Are modern boxers really fitter than in previous eras?

There’s also a “ghosting” effect that often occurs from the frontal lighting of flashbulbs and the grainy quality of old photography, both of which tend to wash out many values between extreme light and dark. This is exactly why white fighters often look pasty in old photos taken indoors but black fighters with their darker skin tones are less prone to this ghosting effect and tend to look pretty much exactly like their modern counterparts. (Google image search Tiger Jack Fox or Rubin carter and compare with Billy Conn or Tommy Loughran.)

 

Fighters of the day were typically cut down to a very very fine degree with very little body fat. If you look at prime examples of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Dempsey they we’re all extreme examples of ultra cardio athletes. Another marvelous example was Carpentier. There are some very clear training footage of Carp that shows astonishing physical development. Today the hwts don’t need to be in great cardiovascular condition as the distance is maxed out at 12 rounds plus the far greater ease to be a player with so many potential champions and challengers. One can make a living in the game and be a perineal top 40 (top ten) contender.

 

Yes. They are way more shredded and swole.

Case in point are the pencil necked geeks who fought for the heavy title in the 1920's.

 

Rather the opposite I would say.

When fights were scheduled for twenty rounds, you have to be extremely fit to be anything in boxing!

 

Not if you fight at a slovenly pace taking belts of brandy between rounds.

 

That depends. You have fit looking guys like Jack Sharkey. Then you have Gene Tunney who looks like he was sculpted from marble. Dempsey was shredded and muscular, which you can see best in the photos where he's flexing his back. Harry Wills looks amazing, no homo. George Godfrey is a tank. Young Stribling didn't have big muscles but was always in very good shape. They wouldn't be tall enough to fight above the cruiserweight division today mostly but they'd be fine light heavys or cruiserweights. Meanwhile, you have heavyweights like Tyson Fury or John Ruiz who aren't as fit as they were holding titles today.

 

I'm not sure that they were slower than today's boxers in terms of pace. Something tells me that we are more defensive minded, and they were more offensive minded. Therefor the old punch output might be higher. It's just a hypothesis but I think the jab might have been less utilized then or the common fighting range might have been closer. Alternatively, if the fights were slower, the range may still have been shorter, and there may have been more clinching. But the extra clinching may have required more stamina too.

 

Ruiz has modern functional athletic lard.

Don't you understand the difference between that and what Willie Meehan and Don Cockell were sporting?

 

Ruiz, Miller, Nichols, Esch ... all examples of thoroughbred athletic excellence impossible to achieve in "the old days".

 

Side by side photos of Tommy Gibbons and Duncan Dokiwari.

Duncan is way more swole.

 

Yes even then.

A marathon is run at a slower pace than a 10k, but it still ends up coming down to what is possible within the distance/time constraints.

If all that I have to do to become champion, is fight for twenty rounds at a faster pace than you, then I am going to do it!

 

I think you are beginning to understand.

 

As you say, we can only hypothesize about these things, as we have seen so few of the old non-champion/HOF boxers. We will never be able to actually PROVE any of the unsubstantiated claims being put forward in these old vs new discussions.

Out of curiosity... what is it that tells you, that today's boxers are more defensive minded than the old-timers?

 

I believe fighters from the past were much fitter, an example, the heavyweights. Fighters were dedicated back then, they did not have an extra spare tire around their midriff, like today. When they bounce, it looks blubbery. They do appear to lack conditioning, and it shows in the ring. Fighters used to keep their trainers, not change them like they change their clothes. Good sparring and roadwork used to be essential. Some talk more than they train, then some drive while intoxicated, or assault woman to get attention which is foolish, and disrespectful. Their time could best be used to prepare for their upcoming fight, not juvenile delinquent behavior. Yesterday's methods were more in line with discipline.

 

Probably just an impression from recently watching some old slugfests with tons of body shots and some new fights that are controlled at a distance by the jab. Like yesterday, I watched Spence vs Garcia and then LaMotta vs Murphy I and II.

Also, about a month ago I got into a discussion upstairs with a poster who thought guys like Robinson were garbage and that Lemieux would kick his ass because of better skills and physical training. I pointed out to him that guys like Gene Tunney from the 20s had plenty of skills. I think I directed him to the Gibbons fight and the fellow said something about the fighters guards being low. I have to admit, the guards were low, but I still don't think that made them inferior boxers, especially with all of the other exceptional traits on display. I tried to explain to the other party that maybe a lower more extended guard would give them some advantage in a time when there was more clinching, but he didn't want to hear it.

Boxing styles evolve over time and emphasize different traits. The footage I've seen of Langford vs Jeanette X and Johnson vs everybody was heavy on clinching and then throwing one shot at a time, sort of like Wlad. My understanding is that jabbing and combination punching grew more popular as the century aged, and people adjusted to rules that favored them, whereas in the 1880s you could maybe hold and hit or even hip toss an opponent. I figure the guards changed to reflect that. They probably switched to accommodate where the biggest threats were coming from.

I saw a clip of George Benton's stance where he's broken the center line with his head versus say Ricky Hatton standing straight on with an opponent shoulders squared up. The dude who made the clip says Benton wouldn't have to move his head as much but that it allows modern fighters easier bobbing, weaving, and side to side motions. He went on to show a picture of Robinson and Hopkins using the older stance and saying that it made the left shoulder the first line of defense, made your jab closer, and with your right further away you could generate more power, hence better offense. Makes sense to me.

This content is protected

Seems like everybody does that ear muffs hold the phone guard these days, but I could see how a lower guard with the body turned or something could be effective too. Like I read that Tiger Jack Fox would fight with his hands intentionally low and his chin sticking out so he could bate other fighters into targeting his chin and then he'd move it and counter. You don't always have to turtle up or do the peekaboo stance to be safe. Remember that crossed arm guard that Archie Moore used to do and which George Foreman adopted in his later career?