Are boxers better/more skilled today?

Different weightclasses had different golden ages as I detailed in this old thread: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/golden-years-of-each-division.586778/
For instance, the best time for featherweights was probably the early 2000s. The different weight classes are like separate harvests that don't all grow at the same rate. Lightweight might have a great crop in the 30s and not have another like it until the seventies. But the weight classes were never all white hot with talent all at one time. Go back to 1940 and you have three great champions out of eight Joe Louis, Billy Conn, and Lew Jenkins. Fast forward ten years and the champions are Charles, Maxim, LaMotta, Robinson, Saddler alright but do the bantam and fly champs Toweel and Marino light any fires?

 

NO

 

The fighters from the 70s/80s went 15 rounds at an incredible pace. The fighters today are not fitter. Not even close.

The only people who claim fighters are better today than those of say, the 70s & 80s are the same people who have never bothered to watch SRL, Hagler, Duran, Hearns etc because they have some underlying belief that fighters must be better today because of so called evolution. No one can watch those fighters & seriously think they wouldn't be the best today.

There's several reasons why boxers were better back then:

1. More people took part in the sport, especially in inner-city america.

2. Better trainers

3. They used to have high class sparring wars often. Take the Kronk gym for example. Toney/Mclelland/Hearns/Breland/McCallum etc going hard at it against each other. Such intense sparring as frequently as it was back then simply wouldn't happen in today's gym. There's the correct argument that it would possibly shorten careers & do damage to the fighters health, but at the same time, that's what made them great fighters.

 

It hasn't gotten better.
And it hasn't gotten worse.

 

Fighters have a different kind of skill set than those of yesterday year and the number of rounds fought in conventional bouts have played a big part in that. Round 13, 14 and 15 made the fight a whole different ball game IMO. Fighters where a lot leaner back in the day, simply because they had to be, no same day weigh ins or massive cutters. They didn't rely on dramatically altering their body shape, by stripping a load of weight on fight week and then putting it all back on again.

 

Also if it doesn't make business sense these days, it normally doesn't happen. The longer you watch boxing, the more you realise it hasn't been stripped of its prizefighting origins. Generally I view it as business more than a sport these days, but I'm one cynical S.O.B

 

i believe its alot less skilled these days especially in the higher weight classes

 

Back in the 30-50s, top level boxers fought far more often - 200 fight careers were not that unusual. They had to fight that often as there was not the TV money that allows current boxers to get rich from 2 fights per year. The old-school "Black Code" /"Murderer's Row" boxers (likes of SRR, Charley Burley, through to Ezzard Charles) got a huge amount of practice and had to become defensive masters to avoid injury and box that often. These days, only low level journeyman fight with comparable regularity.

It seems reasonable to me that better nutrition and medical knowledge has likely given modern fighters a physical advantage - making weight, developing explosive strength. But, the lack of practice they get these days, and the much lower level of participation, possibly has resulted in a smaller pool of elite talent with skills to match their physiques.

 

Boxing more skilled today than yesteryears? No. When you have guys like Fury who looks like he's about to trip on his own shadow at any given moment it's clear skills are in huge decline. Boxers now and bigger and stronger due to modern nutrition, training and PEDS. They may be fitter in the weight classes with no maximum too (ie HW), but when you have guys like Fury punching themselves in the face and guys like the Wlad who basically only know how to throw 3 different punches and don't know how to throw body shots, then no. Skill level is way down on what it was.

 

Why do y'all even pose this question to folks who know nothing and would like to learn nothing from anything pre-film?

The **** do they know? What comments on talents can they provide? Nothing, they know dick, they tell you their assumptions and when two or more ignorant **** sticks' assumptions are similar they form a circlejerk and measure correctness by numbers. What's the point in asking them?

Gonna ask little girls on facebook if she reckons horseback riding is better or worse than in 1750? The ****'re yew doin' then?

Talents and what people want to see comes in cycles. Y'all tell me all the time " But John L blah blah I don't know dick I just run my mouth blah blah" John L was a colorline champ. John L may not be the best man to bring up when talking boxing skills or purists talents, huh? Who in the modern era tends to be slick? Why is that? Yeah boy, ya don't know yer ass.

Hit and don't get hit back boxing falls squarely on the shoulders of 1790s champion Mendoza. He was a jew and England hated jews. He fought like a jew as far as the gentiles were concerned and it was not seen as good or proper for an English Christian to fight like that. So who did Jew pass on his Jew code to? The same friend Jews enjoy regardless of profession, their one ally through time, the black americans. Why does Money look so damn pretty? Jew, that's why. Burns yer ass when he flashes that cash? good ol' boy, good.


So circa 1880s John L is "the man" but is he the guy to look to for the flow of skill? What I mean is what did John bring to hit and don't be hit boxing? Not a goddamn thing yeah? What about Godfrey, the colored champion? By all accounts a damn fine boxer, purist even. Often undersized and use his size to his advantage to tire his opponent and end them late. Badda ****in' bing boxing pure skills existed at the highest ****in' level that society would allow.

Comes in cycles based more on what the populations want to see than what the boxers can do. Modern boxing is not better or worse than ye old. It's not even all together different. What is different is what period highlights what type and calls it best. That's it. There was slick pure boxing throughout the entire colorline. Unfortunately it was black and jewish so you know next to nothing about it. That's not a criticism, black and jewish boxing history is expensive to read. I've about five hundo into it myself.


Better to think of it in terms of what the audience limited then what fighter was limited by his inability. Had there been no colorline the legend of the first Queensberry champion may very well have been one much more about movement and in ring IQ and much less about how hard as **** he was.

 

Wlad also had punched himself in the face. Making Wlad-Tyson the first and only HW title fight to feature both a champion and challenger who punched themselves in the face.

 

I wouldn't say Floyd was technically superior.

Ray was just about the prefect fighter at his peak.

Boxing has progressed from his roots, but for many years now it's just ebbed and flowed through each decade.

 

It's evolved in the sense that it's changed, but there is no constant progression.

I think the sport has actually regressed in a lot of ways.

 

I'm sensing a little bit of sarcasm Andrew.

Ha!