are current boxers of today better than boxers of yesteryear?

Borderline contenders today would wipe the floor with most of the champions 50 years ago.

If you disagree, then you probably lack a basic understanding of life in general. Hope that helps

 

Has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. As a general rule though no, in fact it'd probably be safe to say that the general level of competition is worse.
I mean, are we talking about the Elite fighters or just general run-of-the-mill filler?

People look back and view the past with some serious Rose-Tinted Glasses, but the sport will always be full of the no-hopers, the alcoholics, the guys just looking for a paycheck, the just-not-good-enoughs. Even some of the top guys fought, and have padded their records, with absolute trash WHILE they were at the top. If you're a top guy you can look REAL good fighting a can... enough to make a legacy.
Then you can look at their physiques, but what do you learn? How is a 160 lbs. guy today different from a 160 lbs. guy from 60 years ago? They're not, they're both 17X lbs. two days before the weigh-in, some less because they used to have same-day weigh-ins but the point being that there's only so much muscle and conditioning you can cram into 160 lbs.

 

Gotta love people who post that, "I know, if you don't agree, you have no knowledge of the sport!" ****... usually blow hatrds who'll be gone anyway.

Thanks for adding your vast knowledge to the sport!! :thumbsup

 

the theory of better training techniques sounds good, but if it were true how do you explain todays fighters fighting less, at slower pace, and not demonstrating the stamina that fighters of the past had. and we dont have to go that far back.

 

Who is Joe Lewis?

 

i think some would be great in any era and could compete they fought more rounds but there comp propbly wasnt as defined as today as pro boxing and i mean alot of fighters back then did it for a job and not for the sport so most of them probly werent as motavated as today with the money they could earn and it being a glory sport do i think sugar ray could hang with jones imo i dont think so but i dont think there was anyone at his best that could really compete with him

 

I have to agree here.

There were a few exceptions with skills beyond their generation (SRR), but for the MOST part, the elite fighters of today have an overall more solid skillset than the top boxers of yesteryear (70's or earlier I'd say).

NOTE I said NOTHING about Mentalities. Most fighters today are too concerned about everything OTHER than proving who's the best in the ring once they get 7 figures or more in their bank account, whereas the best genarally fought the best back in the day. Alot of boxers now think their bigger than the sport that made them once they a little cash. It's becoming ridiculously annoying.

 

Depends on how you rate it. Boxing has evolved considerably. If you could scientifically have two side by side fights with both men "fresh" and one fight under modern rules and one under past rules I would say that they might just even out.

In the old days boxing contained a lot more grappling and "mauling". Boxing now is a refined almost pure striking art. Those refinements make boxing a bit more damaging specifically to the brain.

In short I think the precision punchers/boxers would do well in the modern era and the swarmers brawlers would do well in the past era. I think on average though the past era guys just were more fit in general though.

 

No

 

Fighting now is a lot more damaging. Watch an old film and there is a lot of grappling and endurance type work (15 rounds). Also guys jumped right on each other after knock downs. In a way this actually saves guys.

 

Fighters were flat out tougher because they fought more and had way more ring experience than todays fighters...As a few on this thread have already pointed out, their hard work and techniques paved the way for todays fighters....P4P, they were tougher...

The world population, 'the talent pool', has nearly doubled since the 50's and people are flat out bigger now than they used to be...Jack Dempsy and Rocky Marciano would be cruiserweights, as would a number of HW champions...But, this is where PED's can't be ignored because they have changed all sports, whether banned or not...HGH and Steroids make people bigger and stronger and those effects are fairly permanent, especially if taken at the right time of life...So bigger talent pool, bigger people, and the advantage of being able to play Mother Nature...It means more heavyweights...P4P, I'll still put my money on the guys who earned their abilities the hard way....

 

Really? Wake up to reality. Today's boxers easily beat old timers

 

The old timer's myth....

 

Well, I think when people compare from other eras they're really comparing resumes and how each individual fighter faired in their era, because in the absense of fighters having like opponents...it's impossible to tell.

Having said that, it's impossible to say. I haven't seen too many Sugar Ray Robinson tapes but his workrate, even in old age, was pretty impressive. George Foreman in the 70s would still be ridiculously heavy handed today. There's other examples of this in boxing history.

Finally, athleticism isn't the end-all in boxing. There have been plenty of really good fighters who've beaten far more athletic fighters. For example, Jermain Taylor was much more athletic than Kelly Pavlik(and Winky Wright and Arthur Abraham)...and even with all the athletic advancements, a guy like Jermain has athletic deficiencies(agility for one).

In the end, it really just depends.

 

I used to subscribe to the advancement of sports with time. And while I still think that's true for football (Argentina of 1986 would absolutely wipe out Brasil of 1958), I have come to realize that boxing skills have in general declined quite a lot.
If you think otherwise you haven't *really* watched the fighters of old.