Are the Old Timers (X Date-1960s) less skilled than the Modern Boxers?

Re: "Are the Old Timers better? Or not?"

The answer I believe is that some were and some were not. As examples, I think Floyd Mayweather would have defeated Willie Pep, Joe Louis would have beaten Oleksandr Usyk, and I believe that Joe Gans would have been great in any era.

 

I agree with @Shay Sonya 's take, there's no era that's entirely and necessarily better than the other, because form each era there will be atleast 1 fighter that could compete in any era ever.

 

Mayweather might have beaten Pep based on his size advantage but Pep was a better and more skilled fighter, period, and didnt need bull**** demands, cherry picking, and steroids to get there either.

 

I think the average fighter is more skilled today, but the very best then are more skilled than anybody today.

 

Is Boots Ennis more skilled then Emile Griffith… Is BOOTS ENNIS more skilled then Emile Griffith?

 

Yes, I think modern boxers are more skilled. If you took every journeyman and gate-keeper type of fighter and compared them across eras, you'd see journeymen getting gradually better and more refined with a wider array of tools. At the championship level the skills are already so refined that the improvements there are much harder to notice though.
But a guy like Stanley Ketchel was great for his time, but put him up against Janibek Alimkhanuly and Ketchel would get turned inside out by Janibek's feints alone, since Ketchel's style is a product of its time and now looks ungainly and ineffective. Fighters learn what's most effective from previous generations, and techniques are refined and tinkered with to make them more viable. Coaches and fighters pass down the most viable ways of fighting and boxing becomes increasingly more efficient. I do find it pretty strange that boxing fans seem to be practically the only sports fans who will argue vehemently that its practitioners from over half a century ago are better than the ones we have today who have the amenities of modern sports science, medicine, and countless hours of footage of great fighters and great coaches to learn from.

 

It's because Joe Louis hasn't been surpassed in punching technique, SRR is still the epitome of a great fighter, Pep, Benny Leonard, Duran, Ray Leonard, Hagler, Jofre, Napoles - these are fighters that exceed most modern champions in their weight classes significantly.

Whilst I concede that the average fighter will be better than that of 100 years ago, the loss of boxing gyms up and down the country, the loss of great trainers and the move to the pitty patty pad work and sparring that can resemble ABA style amateur boxing means that point scoring styles of boxing has significantly increased. The loss/decrease of infighting skills, ring generalship and quite a lot of hand check and parrying and same hand counter skills is quite evident to me.

 

This will be a debate till time ends.

 

I agree with this take.

When you get into the highest level of boxing, that's where you obtain skills that will be worth for many generations to come.


The high levels of fundamentals already started to implement itself as the era goes by ,jabs ducks and such already started to become more common,but again,only the greatest of their era could implement those skills into their highest potential,I believe that ATG's and some crops of HOF'ers got the full pack of the fundamentals and maxed em out with their own ways.


Joe Louis was your basic example of a great modern fundamental user,punch technique perfected to deliver maximum power with economic movements .


Then you have Roberto Duran,fighting from the rugged streets of Panama,he met Freddie Brown that would give him the basic fundamentals of boxing and infighting, Duran would use those fundamentals to build perhaps the most vicious style in boxing ever.



SRR was a different case,granted with great speed,reflexes and all around talent,he would build an aggressive yet technical style that uses the full power techniques of Louis and the footwork of Willie Pep.

 

No

 

It depends on how far back in history You go and also what types of skills You look at. You can have fighters who have great in-fighting skills, but limited boxing skills and vice versa. You have fighters with great defensive skills, but more limited abilities when it comes to offence etc.

To me, it's pretty clear that the infighting skills have eroded with time. It's difficult to learn and takes some time to master, so my theory is most young guys today have patience or mentality for it. I couple times came across random fights from the 50s or 60s involving guys that I never heard about and who - as I later checked - never even fought for world title and the level of mastery They showed in close quarters was stunning to me. You very rarely see it today even on elite level.
On the other hand, guys today certainly look more explosive and dynamic. It's something You see in other sports too - Volleyball, Basketball, Football. Training science when it comes to resistance training came a long way in the last couple decades and You see the effects of it.
I'm not sure if it really makes guys better on average overall. I have a theory it comes at a cost. The day has 24 hours today like it used to have, You can only put that much time into training and if You put more emphasis on physical side of the game, it has to come at a cost in other aspects of the game.

In terms of matching fighters from different eras - the guys are much bigger now. Not only the Heavyweights, but in every other division too, due to change of time of the weigh-ins and the new weight-cutting techniques. That makes matching up fighters from different eras tricky, in my view.

 

I have the same impression, sir.

 

While the infrastructure for boxing in the U.S. has no doubt declined (as has the once stellar U.S. amateur programme), the level of the elite of the elite out of the U.S. still remains at a very high caliber technically, and not at all noticeably worse or less versatile than past champions imo. Crawford, Mayweather, Shakur, Ward, Hopkins, Toney, Keyshawn, Fulton, and possibly Bam Rodriguez are all very gifted and technically nuanced pugilists who would fit into any era. Plenty of them are excellent hand-fighters, inside-fighters, and control the ring wonderfully.
Technique evolves to adapt to the times, amateur boxing has favoured point-scoring for decades now, the gloves, rules, and crowds don't allow for much inside or hand fighting anymore and even when fighters are skilled on the inside or in the clinch, the fans usually decry it as boring and hugging. This doesn't mean that skilled inside fighters still exist or even that the best inside fighters of today are considerably worse than the best inside fighters of yesteryear on a technical level, it just means it's less prominent because it's become less necessary and controlling the action from the outside and scoring points are more rewarded by the fans and judges.
The decline of U.S. boxing has meant the sport has become more international with many top fighters out of Cuba, former Soviet states, and East Asia getting bigger opportunities on the world stage which has allowed for more interactions between coaching styles internationally and has meant fighters can pick up on new techniques they wouldn't have seen otherwise. Jorge Linares was raised in Venezuela, turned pro in Japan, and was trained by a Cuban. And you can see that unique blend of coaching and techniques in his style (were it not for his durability and propensity for cutting, I do think he would have achieved greatness but hey ho). How many fighters in the 70s were doing the extreme angle shifts and pivots that have been popularised by Pacquiao and Lomachenko? How many 70s fighters would pendulum in and out or foot feint to the level of a Dmitry Bivol? Techniques change and grow to adapt to the times but, for the most part, the wheat is kept and the chaff is tossed away.
The fighters you've listed have all been extensively mythologised to the point that many people don't even care to watch them and uphold them of paragons of perfect technique. But Floyd Mayweather had a better right hook than Louis did for example. Louis telegraphed his right hook and would pull it back with a noticeable wind-up. You can even notice some of his opponents see the punch coming but were too slow to duck, brace, or head turn before it landed. Whereas Mayweather whipped his right hook, maintaining proper balance and starting the punch out of his guard to mask it better. He landed 10 right hooks in succession against another top fighter in Miguel Cotto in fact, all with balance and proper punching technique. Robinson himself often struggled against inside fighters like Lamotta, Turpin, Fullmer, and Basilio because he wasn't all too comfortable fighting there. He much preferred fighting on the outside and was often a bit squeamish about fighting on the inside because that wasn't his wheel-house. SRR had flaws, all fighters have flaws. There's always going to be something they can't do that well, but as time goes on, more and more fighters are taught more things and how to do them to a good degree after generations of experimentation and discovering what does and doesn't work and how punch mechanics work. These fighters are people, not myths, and none of them are, were, or ever will be perfect. But they always have the chance to learn, and plenty top fighters have spent plenty of time studying those men and picking out bits of their craft to adopt which still survive.

 

Honestly though,I think you can theoretically bring back the ring craft and infighting if the refs were...less lenient.

Kind of unfortunate but it's definitely a safety issue imo, compare how Richard Steele stops Taylor in the last 2 seconds to Arthur Donovan reffing Zivic vs Armstrong I,back then,because of the more loose rules fighters eventually learnt to pull off sneaky tricks to hurt their opponent a bit more efficiently,like low blowing at a super close range with almost no indications it really happened (except the pants moving).


And with boxing fans current standards of a good ref,the game of roughhousing had small chances to be revived again imo.