are boxers better from say 60 years ago to now..

Technique and skills may have improved on the grand scale of things, but the younger generation seem to have had only had it easier growing up as time has gone by. I probably believe a rough childhood or a stronger work ethic from a young age would hold a professional fighter in good stead for when they face adversity and have to dig deep. There doesn't seem to be that many great trainers around today, and basically anyone can be training athletes. There might be less gyms and venues, too, but I'm not sure. At the top level, I think it's actually gotten worse, if anything. I've heard Boxing people complain about the athletically gifted going off into other sports too, like Football and Basketball, because they don't pose as many risks, and that might hold true, also. I'm just speculating. I don't really know.

 

60 years ago being the 50's? The answer is no. Fighters fight and spar less. They start training and competing at later ages in the pro game, instead choosing to fight it out in the poorly managed amateurs. The training and talent pools have shrunk. Handpicking of opponents have increased. The ease of picking up a strap and the amount of weightclasses has increased. Some aspects of the sport have improved, some of the sports science stuff and PEDS mostly but the thinking and technical aspects of boxing have fallen to the wayside, by and large.

 

This is the classic forum, where fighters are like fine wine or aged cheddar cheese. The older they get the better they are.

 

Or you could just consider boxing to have a technical and competition based historical peak, which is perfectly reasonable considering the disgraceful state of the game now, with boxing having less and less exposure on TV and in live events, challengers turning down title shots, alphabet soup strap owners refusing to unify based on $ or on risk of earning potential, and fighters practicing their profession less than 3 times a year.

I'm probably much younger than you and it's obvious to me how the boxers of today are at a lower level.

 

I personally believe the current era is clearly the worst in the sport's history. Compared to the 40's Golden Age, it's not much of a comparison at all, I'd say.

 

I'll take the fighters of the 1940's and the 1950's over this crop of ...ahem...."fighters"
anyday...

 

Experience makes you a master. This is true for every art and it´s true for boxing too. Compare the number of fights boxer had back then and how many they have today. Only some extraordinary talents defy this saying. But then those talents were around back then also and additionally had the experience.
Add to that the lower level of talent on average, the more divisions, the more belts and you see that it´s easy to avoid tough challenges nowadays and still become successful. Beeing successful doesn´t equal beeing good today due to that. Back then it did.
That´s the main differences IMO.

 

something like this has come up before and what you are saying is not true.
there are more sports where the oldies where better then nowadays..
for example soccer.
60 years ago in the 1950ties you had pele, garrincha, di stefano, puskas every team that would have those players nowadays would be champ. they still come up in almost everyones top 20
cycling in the 50ties : fausto coppi, fredrico bahamontes, bartali, van looy.. the same as above mentioned.

only thing changed is better training methods better food en better (stronger or lighter) material

 

Perfectly posted B.:good

 

The techniques and training improve, while the talent pool decreases

 

1. Fight less? Yes, Spar less? I don't see the evidence, top fighters spar loads

2. Perhaps although plenty are pros in their teens, MAB/Morales started very early. There are probably more boxers starting at say 7years old. Mayweather's been boxing his whole life, an advantage over a 50s fighter who starts in their late teens

3. Talent pool is probably down with their being less people coming into boxing, but theres still a large talent pool and then again its more of a world sport now

4. Handpicking has been around forever, Lamotta said 'why would I fight Burley when I can fight Zivic'? Burley/Marshall/H Williams/Bivins/Wills/Langford all never got title shots

5. Certainly

6. Yep

7. Agree to an extent, there are still ATG technicians around today but there aren't as many knowledgable trainers. Not everyone from the 50s are great technicians too

 

I think most people who argue for the contemporary fighters are looking at the effects of PEDs but not factoring that into their response.

The top fighters of today would have been competitive in any era. The Klit brothers, Mayweather, Pacquaio could have held their own with the cream of their weight classes. A step or two down is where boxing suffers. A guy like Zab Judah stands out as a top contender today but 60 years ago the divisions were full of such talent. That’s not putting Zab down. I’m just saying there were more at his level of ability.

 

:huh Zab would likely be the fastest in boxing 60years ago. Not saying he'd be the best but he'd still be a top10 or top5 WW imo

 

This