Are boxers better/more skilled today?

They’re certainly a lot more skilled today. Just watch Liston and Foreman and remember they were the number one guy in the division, they lacked a lot of skill compared to guys like Joshua today.

 

From what point though?

It's progressed from it's roots, but it doesn't keep progressing.

It just ebbs and flows and has done for some time now.


Today has seen a resurgence in the LHW and CW divisions compared to past eras.

Today has also seen a regression in the MW, SMW and HW divisions compared to past eras.

 

You can always find exceptions.

For example: Wilder has poor technique.

We're looking as a whole, generally speaking.

As a whole, across all divisions, it's clear that some divisions are stronger than they were in the past, and some were weaker.

So the question is:

At what point in time are you looking from?

The best fighters of today are really no better than the very best fighters of 20-30 years ago.

 

Wilder is not the number one guy though like Liston and Foreman. Joshua is. That is the difference.

 

This.


Didn't we already have this thread a couple weeks or so back?

 

LMFAO, your eyes and mind are playing silly tricks on you. Show they're getting "less skilled" holy ****.

Factually the talent pools are so much larger (when you have so much more of r world competing, it's harder to reach the top level) you would be hard pressed to have a single (ONE) valid point in your argument.

Depends which generation you're talking about. Of course there's certain generation that stick out more for their talent and vise versa but in reality it's common sense to conclude when you have double, triple or more of the world able to compete you on average far greater talent pools.

Back in the day, when they fought monthly, they were fighting sparring partner level opponents more often than not. The championship level fighters became much greater and much more difficult which means they couldn't be fighting back to back months, they actually needed training camps for each opponent.

Too subjective a topic for anyone to truly have a debate without personal preference meaning too much to each fan

 

There was more boxers in New York alone in the 1920's than there is in the entire world today. Cant remember the exact figures but it was much, much more.

 

Wilder is on top of the world now and has a big ego, but even guys like Bowe or Witherspoon would have been too good for him. He does not understand that he is in a weak era, but he is doing well in this era. But his attitude and saying he would beat Tyson is rather ridiculous.

 

Wilder could prove to be the number 1 guy. And even if he isn't currently, he's obviously one of the top guys.

So where's the progression?

 

Im sure the skill of fighters differs with time. Different golden eras here and there
But I think overall they were probably more skilled fighters back then and definitely more willing to brawl. Todays fighters are PRIZE fighters.

Either way I think with todays sports OVERALL are less skilled. Back then people were natural. Nowadays you have so many ways to push the limits with medical and steroids. I expect every single top fighter/athlete in the world to be either on something and straight up cheating or taking things to the highest level of juicing without tripping the test. Its killing all sports. All sport records especially in baseball. Its a shame.

 

The talent pool getting bigger doesn't matter if:

1. Fighters are fighting less often (even if the bouts are treated like sparring the consequences for skill are there)
2. Good trainers aren't passing on their knowledge
3. The best athletes are going into other more lucrative, less dangerous sports

You can pretty much look at any division from the 40's to the 90's and the contenders (never mind the champions) are more complete. Fewer fighters are good ring generals today, or can win a fight on their jab, or can fight on the inside. After the top talents the divisions are barren by comparison today. In past decades you'd have to ATG's as the top 2, 2 or 3 HOF fighters making up the next slots, and the #10 gatekeeper being as well-rounded as today's #3 or #4 guy.

Lets take one division over the years; welterweight.

Right now this is the rough landscape for the last and next couple of years:

Thurman
Spence
Crawford* (hasn't fought yet)
Porter
Pacquiao (old)
Garcia
Matthysse
Vargas
Horn
Alexander (or Khan, or Peterson, or Rios, or some undefeated untested prospect)

It's not bad, but compare it to the 90's (averages according to Ring):

Pernell Whitaker
Shane Mosley
De La Hoya
Felix Trinidad
Meldrick Taylor
Buddy McGirt
Vernon Forrest
Ike Quartey
Oba Carr
Campas

I mean Campas could feasibly beat Danny Garcia, let alone the rest. Any of the other top fighters in that decade would destroy any of the belt-holders today. Spence and Thurman are very good but they don't compare to MULTIPLE fighters of that era.

Let's move onto the 80's:

Sugar Ray Leonard
Tommy Hearns
Roberto Duran
Wilfred Benitez
Donald Curry
Marlon Starling
Lloyd Honeyghan
Pipino Cuevas
Nino La Rocca
Simon Brown

Speaks for itself.

The 70's:

The same top guys at the end of the decade plus:

Napoles
Palomino
John H. Stracey
Randy Shields
Bruce Curry

Again, your modern mid-tier contenders and even belt-holders aren't standing much of a chance against the former champs and contenders throughout that decade. The 60's:

Napoles
Emile Griffith

After that my knowledge on the fighters of that era is very incomplete, but do you have a comprehensive study to determine whether those fighters were far less skilled than today's?

I mean sure you could say all this is subjective but...are you really going to argue the multiple examples with regards to depth and skill era to era? You could maybe argue I should include Floyd and maybe Bradley since they came right before the current crop within the same decade, but one fighter doesn't dramatically alter the landscape. The division on the whole looks weaker for several decades going backwards. We could play this game for other divisions and it would come out similarly.

 

With the globalization of professional boxing in theory, at least, the pugilists should be better.

 

Bingo!

I was just about to post something similar, but not as in-depth.

It's a great post.

You can also do the exact same comparisons looking at the following divisions:

MW
SMW
HW

All of which should tell people that boxing just ebbs and flows, and it has done for some time.

 

Way less fighters in the world today. Far fewer trainers. The amateurs ranks are a tiny fraction of their former size.

Of course fighters aren't as skilled today. Fighters had better feel for the game at 23yrs old than modern fighters get in their whole career.

 

END OF THREAD