At what point did modern boxers surpass old ones?

You're completely ignoring my arguments which show exactly why the boxing talent pool and the Javelin talent pool would experience totally different shifts. We're not just talking overall number of competitors but top athletes having similar or dissimilar incentives to compete in each sport over time.

I'm making an argument based on observable footage. You haven't even bothered to engage the argument to begin with. The jab has never been so effectively before? What heavyweights today have jabs as good as Louis, Ali, Holmes, or Wlad? Wilder and Joshua? And which of their opponents have demonstrated excellent head movement and swarming ability when not facing a fighter with a particularly good jab? You've made a claim and now you have to back it up, good luck.

You argument is that every sport has improved, therefore boxing has also. That's not a fact, that's an unsupported conclusion based by nothing. Simply stating it like a fact doesn't make it one. I'm actually pointing to observable evidence within the actual sport in question for my arguments. I like how you ignore the fact that boxing as a strategic multi-faceted skill sport with direct contact can't be compared to high jump or javelin or other purely athletic competitions.

The fact that you cling to that theory is what undoes your argument's credibility, because boxing has absolutely not undergone any sort of body type specialization across the board as other sports have. The dimensions of each divisional champion & top contenders are varied and their styles are distinct from one another. Tyson dominated bigger men, Wlad lost to smaller men, and Valuev, the biggest tallest Heavyweight to ever live, was beaten by smaller men. Size matters more for the heavyweights, sure, but that doesn't mean the sport of boxing is creating a new generation of undoubtedly superior fighters for each decade that passes. That's absurd.

 

It’s always strange to read somebody with the exact opposite take on something as yourself- in this case the OP is the opposite of my take (and yours too, apparently). I started a thread a few weeks ago asking if peds didn’t really seem to affect boxers the way they do in other athletes. In other sports you can see a direct correlation to the rise of peds and and ages, sizes, speed, records etc being improved upon. But in boxing that’s not the case- the old guys are still standard bearers for true greatness. I have no idea how the OP can look at boxing, know that modern day fighters no longer fight 15 round fights, no longer have same day weigh ins and fight far more often! And they had anywhere from 3-5 less weight classes!

 

No, I've completely refuted your arguments and you simply lack the intellectual firepower and honesty to appreciate and accept it.

You keep trying to make artificial distinctions, but they simply aren't logical. I'm not going to keep repeating myself endlessly as you do. But you are struggling greatly with distinguishing facts from opinions and understanding what logical deductions can spring from. So I'll help you a bit

FACT: Every observable sport has improved
FACT: Many of these sports have little in common with each other
FACT: Most have seen sizes of top competitors expand over the years
FACT: boxing can't be observably tracked (sorry, but again, your "observations" are simply opinions)
FACT: Size is so important in boxing that they divide it into weight classes
FACT: The size of HWs has increased in a similar manner to what seen in the tangible sports that have improved demonstrably.
Deduction: HW Boxing is overwhelmingly likely to have improved through performance as well.

You and others don't like it I know. You can make false or specious distinctions or conflate facts with opinions and ignore logical deductions all you like. But it doesn't change the fact that if this were a logic test, you would fail.

 

Also, good job with the straw man arguments. Your last paragraph is composed of attributing arguments to me that I never made, and often that I specifically said otherwise. I'd accuse you of gamesmanship, but at this point I think you're simply too stupid to understand what I said earlier.

I also love how you contradicted yourself by arguing body types haven't changed, and then admit hw's have gotten bigger in the same paragraph. That takes a special kind of stupid.

Again, talent pools.

 

This content is protected

 

Most of this is just made up bs. PEDs have nothing to do with overarching trends of history. Did records spike in the 80s with massive ped use? Sure. But records have been constantly broken and athletes have been getting constantly bigger. Has the sport changed? Sure. Many sports have. You are imparting a normative quality onto those changes as they relate to performance that simply doesn't exist, however.
Maybe you can answer something that bozo refuses to answer. If size is meaningless in boxing, why are fighters so much bigger?
Why have hw's grown in the same way that participants in other sports have? When those other sports habe seen tangible improvements? Coincidence? It must be nice to live a life where you can just ignore facts, data, and reason that doesn't comply with how you want to see the world.

 

Pardon me. HUMAN centered sport.

 

This content is protected

Also, in golf where technique is more important than physicality, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and Sam Snead seem to consistently top the record books above moderns such as Tiger Woods.

Most Wins In Playoffs

• 14 playoff wins - Arnold Palmer (overall playoff record 14-10)
• 14 - Jack Nicklaus (14-10)
• 12 - Sam Snead (12-5)
• 11 - Tiger Woods (11-1)

Most Consecutive Years With a Win
Golfers who won at least one PGA Tour event the most years in succession:

• 17 years: Jack Nicklaus, 1962-78
• 17 years: Arnold Palmer, 1955-71
• 16 years: Billy Casper, 1956-71
• 
  
• Most Wins By Golfer in His 30s
  
• This record is for the most wins on the PGA Tour by a golfer from age 30 through 39:
  • Arnold Palmer - 44 wins
  • Ben Hogan - 43
  • Jack Nicklaus - 38
  • Sam Snead - 37
  • Byron Nelson - 35
  • Billy Casper - 34
  • Tiger Woods - 33

 

The world record was broken in 1991, man.

It was an iconic performance though. Noteworthy for being one of the most enduring records (partly for the barely legal high altitude of the jump).

I'm sure if you dig hard enough, you can find some tangible record somewhere that hasn't been broken. But, that's the whole point, its virtually unprecedented. You know what they say, the exception proves the rule.

 

Nope on the golf part. Golf is like boxing. You are competing against each other, no opportunity for a tangible, discernable record that tracks pure performance.

 

The reason that the world record was broken by two inches in 1991 but the Olympic record never has been is drug testing. Bob Beamon was a very special kind of cheater, advanced for his time, a visionary even like those 1980s Russian track chicks. It's probably physically impossible to do that kind of jump without drugs. Same goes for ****ing Secretariat. Right after Secretariat thrashed everybody the racing world threw up their hands and said, "You know, it's time we started testing everybody."

 

So I guess you wouldn't accept soccer either?
Most world cup titles: Pele '58,'62,'70
Most goals: Pele 1,279
Most hat tricks in a career: Pele 92
Most goals in a season: Dixie Dean 60 1927-28
Most goals one world cup: Just Fontaine 13 1958

Or perhaps something from NBA:
Most championships: Bill Russell 11 Celtics 50s and 60s
Jordan and Kareem only got 6
Kobe got 5 and Lebron has 3

In Cricket a popular worldwide sport like boxing the biggest records seem to be held by a batsman named Don Bradman who retired in 1948. From wikipedia: He scored the most runs in a series, has the most double centuries and was a part of the record 5th wicket partnership. His most significant record is his batting average of 99.94. One of cricket's most famous statistics,[13][14] it stands almost 40 runs higher than any other batsman's average. Don Bradman is the only player in the world to have scored 5000 runs against a single opposition: 5028 runs against England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Test_cricket_records

Then there's baseballs Ty Cobb:
Cobb is widely credited with setting 90 MLB records during his career.[3][4][5][6] His combined total of 4,065 runs scored and runs batted in (after adjusting for home runs) is still the highest ever produced by any major league player. He still holds several records as of the end of the 2017 season, including the highest career batting average (.366 or .367, depending on source) and most career batting titles with 11 (or 12, depending on source).[7] ...He still holds the career record for stealing home (54 times) and for stealing second base, third base, and home in succession (5 times), and as the youngest player ever to compile 4,000 hits and score 2,000 runs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Cobb

I recently heard a lot of fanfare about Courtney Dauwalter running the Moab 240 ultramarathon in just 57 hours but back in the 1700s Foster Powell and others were walking from York to London and back 396 miles in six days.

"A later pedestrian, Thomas Savager, walked 404 miles from Hereford via Leaminster to Ludlow in 1789, and in October 1811 another pedestrian called Rimmington reputedly walked 480 miles/772 km in six days in Holt in Dorset. In 1824 the pedestrian Macgowal made a wager to walk 400 miles in 5 days 12 hours. This challenge was probably a response to John Phipps Townsend breaking Foster Powell’s record and taking just 5 days 14 hours and 50 minutes to walk from London to York and return two years earlier."
https://planetultramarathon.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/the-history-of-the-6-day-race/

Edward Payson Weston walked 500 miles in 6 days back in 1874. Modern people are pussies.

Still not seeing the 19th century Scandinavian fellow I'm looking for who made a living wagering that he could run across Europe in short time periods.

This is fascinating: "The six day record continued to creep ever upwards under the pressure of the sustained international competition. Frank Hart ,the professional name of Fred Hichborn, perhaps the first major African-American ultrarunner, regained the six day record for the States in 1880, after Blower Brown had taken it in mid-1879, and in 1881 his fellow Americans John Hughes, Robert Vint and finally Patrick Fitzgerald edged the record ever closer to 600 miles. In February 1882 Rowell returned to the scene in earnest. At the Madison Square Gardens, New York in a blitz start he set new world bests for 100 miles (13:26), 24 Hours (150 miles) and 48 hours (258 miles/415km), reaching 300 miles in 58:17:06 (a record which still stands today despite the efforts of Yiannis Kouros!) During a rest period Rowell inadvertently swallowed some vinegar which eventually forced his retirement, and it was left to his fellow countryman, George Hazael, to be the first man to cover 600 miles/965km in six days." https://planetultramarathon.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/the-history-of-the-6-day-race/

 

Project, much? Bud, just relax- there’s no need to stroke out or lash out. People are going to both agree and disagree with you as you walk through this veil of tears. And that’s true for all of us, as well. You’ve brought this on yourself by making a very definitive statement on a subject that it far from settled- and if it is settled it’s settled on the opposite side from you.
“PEDs have nothing to do with overarching trends of history. Did records spike in the 80s with massive led use? Sure.”
Do you proofread your posts before you submit them? You should.
I’ll be honest with you- I haven’t really read this entire thread; I’ve only skimmed it. I first thought that the OP was a troll but I noticed that there were some folks that agreed with you. Others didn’t, fair enough. One thing I’d like you to clarify is what exactly do you mean by “surpassed” in the OP? My take on modern athletes and sports is that boxing is the only sport that has not surpassed, or even matched, its former glory. So you and I are on opposite ends here. Again bud, that’s ok- come down off of the ledge and please don’t take out any innocent bystanders.
Now, regarding your comment / question about size / heavyweights: of course size matters in boxing...to a degree. Skills, heart, conditioning all matter just as much. There’s an old adage in boxing-“All other things being equal, a good big man beats a good little man.” As you know, boxing has weight classes that curb size disparities. Here’s a mathematical scientifical bit of trivia for you...welterweights weighed the same in the 40s as they do today! But what has changed significantly is the fact that since the 80s men are allowed to weigh in the day before of the actual fight, thereby letting them gain 15-20lbs before the fight. But not taking that into consideration, there’s only two weight classes where men are noticeably larger: heavyweight and the very new weight class of cruiser weight. When initially formed the cruiser limit was 190lbs but it has since been upped to 200. Modern heavyweights have grown along with other athletes for the simple reasons that there is no cut off weight for them, nutrition has gotten better and peds are far more prevalent. But heavyweights have not gotten better per se, only bigger. The larger size has compromised their fluid athleticism and endurance. When knowledgeable boxing fans contemplate mythical match ups between Ali and Vitaly Klitschko it’s always a matter of asking could Ali contend with Vitaly’s size, not skills or athleticism. If Ali and klitschko were the same size and Klitschko had his same skills nobody would give vitaly a chance. Savvy?
Now here are some of my thoughts and observations in general: my time for beginning the modern era is easy- it’s after boxing did away with 15round fights and same day weigh ins. It’s nigh impossible to qualify just significant those two details are. Can you imagine Ray Robinson being able to weigh in at 147 36 hours before the fight? Or Duran at 135?
Regarding 15 rounds being reduced to 12; can you imagine football (American) going from four 15 minute quarters to 12.5 minute quarters? Or the 100 meter sprint being reduced to 80? A baseball game from 9 innings to 7?
Talent pool: while there are technically more people in the world boxing has diminished in its appeal to prospective fighters, while other sports have gained far more appeal. American Blacks, who traditionally dominated boxing numbers, are now far more drawn to basketball, football and track events. This is to say nothing of sports like soccer, cycling, rugby, mma etc that takes many potential candidates out of the pool. In America at least, only the Mexicans still seem to box from young ages.
Fighters like Floyd, Hopkins and Toney are referred to as “old school”. That’s a compliment on their ring savvy and skills. Why would they be considered “old school” if they’ve obviously surpassed the old timers in terms of skills and wills?
There are now 13 weight classes instead of 8. Damn near twice as many weight classes. This allows for many more fighters to find their niches. Along with 4 major sanctioning bodies and 5 more classes to choose from the opportunity to
manipulate stats greatly increases. “8 time world champ in 6 weight divisions!” ...
Anyhoo, that’s my take on it.
So to summarize, modern fighters not only do not, but can not
meet or surpass the old fighters achievements due to no longer fighting 15 rounds (the championship rounds), diluted weight classes and no same day weigh ins.

 

Found that 19th century Norwegian ultramarathon runner I was looking for. Mensen Ernst. From wikipedia: He ran about 2,500 kilometres (1,600 mi) from Paris to Moscow. It took him 14 days starting on 11 June 1832—averaging over 200 kilometres (120 mi) a day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensen_Ernst

 

What's funny here is that you can't distinguish a fact from an argument. You think making a collection of true and half-true statements tangentially related to the subject matter and then stating your conclusive belief at the end means you've proven your argument.

So let's have a look at each of these "facts" and see if we can't weave them into some sort of coherent argument.

Bold statement and a difficult one to prove. First, you provide no measure for improvement. You referred constantly to records being broken and OvidsExile has provided a wealth of examples contrary to this point.

Even in boxing alone, Benitez still holds the record for youngest world champion boxer. If your implications of boxing's undeniable improvement were true, younger fighters with better technique (or rather, more size) would constantly be besting old fighters and besting this record. And yet in this past era, it took the past-it greats ages to be dethroned, and in some notable cases retired without a truly dominant loss by a young up-and-comer.

But after all, this fact isn't an argument, because that would be a logical fallacy. You're simply stating like things that went through a process and presuming that boxing must go through the same process without providing a particular reason why.

It depends what you mean by size. Dimensions have mostly been the same, and overall weight may have an increase in some cases due to a lack of same-day weigh-ins. Heavyweights have seen a skewed increase because of the fact there is no limit.

This is not only a silly conclusion but one that renders your entire argument meaningless. If you can't track the quality of a fighter with observable evidence, then you are just as incapable as anyone else of deciphering whether the many variables that go into a fighter's quality have decreased or increased over time.

But, of course, we can. We can disagree because it is less easily quantifiable, but the structure of boxing lends itself to recognizing greatness. It's why champions exist and a general consensus exists on the greatness of some fighters. Nobody will rank Amir Khan over Muhammad Ali. Nobody would rank Paulie Malignaggi over Floyd Mayweather. Why? Because there is a competitive structure in place, a pyramid of talent that boxers climb, and when they reach high peaks multiple times, demonstrating observable skills such as punch arsenal, defense, ring generalship, we can gauge those achievements in an athletic sense. It's the same for an individual in a team sport.

Is it more subjective than other sports? Sure. But that's precisely why it's not like other sports, where the objective is simpler and the skill-set is less varied, being prone to less technical error and greater gains due to physical improvement.

Thus mitigating the role size plays in the vast majority of weight-classes. It would play a role, and yet does so almost entirely in one division.

This is a correlation.

And here is where you're argument fails. You've absolutely refused to look at variables more important than size and weight, such as verstility, particular skill-sets, frequency of fights, and level of competition available. And so, you've taken a correlation that exists in other sports, and applied it to one with a greater number of variables, drawing a wholly unsupported conclusion that a technical sport cannot decline in general competence so long as some of its athletes are getting bigger.

There is great irony in you basing your entire argument on a fallacy and then accusing me of the same when I've pointed to variables other than the one you're obsessed with to define quality. I see you've finished your post without answering my questions about your ludicrous claim that the jab has never been so effective, and asking you to point out how the skill level of certain fighters trump those of the past. But that's all nonsense! It's subjective! Let's ignore the practical knowledge of skill in a skill-based sport and simply reduce the science of boxing to a contest of size. Yep, they're bigger, so no doubt, they're better, because all the other dissimilar sports with bigger guys have broken records. (Or not, apparently.)