Are Fighters In Better Shape Nowadays?

Yes, I do understand, where you're coming from.

And I don't blame people for thinking, that the old-timers were better conditioned - because we've all been told, they fought so incredibly often! Sometimes with only a couple of weeks (or even less) between matches. Sure, we can go back and find boxers with insane schedules (like Greb!) - but on average, boxers "back in the day" weren't really that busy.

For example 100 years ago, boxers that were active in 1925 fought ON AVERAGE only 3.17 times during that year. Not an awfull lot, and probably not (IMO) enough to justify the "generally better conditioned throughout the year" claim.

 

Not sure how this thread is still continuing. There is no question that fighters today are NOT better conditioned.

 

There’s 1 guy going round in circles.
He’s been posting on here for several pages, the only on on “that” side and his posts don’t even get “likes”.
But he still keeps going round in circles.

 

That’s fine.

Yes, not everybody had Greb’s schedule.

You can also pick out specific years, like you’ve done with 1925.

But if you were to research every year/decade, you’ll definitely see that on average they fought more.

So again, on average, they had to be better conditioned throughout each year, just due to being more active.

So it’s just circumstances.

I don’t believe that an average WW-MW back then was better conditioned than Terence Crawford.

Not when they were both fully fit.

But they would have been better conditioned throughout the year, as Terence doesn’t fight that often and has a lot of down time.

That’s all I was saying.

I wasn’t saying that they were better athletes.

Only that their circumstances were completely different.

The fact that Ray rematched Jake after 3 weeks, still fascinates me. That was just insane. A 3 week turn around.

 

Yeah, that’s crazy. At 3 weeks you’ve barely started healing from the trauma of a fight at that level. Those guys were tough for real. They didn’t train to become tough, they started out hard men.

 

He had a fight with Jackie Wilson before the rematch that went 10 rounds too, the rematch was a week after it, 30 rounds in 3 weeks

 

I don't know. What I do know is they had a different idea of what being "in shape" meant and regardless of height favored skinnier builds.

In terms of your Greb era and earlier guys the thing that gets left out of this equation is their fights tended to be noticeably shorter on average. Theres a lot of 6 and 8 rounders even 4 rounders that top fighters were having. Today every fight of consequence not involving Tyson Fury is 12 rounds.

 

Another thing that was different culturally back then in America, don’t know if it was different elsewhere, was fist fighting was common among young men. We knew who the best fighters were on the school grounds or neighborhood. I remember it being a big deal when 2 guys with a reputation got in a dust up. Boxing and wrestling were part of my jr. high physical education class. Most found out early if they were built for combat. Some of the good ones naturally made a career out of it.
That culture no longer exists. That’s why you have grown men thinking they can fight cause they toss around some weights. Till they run into someone who can actually fight. We found out early if we could fight or not. It’s a much softer every day existence for young men today. Bullying and fighting were just how things were, and you found your place in that system naturally.
I’m sure the difference in environment makes for different mindsets.

 

I think you and I are about the same age - I’ll turn 53 this year. My elementary school principal would actually have two kids box each other if there was a conflict! I still remember the principal, Mr. McAfrey, having me bring my old garage sale boxing gloves to school to settle with a class bully. The principal came to our classroom while it was in session and took us both out to the yard to settle things. I was scared shitless but couldn’t punk out knowing that all the other kids knew what was happening. Turns out neither of us could really fight and I landed the only punch - a straight left to his mouth. As soon as I hit him a bunch of saliva came out of his mouth. It was like he was saving up his spit for some reason. Mr McAfrey wasn’t too impressed by either of us, but with me landing the only punch of the fight it was enough to give me bragging rights and go back to class rightfully claiming I won.
Can you imagine what would happen today if a principal took two kids out of class to literally go fight while he referees?

 

The world would stop rotating.
In high school our dean of discipline would give us a choice if we got caught fighting. 3 days suspension or 3 swats with his wooden paddle. We took our swats and got back to the business of being youngsters. Nobody freaked out if you got a shiner or a split lip. That level of toughness was expected in strong young men. It would’ve been humiliating to have your mom show up cause you got a few lumps in a scuffle.
Different times.

 

Yep, a wooden paddle was also used by Mr McAfrey. And there was even a SMOKING SECTION during my freshman year of high school, but it was done away with that same year.

 

Yeah, I was in a photo journalism class so took lots of photos of me smoking on campus thinking I looked cool, lol. And the way I dressed, smh. I look at them today and think “what a dork “.

 

When you say "better shape" do actually mean better cardio? They are in just as good shape as they were, they are in a different kind of shape however.

 

Hmm... you may be right!

Maybe I have picked a year (1925) that isn't really representative of the whole decade. If I this way have (unintentionally!) sold the old-timers short, I apologize.

I can understand, that this is something you have researched... so if my 3.17 is way off, can you educate me on what number you think, gives us a better understanding of what went on in the 1920s? I'm not asking for an exact number - more like a ballpark number, that you feel is more realistic for the decade as a whole, than my 3.17. Is it more in the neighbourhood of 4... or maybe 5 or 6? I would really like to know!

 

Why is that you *****?

When one questions something one should resolve and resolute in the same breath, otherwise no wisdom is proven.