Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

Good post. Question is, when did modern training techniques fully saturate boxing? Remember that boxing is a surprisingly traditional sport when it comes to training.

 

I'm sure that if Usain Bolt was born 20 years earlier, he'd still be the world record holder both in 100m and 200m. Only difference that he'd set them in 80s, and the records time would differ a bit. He's unique athlete.

If we take a look at average results of other elite 100m runners of nowdays, they are a bit better than results of 80's elite 100m runners.

On the other hand, averege results of current elite athletes in shot put, or long jump, or some other events are worse than averege results of80s elite athletes.

What's the explanation? So people run a bit faster, but they can't jump as long or put the shot/throw discus or hammer as far as they used to?

 

But wasn't pre-20th century boxing held back by the fact that it was unlawful/semi-lawful? Were pre-20th century boxers full-time professional athletes who boxed and only boxed? Didn't Corbett work as an instructor?

 

I don't think anybody was talking about a disparity in athletes from 80's to 90's or 90's to 2000's... My impression was we are talking about Modern Athletes, which could constitute the 80's and beyond vs. athletes from the turn of the 20th century and beyond. I don't think anybody has argued that athletes of 2000's are vastly bigger or stronger than their 80's counterparts.. though in football and basketball that is even apparent. I think the difference being examined go father back than that.

 

I know, but I often read in General forum here how 80s-90s HWs (old generation, LOL) won't be competitive against current HW giants. So I compared the 80s and current time to prove these 'knowlegeable' fans wrong.

 

Devil's advocate time:

If boxing was a late adopter of the 80s/90s training techniques, then the methods that made 80s athletes run, jump, throw, and lift better might not kick in for another decade in boxing. Fighters as late as Holmes or 80s Tyson might come before the Great Training Cutoff.

 

It probably held boxing back, but compared to track and feild, where far more recently people were banned for getting paid, like Wes Santee in 1956 (he never competed again), it's nothing like as much or as recent.

The heavyweight champions could get more money doing shows etc. and a lot of them did stuff like that at the end of their careers, but otherwise the ones at the top were full time to my knowledge, and seeing some of their training, they couldn't be working at the same time, and even now there's tons of pro boxers who have jobs, including ones on TV.

 

Speaking of Ray Robinson, my granddad was a kid when Robinson was in his prime and he was telling me that sometimes, Robinson would get in a boxing ring and allow an average Joe to see if he could land a punch on him. He very rarely got hit.

 

SRL had only 40 pro fights... and Andre Ward retired last year with but 32 pro bouts under his belt. Back in "the day", boxers with these kind of numbers were just getting started!

But if they had slipped in an additional 20-30 bouts against no-hopers, between their big fights... would that have made them any better?

And what about Lomachenko? After only a dozen fights, he's already a "veteran" of 10 title bouts… and by some considered the best boxer in the world today. Does this mean, that today's boxing is at an all-time low... or is Loma simply that good? And would he have been even better, if he had followed the usual route of old time boxers, with 50+ "learning" fights, before gunning for a world title? I doubt that.

Several of the best recent world champions are former Olympic champions with long amateur careers against the best (amateur) talent in the world. The experience garnered from these matches, means they can be moved much faster that in the old days. Skill-wise, I don't think they need to be ashamed, when compared to champions of the past. Imo.

 

So you don’t think he would be motivated to beat Owens. You don’t think he was well trained. You believe the time keeper was off in Owens favor. And you imagine all these things and say the science is bad, what about yours it’s just a lot of excuses with no proof.

In reality Degrass got destroyed in a timed sprint, which is about as simple as it gets. And that is a lot more realistic then your science, you don’t know what your talking about.

 

I can agree that athletes in general are getting bigger and stronger. A college football team from the mid 50s when my granddad would have been college aged couldn't compete against a modern day powerhouse Big 10 team because of advances in training and conditioning. Football players in those days thought lifting weights would make you big and slow for instance.

Boxing is a different kind of sport with different kinds of demands. Pure athleticism or pure physical strength alone won't guarantee you success at the highest level of the sport. Those things only get you so far.

 

And, you see in sports like basketball, it seemed as if in the 80s, players got much larger than they were in the 70s and prior.

I was watching Lewis/Morrison (or it may have been Briggs) and my dad commented on how those two look a lot bigger than the fighters of the 70s.

 

I've said what I have to say, multiple times now. You can disagree and cling to that garbage experiment if you want. More power to you.

 

Don’t forget the longest home runs and the best fast balls were a long time ago also.

Another thing you should consider about athletes from years ago was the kind of environment they lived in. There was a lot more active lifestyle. People talk about how athletes are better now days but the majority of the young now are soft uncoordinated and weak. I should know I try get them to do a job where you need a sliver of toughness and I can’t get anyone to last a month.

 

Other threads like this have brought up the decline in testosterone levels among males in the West. It's a fair (and unsettling) point.