At what point did modern boxers surpass old ones?

Better athlete does not = better fighter.. Are todays S&C coaches greater than than old school trainers - Blackbun , Dundee , Arcel etc?

Would Usain Bolt beat Two Tone Tony Galento?

 

Vitali lost to 3rd rate Ali impersonator Chris Byrd. Ducked the rematch.

Wlad got dropped , outboxed and was on the way to losing against 3rd rate Ali impersonator Darrel Williamson. He wasted no part of the rematch and filed a law suit to avoid it.

 

I think he'd still beat them. Prime Lennox would beat Ali though imo.

 

Are you joking? Vitali won 8 rounds of the 9 and retired because of a dislocated shoulder.

 

they didnt, they just suit the environment better of today.

 

1. They haven't really. It depends on the fighter. For example, Sugar Ray Leonard beats any welterweight today imo

 

Agenda’s are there quite obviously it seems. Byrd was a very talented fighter, but a 100% fit Vitali wins every round and ends it with a tko imo

 

Wlad, Vitali and Lennox all have enough to neutralise Ali,s work, might be an ugly fight, but imo they do it. Ali gets rag dolled at times with them

 

Vitali did go into the the fight 100% fit and healthy.

Byrd had only a weeks notice and had never seen ANY footage of Vitali going into the fight. All he knew was that his brother was beaten late the year earlier so used that as his gameplan. It worked and and exhausted Vitali tapped out in his corner.
The fact he wanted nothing at all to do with the rematch tells you all you need to know about who wins that fight more times than not.

 

Challenge.

This content is protected

Nutrition and exercise are an industries and like any have to sell their usefulness.

If man had improved, in anyway, what you're claiming there is evolution. No, the theory of evolution has not been proven. No, man has no adapted to a new form. Man is now capable of keeping man's less survivable forms alive. No one on the planet wants to go to bat for some form of adaptation based on dwarves, mentally ******ed, or physically deformed and we've loads of them. It's only the large man who people point to when claiming any form of evolution or adaptation and it's only mooks making the claim. Survivability is what has changed not the human form.

As far as talent and skills goes and has technology improved boxing. Has it really? Or is it something that reflects the market? in the three thousand years of boxing history I cover you too would notice one thing that's absolutely clear. Boxing is a cyclical sport because boxing and how boxers box reflects what their audience wants to see more than anything and man can't help but go through cycles. Boxing follows the same cycles as the society around it. When men wanted blood they got blood, when they wanted sport they got sport. Hell, it's a regional sport before it's international for a reason. Damn near every culture that boxes has its own style for a reason.

Is it really all that surprising that the same decade that gave us Iron Mike Tyson also gave us games like Mortal Kombat or Resident Evil, films like Silence of the Lambs, or music from Zombie and Manson? Is it technology that gave us the Satanic Panic or was that societal issue unique to certain society? Cuban boxing is different?

You'd be no more surprised than that to find the boxers during the industrial revolution are the first to be label scientific boxers and are the first to introduce some simple things like dieting and sparring, would you?

How about America being a backwater in the mid 1800s and our mid-1800s fighters being rough and tumble no holds barred fighters before breaking into true LPRR? We had slaves and barroom brawlers until more or less until Sullivan and the Queensberry rules.

How about simple things like defense. Defense and how the audience reacts to it is a real easy one to follow. Is it really surprising to find that in times and places where defense is acceptable there are more defensive fighters? For a time in America defensive fighting was held nearly exclusively between black fighters. Is that honestly a surprising anecdote given most of the black american fighters you've seen in the modern era are defensive fighters and black culture in america is historical in nature?

Finally, if boxing was progressive then the history of the progression should be spottable. I'm fairly certain that is the point of the thread. Point to a section, an invention, anything specific. Explain to me how the advent of electricity affected boxing. You damn near don't even notice it's happened when reading boxing history books. Ah, but a special pill and a new muscle relaxing tool, those are worlds apart from snake oil and fat melting jiggle machines. Those have changed the face of boxing forever and for the better. The Mueller belt totes made Marciano Marciano and what separates him from Ezzard, Archie, and the Joes. Those old fools ain't had no Mueller belt until it were too late. Nevermind the other Italian-American aspects of the era, it were technology and science all the up until twenty years later when it was proved that tech and science was bull**** and now new tech and new science is totes fo sho what makes boxing improve.

This content is protected

I could be wrong and I'm not real sure which angle you'd approach this from but I'm fairly confident I left enough to cover all angles. If you're going to claim science improves boxing you're going to have to point out when, where, and how because I've never noticed.

 

S&C is way more advanced now a days, easily, along with Medicine for injuries, Equipment, Garb etc. That does not make today's boxers any better than old school boxers. Old School boxers learned the fundamentals first and foremost then capitalized on where they felt most strong at and grew. Some of those fundamentals are lost with today's boxers. There are exceptions, I understand: Floyd, Toney, Whitaker, JMM. Those 4 have mastered the art of Fundamentals, put their twist on it, and used every bit to become some of the greatest boxers ever.

Those that agree that new school boxers are better than old school boxers answer this: Who in today's boxing world can you call greater than Ali, Pep, SRR, SRL, Duran, Louis, Greb, Langford, Armstrong and not get laughed at? Exactly.

I think Old school vs New school is more of a Need to Box to feed a family, pride, heart/determination (all Old School) vs a want to buy a new car, PPV numbers, Dollars makes sense (all new school). Need vs Want . When you need something you put all of you into whatever it is you are doing. Nothing else matters, nothing else breaks you concentration, you learn the skill inside and out. Start basic and grow. When you want something you work hard for it, no doubt, and once you obtain it, it's harder to maintain or keep because something else more useful comes along. Its so clear how the art has lost some of what it was founded on skill/fundamental wise.

That's totally my personal view. I may get butchered on this post and so be it. But look at the Top 10 greatest boxers of all time and tell me how many New School boxers have breached it? I'll wait...

 

It's a case by case scenarios imo. Joshua would beat previous guys and he'd lose to previous guys, it's just the way combat works.

 

IMO what defines a modern fighter is basically two-handed skills and very decent footwork. While what characterizes an Olde Tyme fighter is more or less a guy pawing with his left while trying to land a big right and moving himself around the ring with footwork that looks like a karate white belt. So it's not a specific time but when the average pro fighter has a well rounded skill set. Joe Louis was the proto modern heavyweight competing against Olde Tymers.

 

Fail

 

There is the human physical and psychological limitation factor to consider. There is no question we have "evolved" in the sense of acquiring a broader base of knowledge. This applies to boxing as well, but I think we've reached a point of diminishing returns. Intangibles aside, today's boxer holds a slight advantage that could be overcome on any given day under the right circumstances.