to a certain point. The exact mix might be disputed, but we know how to train each of these areas individually better than we did 70 years ago.

We can also be pretty sure that our sports guys today in non boxing sports are better than the ones in the 30s, even though the gap is less than some think.

EDIT: On the PEDs point, the fighters we see on film today, and whom we match against past fighters, often *are* on PEDs. When you match Evander Holyfield in a time machine bout against Louis, the version of Evander you're using is the one on steroids. There isn't another Evander running around, unless you're going to invent a hypothetical steroid free version.

 

I'm still very skeptical about these training improvements. What I see often looks pretty far from what the science is, and there's often a lot of nonsense and fads in modern training.

Weight training might be a big one, but you see what they do and it's often stuff like cable curls which really won't help much, and I'm not sure they're much better off than the old school stuff like carrying logs and using indian clubs.

Plyo is a bit of a problem, most of it is pretty cargo cult, done without any real understanding of the principles behind it, and I doubt the style it's done gets any more than the sprinting, jumping and throwing which has been around forever.

Prehab is an interesting one, but in a lot of ways I think it's something needed when you've been inactive and end up with imbalances, I don't think top athletes tend to need a whole lot, and early ones did get active recovery like daily massages/

I'm sure perdiodization has been around a long time. Lydiard had some fairly advanced periodization in the 60's, in fact I'd say I'm not convinced any boxers do anything as advanced currently. Looking at the way the old guys trained I think for sure they overreached, then recovered to peak, atleast the who didn't fight so often that it becomes impossible.

Overall I think there's been some improvements, but also some degeneration.

 

Notice how carefully I chose my words, though. I said that these are good indicators of a program influenced by modern training, and that the tools are available if a fighter chooses to use them.

I'm sure there are plenty of guys today who misuse or misunderstand modern training techniques. And many more who simply aren't qualified to administer them. I'm sure there were bad trainers in the 30s as well, who misused or misunderstood the knowledge *they* had available.

But best for best, the tools today are better for training specific physical qualities that you want, IMO. As evidenced by even the ignorant guys trying to adopt as much of it as they can assimilate.

EDIT: A few other quick things., I agree that certain tricks show up earlier in some sports than others. In addition to Lydiard, I think Bompa was periodizing training back in the 60s. The difference is that now, it's not just a trick that one guy in one sport knows. Everybody is aware of it, and has it in their toolbox for training their specific athlete, if needed. And now they have decades of research on whether it works, and how well. Remember that not all training techniques worked; some of them are old wives' tales, and we've managed to get rid of a lot of that. That's why I said it's a collection of different pieces of knowledge in a variety of areas.

 

Trouble is, I'm not sure I've seen anyone implement this stuff properly.

I think that might actually be the case. If you take Lydiard training, a system still used in a form today by high level runners. You start out running entirely super easy, and increase mileage untill getting to 100 miles per week or more. You then do the 100 miles a week at a pace you increase (any extra miles you take easy), but you keep the pace aerobic (going anaerobic will damage your recovery too much), you do this phase as long as possible, he thought trying to peak a running more than twice a year was stupid, so that gives you some idea how long this lasts. He said at the end of this phase their aerobic ability (and therefor how well they can run) was pretty much determined, and beyond that they do shorter phases to peak them for speed and lactate tolerance.

Then take how you'd do it for explosiveness, I'm a bit less familar, but I think the gist is you'd do a hypertrophy phase (if desired), then increase maximal strength, then speed and explosiveness, go from exploding with heavy loads, and slowly going to faster with lighter loads, but trying to get the same muscle recrutment.

There's different ways to go about the first, and I may be a bit off with the second as I'm less familar with it, but I think I don't think it'll change my main point which is, how can you do both the first and the second at the same time, while also doing tons of skill and technique work? There's going to have to be a fair bit of comprimise, even moreso for 3 fights a year, with some time off between camps. And the extent to comprimise different eras that's ideal will very from fighter to fighter, and with what needs worked on for their opponent. It ends up being some crazilly complex anything like perfect is totally unreachable.

 

We've discussed this video a few times in the past. The race was an interesting little experiment but it wasn't very well done. The guy was not in peak condition, had not had enough time to practice on similar tracks to get accustomed to them, and most importantly, was running against himself, instead of in a competitive race against the world's top athletes. Not a very realistic or scientific experiment, imo.

 

Guys seem to be unquestionably more athletic than they once were, and this is true across all sports. Football, basketball, baseball etc etc. We could also certainly say bigger, stronger and faster as well across all these sports. So while you might not need to run in boxing or jump or other variables that clearly demonstrate the differences from the past, there undoubtedly are differences.. even in boxing.

 

Are any of the professionals you've seen training in a more scientific way than Fury?

Some, but not all, right?

I'm not saying there's a magical or perfect program out there, though. It's like running from a bear -- you don't have to be a perfect runner, just a better one than the guy behind you.

Comparing like with like, I think Louis with performance enhancing drugs and modern trainers would be better than Louis without these things.

 

I agree that generally speaking that athleticism across the board has improved. However, there is a decent case to be made that boxing would be the anomaly.
Worldwide boxing is now competing against a vast increase of alternatives for top athletes.
In the United States much of the feeder systems for the pros have dried up. Golden gloves is in your shadow of what it once was, high schools and colleges no longer offer boxing programs and the number of real boxing gyms have dwindled. Also the number of bouts in which active boxers participate is fractional compare two boxers of yesteryear. Though this may be better for their long-term health lack of experience relative to their predecessors could logically impact their potential skill levels.

 

not in boxing.

 

Good points I think. There are likely to be general improvements over time, everything else being equal. The main points I was challenging was the notion that for boxing a direct link can be drawn with progression in other sports, and that the progression in those sports has been linear and consistent.

I think boxing has probably improved in some ways due to improvements in the areas we are familiar with - the "tangibles" that you can put on a number on. At the same time, it's probably declined in others such as the experience that comes with fighting more regularly and in more competitive fights.

The PED issue is a really difficult one to address, as they are obviously a major factor in virtually all competitive sports. We know what Holyfield looked like with the benefit of PEDs, and we can safely assume it gave him an advantage of some kind in his career. It's very unlikely that Louis was on PEDs (unless I'm missing something), so we don't know whether or to what extent it would have improved him as a fighter. Not all people respond in the same way - when Dwain Chambers hit the juice for example his top level speed/power increased but his base level and consistency reduced, and that's in a an event (100m) with fewer variables than boxing.

Of course, if you tried to factor PEDs into any fantasy match-up you'd probably get accused of trolling - "If Louis was on HGH I'd favour him, otherwise I'd give Holyfield the edge", but it's actually a valid point as PEDs have changed all sports. It's just difficult to quantify to what extent.

 

My main issue with this hypothesis is that PEDs or other forms of it were also prevalent in every sport imaginable. The enhancement issue was running rampant in baseball in the late 80's through the 90's... when it stopped being as prolific, we didn't see a decline in their athleticism or they frame. They were still bigger.. stronger and faster around the bases. Same in football, enhancement were rampant in that sport as well, when it became more regulated and stopped, the athletes didn't go back to having the "combine measurables" of Red Granger. They were still bigger stronger and faster than their predecessors. Same with track field and the list goes on and on. If they suddenly regressed to previous levels once things were more regulated, I could see it being muddied quite a bit... as it is is, there was still clear progression of improvement before PED use and after.

 

Yes, you would think so... but boxing has so many unmeasurable components, that will be judged differently by different people. So it will be pretty much impossible to ever come up with some sort of consensus, imo.

Take someone like the greatest (accomplishments) female figure skater ever, Sonia Henie. We have film of her in her prime, and we can all see, that she looks like nothing compared to the best skaters of today. We can probably all agree on that.

But how about someone like Andre Ward... is he a great fighter? Here there are probably those who find him a spoiling bore, that they can't stand watching - while others think he was fantastic, with an incredible boxing IQ. Boxing is so complex, that two knowledgeable observers can look with very different eyes on the same thing.

Sometimes it can also be a case of seeing what we WANT to see. There are those here, who believe boxing has been in decline for years, and that today's top fighters would be clowned by the old-timers.

… and then there are those, who don't see this decline and believe we have fighters today, that are just as good as the best from "back in the day".

There's of course no "right" or "wrong" here... it's all a matter of belief/preference.

 

Of course. Isn't this fact obvious to any intelligent observer?

 

Size and speed have increased most sports over the years.

 

Why are you putting words in my mouth - I never posed that question!