Arn't Boxers Nowerdays Better than past boxers.

no way :-(

 

The evidence that boxers have the potential to be better now, is much better than the evidence that people who believe the opposite are presenting:

"There ain't no throwbacks no more!"

"Heavyweight division is in bad shape, so newer boxers aren't better"

"Greatness knows no time limits" (what he **** does this mean for the actual question asked in this thread?)

What needs to be asked is not "are new boxers better than past boxers?", but "Do new boxers have the POTENTIAL to be better than past boxers?". The answer to teh first one is "We can't possibly know", the second one though.. is clearly YES.

And as to people who are saying "Most fighters these days couldn't go 15 rounds." WELL, you don't know that. You can't assume that. And if you say that you haven't seen a recent boxer that looks like he could, you're not looking very hard.

Look at Floyd Mayweather, he never looks tired after a fight, and always looks fresh and ready to go SIX more rounds, not just three!

And lastly, fighters today don't TRAIN to go 15 rounds. They train to go 12 rounds, at a faster pace. I'm sure they could rework their training plan, and their conditioning and physique to be ready to go 15 rounds instead of 12 or less.

 

Lucian Bute vs. Librado Andrade goes 15 rounds, what would have happened?

 

The argument that more people were boxers back in the day is valid in the sence that we maybe dont get to see as many good americans anymore. But boxing has become a world sport, and i think that Asia, Africa and Eastern europe makes up for the eventual loss coming from fewer american boxers.

If you remove the top tree from the records of Louis, Ali and Lewis. Who had then the best crop ? I dont know...

 

Why? If boxers are just getting worse then there's not much to look forward to is there...
Of course i see how money is negatively affected the sport but to a certain extent it has always been that way, reminds me of people complaining so much about foreign investers taking over English Premier League football clubs but that's a different matter. Surely some of the greatest recent boxers such as Mayweather, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins etc are being under appreciated.
Edit: Just thought I'd add, good post sambob, my line of thinking.

 

The passion for boxers of yesteryears was way greater compared today. Thats all I can say.

 

interesting comment, how do you judge this??

 

So do you think they are greater? Not convincing enough for me, the main argument I see against the modern fighters is that the fighters from the past fought more. Thats about it for me, but a good one at that.

 

That's just nostalgia, and old timers fought a different style. I think the top guys from today are superior in many ways to the guys of yesteryear.. yet certain people won't ever admit it.

On the top level, you have advanced nutrition, training, time, access to better sparring, etc.

 

Never man!! No more throwbacks, nowadays its just all bout the money!! They used to be, for the passion, glory, the fighter of the past i reckon had more hunger and desire. I feel boxing now is just totally business at least fighters before met each other and took risks, now the money has to right first. The fans got to see the fight they wanted and not some bull**** Legacy (Calzaghe) figting RJJ when he is at his worst, This fight should have been made 5 yrs ago. I could name lots more ................

 

**** no the old time boxers of the past make today's fighters look like wimps, guy's of today have the supplements, advanced nutrition, special trainers, creatine, andro, etc, and can't even barley go 12 rounds but in Ali's era fighters went 15 all the ****ing time:deal guy's of the past fought harder, longer, had more endurance, fought the best and were willing to fight hurt. and trained on steak and eggs, today it's all about the dollars, greed has killed this sport..guy's today want the least risk for the most $$$$$$$$$..

 

nope. not to be biased, but i honestly don't think a pw, margo, cotto, or floyd would be able to to beat a duran, srl, hearns, or hagler. would they be able to hang, of course, but honestly it has nothing to do with blindly favoring the classics. the oldies were just that good

 

Its hard to judge really. I would say that fighters now a days are better overall athletes. People are generally bigger and stronger now and have more advanced training to increase athleticism (power, strenth, speed) but this does not improve skill.

Like i said, boxers these days are better athletes but their is no noticable increase in skill. Infact you could say that the older fighters were generally more skillful (i know we have Mayweather, Calderon, Mijares, Whitaker, Jones, etc who are great technicians but im talking about all fighters in general)

The are two main reasons why the older fighters may be better than the newer ones;

1) Although fighters nowadays have better training techniques and equipment the older fighters were fitter in my opinion as they fought more rounds and more often. Like someone else said, most fighters these days can't fight 10 rounds. Many old timers never stopped throwing leather for 15 rounds and would then be back in the ring a month or two later doing the exact same thing.

2) Because boxer's in the old days fought more people and rarely ducked anyone they have much more experience of fighting different fighters with different styles than fighters of today do so overall they would be better equipped to handle different fighting styles. This is what i was eluding to before when i said the old fighter's may be more skillful.

 

The thing that seperates the boxers of the past vs the boxers of the "modern era" is activity. The best toady fight maybe once to twice a year. Ray Robinson fought 19 times in 1950. Kid Gavilan fought 15 times in 1950. Pep fought 11 -14 times in 1952. Homicide Hank fought 27 times in 1937. Today, if a top guy fights 2-3 times a year, he's considered extremely active .