At what point did modern boxers surpass old ones?

This is really an exercise in absurdity. The sad thing is, I think you actually BELIEVE you are scoring points and making a great argument. Dunning Kruger effect in full sway. If this were a logic test, and I know them well, you would fail epically. Any independent, nonbiased, intelligent reviewer would see that your argument is filled with artificial distinctions, empty headed sophistry, and is utterly devoid of reason.
Answers are above in caps.

 

Why do you insist on answering in caps? Use the quote function, this isn't the stone age.

Skills are a fundamental aspect of the sport. You choose to ignore them like an idiot.

Being bigger at heavyweight is an advantage, nobody is arguing that it isn't. Pages back I said if your argument is that heavyweights have gotten bigger and have a size advantage then there's no need to continue. But obviously you want to reduce all arguments about the progression of the sport to size and discount any possibility of older greats beating modern bigger ones.

You failed (again) to counteract the argument that a bigger talent pool doesn't mean a richer one due to shrinking incentives and competition with other sports. "Artificial distinction" isn't an argument, it's a conclusion for which you've provided no proof. It's completely idiotic to expect a sport not to experience a decrease in talent when a smaller percentage of the talent pool, including the elite, will participate in it. To argue this is madness.

Saying something can't be 100% proven is meaningless in this kind of discussion and undercuts your own arguments. We're operating on consensus. If the skillset in a skill-based strategic contact sport decrease, the qualities of the fighters will generally decrease, even though size in the top division has increased. We can establish a consensus on that. If you won't bother trying, then I'm confused as to why you're so obsessed with continuing this debate and insisting that boxing can only get better. It's myopic, overly reductionist, unscientific, and stupid. No amount of flowery pseudo-intellectual artistry in your insults will change that fact.

 

Norton, Frazier, Ali, and Foreman can't beat Wilder or Joshua with their superior skills, apparently, because Wilder is bigger and the javelin throw record was advanced a couple of meters every couple of years.

Joe Louis, Max Schmeling, wouldn't stand a chance against Holmes or Holyfield because the complex technical chess match that constitutes sprinting has been surpassed by less than half a second in the last decade.

Leonard, Duran, Benitez, and Hearns couldn't use their excellent feints, jabs, footwork, and defense to defeat Thurman, Spence, and Crawford because the high jump, which consists of a run and hop just as skill-based and direct-contact and strategic as boxing, has evolved an entire .04 meters in the last 33 years.

Haye went the distance with Wlad and outperformed much heavier opponents because...random outlier! Same with Haye beating Valuev, Wlad losing to two men 15 pounds lighter at 6'2'' and 6'4'', and Tyson being outweighed most of the time in title fights.

Give me a break.

 

around the time discussion forums came about

 

I reply in caps because I can't use the quote function on my phone. Another feeble response on your part. You just aren't very good at this. Answers above.

 

Blatant mischaracterization and straw man arguments. All these points have been addressed ad nauseam earlier in the thread.

 

Ignoring skills in a skill-based sport is going to lead to a false conclusion, so by ignoring them you're already announcing that you have no interest in accurately assessing the sport.

"IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY FOR ANY PRE TYSON ERA HW TO BEAT ONE OF THE SHW ATG'S." This is the first time you've actually stated a clear hypothesis. Now are you going to substantiate this argument with anything other than size? Who are the SHW ATG's? The two Klitschkos and Lewis?

I'm glad you've given up trying to debate the progression of boxing outside of the Heavyweight division because you looked completely ridiculous doing so.

Not sure why you're telling me to re-read arguments about talent pool that I've refuted. Bigger does not mean better if the top end of a talent pool is going elsewhere. End of.

Just because skills have a degree of subjectivity to them don't mean they aren't relevant in an analysis of a fighter's quality. Nor are they so beyond perception that they can't be agreed upon in a consensus. I repeat the same things and instead of countering the argument you just say the same **** you said before that I already refuted. It's ridiculous. If I'm "not very good at this" you're **** poor.

 

Another fail. What must it be like to live in a world without facts and without logic? Must be fun. Tell me, in your world, is it just raw coincidence that HW's have gotten so much bigger, with the same kind of body specialization that occurs in sports with tangible records that have broken? Answers above.

 

This.

 

The size argument doesn't work outside the HW division. Also, all you need to do is watch fights from the 70's and 80's and see how much more skilled fighters were back then compared to today, and how much more stamina fighters had back then.

Fighters back then fought 15 rounds and finished almost just as strong as the first round. Fighters today are collapsing on their own after round 9.

 

So you think Ed Norton's performance in Primal Fear > Bogart's Maltese Falcon???

Or Elvis < Cobain ????

Certainly the music and film coming out today isn't ours, so I personally have a hard time getting in to the actors.

But Young Sheldon < Leave it to Beaver all day long.

 

As for the OP....
Late 60s-early 70s.

That said, depending on the weight class, I'm sure SRR, Louis, Marciano etc would be great fighters but Rock and Louis would probably be LHWs and SRR would be far better off fighting Thurman than GGG or Kovalev FFS.

 

Technology & sports science, money and PEDs are what have transformed boxing.

Technology & sports science in that it has allowed modern boxers to work smarter.

Money, in that it has allowed them to fight twice per year and have long camps as opposed to 26 times per year.

And PEDs, for obvious reasons.

 

less boxing has made them better boxers?