Are boxers better/more skilled today?

Boxing is actually getting less skilled.

 

I think it is constantly evolving like every other sport, fitness levels and modern training regimes are by far the biggest contributor to it. I try not to compare old v modern fighters because if a Jack Dempsey lived and fought in now a times he would also have access to the same modern tools of training. I think this goes for all divisions. But skills and natural talents wise i dont think anything has changed or improved it is just what you are taught and these old skool fighters from black and white times would be taught and be able to implement any tactics or plans that any modern day fighter uses. And again i think this goes to all sports.

The sports have evolved not the athletes within them.

 

Don't you know? Boxing is a special flower that is immune to the forces increasing tangible performance records in virtually all sports with such records. Because, you know, boxing requires "strategy". And because size really doesn't matter that much, even though it's one of the only sports that they actually require weight classes.

 

no not to boxing because boxing is least popular than it was.. I think the skill level has gone down since the 1980s. I think we peaked then and it has dropped.

 

Yeap, and just looking at the HW division which is an abyss of skill.

 

Is this true though? We think of fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard from the 80s and think there's been nothing like that golden era since but the 90s had Lewis, Whittaker, Holyfield, Roy Jones etc., the 00s had Mayweather, Pacquiao, Mosley, Hopkins etc. This decade has given us the likes of Lomachenko, Ward and Golovkin. The best fighters are still very, very good.

I just wonder if our comparisons with older eras is coloured by nostalgia.

 

Yes - by miles.

 

Perhaps we need to define what "skill" is. I think boxing has become more professional and tactics have become a much bigger thing, basically anything within the rules - or at least that can get past the officials, in order to achieve a win.

On average I think the current climate may be a lot tougher than people expect to get to and stay at the top - if you had a time machine and pulled a boxer from any time in the past to now to fight the current active fighters in a currently competitive weight class, I'd say you'd need above-average champions to be competitive now.

I'm not saying we are in the greatest time at all, but I think the current climate is not weak -

 

Who throws with the technique and supreme athleticism of Sugar Ray Leonard? He would DESTROY every current Welterweight. Thurman, Spence, Garcia can’t touch welterweight Leonard.

This content is protected

 

You hit the nail on the head. It’s hard for fighters to improve their skills when they only fight 2-3 times a year, if they’re lucky.

 

The big evolution in technical skills and style came around the 1930s.

I wouldn’t say there’s been that much changes in style, there’s only so much you can change and evolve stylewise about the basics of kicking someone’s ass lol. Guys like Mayweather, Toney and Hopkins excelled at advanced ages using styles similar to guys in the 1940s and 1950s.

Boxing has peaks and valleys rather than a steady decline or incline in terms of talent and skills. Overall, guys were more technically sound in 1970s-1990s, but I think the last couple of years have been better in this area than earlier in the decade.

 

For me it’s the 80’s and 90’s that are the best eras. It’s hard to favor anyone over the fantastic four and Lewis is one of the best heavyweights ever. Prime Tyson was something else in the 90’s.

 

Overall I would say no, since Fighters of the past fought a lot more often and fully developed their skill set, which is rarely done today.

There is tons of talent in boxing today, but boxers often stay too inactive and never reach their full potential.

Also, having tons of alphabet soup organizations results in top talent feasting on poor competition and dulling their skills.

Kell Brook is a perfect example, since he had a ton of potential to develop into a much better fighter after the Porter fight, but actually started going backwards due to inactivity and dighting poor competition. Thurman is another great talent, who would be twice the fighter he is now if he were more active.

 

I think skills and athleticism plateaued in the twenties or thirties. Armstrong, Leonard, Robinson are all you need to know. Pacquiao, Mayweather, Lomachenko are all great but at best they are only as good but no better. When you're looking at a Duran, a Charles, or a Jofre I think you are really looking at the maximum of human achievement in this area. It just doesn't get better. People hit a wall that's biological from which there's no getting faster, stronger, or smarter.

There's no beating Michelangelo, Shakespeare, or Mozart either. In the games that have remained constant over the centuries certain high marks have been achieved and never exceeded. Rembrandt, Milton, or Beethoven comes along and can be just as good but in a slightly different way. Each generation has it's champions and adds it's unique excellence to the whole.

There is some room to specialize and be the best at one dimension of the game like footwork, jabs, or head movement and make your mark that way.