Are boxers better/more skilled today?

Without a doubt Canelo, Jacobs and Lemieux wouldn’t even be pro fighters in the 70’s - let alone top contenders! Those three fighters would not have the option of weighing in 36 hours prior to the fight and there was no 168lb division. They would’ve had to compete at 175 with Spinks, Foster, Qawi etc. and those were all 15 round fighters. Can you imagine Clenelo going 15 right rounds with Qawi at 175?

 

I am not inclined to believe these few (American) coaches know all the secrets and train fighters properly but the rest of the worlds boxing trainers are charlatans and impostors.
I'm sure Teddy Atlas actually believes he would show Lomachenko's pops where he's going wrong too.

 

Roach and Teddy have both praised Lomachenko. The Soviet amateur system gets a lot of praise and Roach also praises Golovkin's ring generalship in other interviews. But he's talking on a more general basis. Stand-out technicians existed in this era but we're talking skills throughout a division.

 

To me they sound like a bunch of guys looking out for their own interests by touting their methods over others. It is common to hear American boxing insiders and fans bemoan the decline of boxing but while USA may have lost the dominance they once enjoyed the rise of the eastern bloc, UK and other regions have grown strong.

I know everyone hates comparisons between boxing and other sports but Tennis today, like boxing, has seen constant increase in strength, power, size, etc. However, as far as entertainment goes a lot of fans preferred the Tennis of past eras with less big serves and more rally's and gameplay which showcased a wider array of skills. I suspect this may apply to boxing (particularly HW). Perhaps the product boxing fans enjoyed during America's glory days with the slick fluid movement or more varied skillets on display was better entertainment from a spectators point of view. However just as in Tennis, the better entertainment does not equate to the better boxing or better fighters.

ps. I don't want to come off as anti-yank. Most of my favourite fighters are American and I still consider USA as the home and hub of boxing. LONG LIVE DON KING! LONG LIVE BOB ARUM!

 

Thanks a lot for doing that.

Another outstanding post.

Who could argue against the above?

That's why it's so annoying when some people say that boxing keeps progressing each decade as a whole.

It's absolute nonsense.

The sport has progressed from its roots, but it doesn't keep progressing.

In my honest opinion, the sport as a whole has digressed.

People call me a nostalgia nut, but give me 15 round fights again with only 2-3 Org's, with less divisions and same day weigh-ins.

How has boxing improved since those days?

We now have 4 Org's, with Super belts and Silver belts etc, guys rehydrating by over a stone after the weigh-ins, and guys like Broner who can become a 4 division champion without having beaten anybody.

Boxing was better back when I was a kid.

It's been diluted.

 

I respect your tennis analogy, but how can the fighters be better today if they weren't as skilful as the guys of the past?

 

Great post.

I agree with all of the above.

People will argue that today's fighters and trainers now have video footage to study, from the likes of YouTube etc. But whilst that's true, it can never replicate working hands on with guys like Eddie Futch. There's a huge difference.

For many years, I've been telling fans that that many techniques aren't as common as they once were. Things such as:

In-fighting
Body punching
Double hooks
Uppercuts

Again, where's the progress?

Some fans will argue that they're not necessary. But why not? No new punches have been invented. The only thing we've seen is the number of rounds being reduced.

 

Similarly to how Serena Williams is better than Martina Hingis (swoon) - The Swiss Miss has the sexier, fan-friendly nuanced skill-set whereas SuperwoMAN Serena is superior albeit with a more streamlined skill-set.

I know who I'd rather watch play and I know who I'd bet on if they faced off, it is a different name for each question.

 

SuperwoMAN.

Ha!

 

If you take the top 10 p4p of each decade it looks balanced and even over the last century.

1920s
1. Harry Greb 2. Benny Leonard 3. Gene Tunney 4. Mickey Walker 5. Pancho Villa 6. Tommy Loughran 7. Jack Dempsey 8. Bud Taylor 9. Tony Canzoneri 10. Tiger Flowers
1930s
1. Henry Armstrong 2. Joe Louis 3. Barney Ross 4. Tony Canzoneri 5. Jimmy McLarnin 6. Freddie Steele 7. Panama Al Brown 8. Benny Lynch 9. Jack Berg 10. Kid Chocolate
1940s
1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Ezzard Charles 3. Willie Pep 4. Joe Louis 5. Ike Williams 6. Manuel Ortiz 7. Sandy Saddler 8. Billy Conn 9. Jake LaMotta 10. Marcel Cerdan
1950s
1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Archie Moore 3. Kid Gavilan 4. Rocky Marciano 5. Pascual Perez 6. Sandy Saddler 7. Gene Fullmer 8. Carmen Basilio 9. Joe Brown 10. Harold Johnson
1960s
1. Eder Jofre 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Carlos Ortiz 4. Emile Griffith 5. Fighting Harada 6. Nino Benvenuti 7. Vicente Saldivar 8. Ruben Olivares 9. **** Tiger 10. Flash Elorde
1970s
1. Roberto Duran 2. Carlos Monzon 3. Jose Napoles 4. Alexis Arguello 5. Miguel Canto 6. Wilfredo Gomez 7. Carlos Zarate 8. Muhammad Ali 9. Bob Foster 10. Yoko Gushiken
1980s
1. Sugar Ray Leonard 2. Marvin Hagler 3. Salvador Sanchez 4. Michael Spinks 5. Tommy Hearns 6. Julio Cesar Chavez 7. Mike Tyson 8. Aaron Pryor 9. Larry Holmes 10. Jeff Chandler
1990s
1. Pernell Whitaker 2. Roy Jones Jr. 3. James Toney 4. Evander Holyfield 5. Julio Cesar Chavez 6. Bernard Hopkins 7. Felix Trinidad 8. Ricardo Lopez 9. Oscar De La Hoya 10. Terry Norris
2000s
1. Manny Pacquiao 2. Floyd Mayweather Jr. 3. Bernard Hopkins 4. Erik Morales 5. Joe Calzaghe 6. Juan Manuel Marquez 7. Roy Jones Jr. 8. Marco Antonio Barrera 9. Rafael Marquez 10. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam
2010s?
1.Vasyl Lomachenko 2.Roman Gonzalez 3.Andre Ward 4.Terence Crawford 5.Gennady Golovkin 6.Floyd Mayweather 7.Sergio Martinez 8.Saul Alvarez 9.Sergey Kovalev 10.Guillermo Rigondeaux
Hmm, top two of 2010 are a little weak, but the rest are about par for the course.

 

Great post.

So where's the constant progress?

Why aren't today's best P4P fighters head and shoulders above the best fighters of the 80's, which was over 30 years ago?

It's just an other example of how boxing is a stand alone sport, which doesn't progress in the same way that some other sports have.

 

So you're saying virtually the greatest trainers in the US are all egotistical and aren't saying anything that comports with what we observe? Steward, Roach, Atlas were all taught by certified ATG trainers. They're opinion is worth something and they're citing fundamentals, not obscure training methods.

As I said, athletes may have become better, but that doesn't mean they're better boxers. Tennis never took the hit boxing did with respect to losing personnel and instructional methods. I mean, what would you argue the fighters of today better than the ones of yesterday did? What particular skills? I can name many that have declined but nobody seems to point out what has improved skill-wise.

Comparing the cream of the crop isn't the same as talking about the sport generally. Divisional depth, quality of contenders. It's the reason a modern great is going to have a hard time topping previous ones.

 

Of course Roach, Atlas et al are egotistical. Their opinion is worth something but they also make a living from boxing so touting their own methods whilst running down the competition is self serving.

I am not convinced boxers have improved nor declined, I am on the fence. I do suspect that the greater athleticism of modern fighters combined with their respective size advantages division on division gives them the upper hand H2H.

Don't you think it is possible that classic old school boxers still exist but just don't make it against superior athletes or more cynical styles rather than the theory that boxing coaches stopped teaching properly and the NFL stole all the talent?

 

^A thousand times this. People keep saying that boxing training has advanced. How precisely? In what way? No one will say. Has jogging, jumping rope, mitt work, sparring, and punching the heavybag changed? As far as I can see boxers still train exactly the same way. And in the ring the techniques appear to be all the same. I don't see a new style of jabbing, hooking, or uppercut. Although, I have heard that the stance might have changed a little. According to a film study on youtube of George Benton, modern boxers square up more and keep their head on the center line, whereas in older days their heads would be more off center.

This content is protected

So maybe the changes are too subtle for me to notice. I would like to say that boxing technology and equipment hasn't changed except we did make some alterations to the glove to lower the incidence of thumbing. Also, to be fair, weight training might help modern boxers.

I still think that a modern boxer can achieve as much as the old timers if he just has balls and makes the most of his opportunities. That means not fighting the Rod Salkas of the world and making every bout count. De La Hoya was very good in this regard. Only 45 fights but his dance card had Mayweather, Pacquiao, Whitaker, Hopkins, Chavez Sr, Trinidad, and Mosley on it. If he'd beaten them all that's maybe top 10 ATG status. It's more than Willie Pep accomplished. Might be more than Barney Ross.

 

I would be interested to know, where you have this number from?