Are boxers better/more skilled today?

Oh ****, the real number is like 17,800. Where did I get that 70k number from? Was that amateur boxers in AIBA? I don't remember. If you check boxrec for active fighters who have fights in the last 365 days, between men and women it's been around 20k for the last decade or so. I remember looking up the numbers one time to try and determine the talent pool for comparing mma to boxing and football. At the time there were more than seven times as many boxers as mma fighters. I think there were about 1,700 players in the NFL, 12,500 college Division I players and maybe 70 or 80,000 college players in the US. Maybe, that's where I was pulling 70k from?

Thanks for correcting me. That was a massive oversight on my part.

 

That's similar to how I see the question.
I don't look at the fighters of each era as much as what are they doing in their era.
And since Jack Johnson was doing hooks, uppercuts, clinching on the inside, there isn't really a new way of doing an over hand or a jab.

Plus yesterday's fighter did take shots with lighter gloves. So while HW's get bigger a WW is still a WW.
With one exception: There wasn't Super class..meaning they didn't know about catchweights.
Either you fought in a class weight or U didn't.

Today there are so many catchweight champs..that the most I can say is today's fighter have better access to vitamins, superkickazz-Ariza-special shakes, nutrionists, steroids, PEDS...
Back in the day they drank blood ate raw eggs, just wild stuff that I don't know if it worked or not.

 

No, I don't think so. Where are they? The closer a fighter is to being oldschool, like Floyd and Ward, the more success they have. Same with the pressure fighters like Golovkin. The fundamentals work. A lot of young champions today fail to be dominant because of some glaring weakness. Being a good athlete is just part of what makes a good fighter. Skills make the difference. Again, I can point to general lack of ability in certain areas but people can never quantify what skills have improved.

 

Might be worth it's own thread just to pointedly ask that question.

 

Only if they are on Clenbuterol

 

I'm sure I read there was over 40,000 boxers in New York alone in the 20's. If that's true New York in the 20's had twice as big a talent pool than there is world wide today. Do you agree ?

 

Much more boxers in New York alone back in the 20s, than in the entire world today? I have never seen any numbers to support this - and I must admit, it sounds highly unlikely (at least to me!). Any chance you might have a link, to where you have read this?

 

Being a good boxer (as in wide array of pugilistic skills) is just part of what makes a good fighter. Size makes the difference.
I can't point to specific improved boxing skills because that isn't what I see or believe. I lean towards modern fighters being superior h2h because I suspect the advancements in physical manipulation have overcome any diminishing or narrowing of overall skill-sets.

 

Which one would you rather Muff after they've finished facing off ?????

 

Hmmm a toughie… I think I'll go for the sergio-tacchini plastered goddess rather than the Dereck Chisora lookalike.

 

Ha, very good

 

Size makes a bigger difference at heavyweight. But look at the best fighters of the last decade; Floyd, Pac, JMM, Hopkins, Rigondeaux, and to an extent Ward. All smaller than their primary contenders and cut less weight, allowing for more time developing skill and less time on the treadmill or in the sauna.

If you’re going to take that leap of faith and assume greater conditioning will trump a loss of skill, I can’t do much about what you choose to believe, but I would point to great athletes getting outsmarted by superior technicians as proof that the opposite is more likely.

 

Would you believe my favourite fighter is Toney and favourite heavy is Bowe? I do appreciate boxing fundamentals and don't think all it takes is be bigger, stronger and faster. I just put a little more stock in size and other physical advantages than you do, I don't expect boxers to be replaced by cross-fit athletes, I, like all sane boxing fans bet my life on Floyd stopping McG. I do appreciate boxing skills.

 

We’re not too far apart then, I just wonder which eras you would point to as weaker and why. Do you not agree there has been a skill decline?

 

I tend to believe the (performance level of the) sport constantly improves, allowing for various ebbs and flows, with the collective knowledge and experience gained.

I can agree we may have seen a decline in "skills" but I don't accept that this is the result of bad coaching or ignorance on the part of trainers. I believe we are watching more stripped down styles that may not look as flashy but gets results regardless. Just like the multi-talented Hingis couldn't hang with the physicality of Serena I don't think Ezzard Charles could compete with Joshua.


How dumb will you look and feel later tonight when The Price Gun laughs at lil Povetkins puny attempts to box and flattens him with his huge mass?