Boxers have regressed a lot

No.. I dont believe that. Less belts means your really have to fight the best to be considered a champ, so you get more quality fights. That also means fans get thee fights they want because no belt, no money. We were getting elite guys fighting each other when they were still hungry and aggressive fighters instead of the older toned down versions fighting.. Certain eras had much less ducking, but we still get those now.. Oscars welter and light welter era was second to none, and they all fought each other with great skill..

And the thread starter talks about roids now and brings up fights where roids were rampant but hardly tested for.. Lmfao

 

^ link? any reputable reliable sources?

 

All I was asking for was some statistics to verify claims being made in this thread. If I could see them then of course I'd believe it straight away. As I explained I think boxing is a more worldwide sport nowadays rather than a British/American sport as it was. To me that suggests that the talent pool would be deeper especially with these talented Eastern European and Cuban fighters competing now. You honestly can't see how that would be a reasonable assumption for me to make? I completely agree that the talent pool in America has decreased, and they used to be number one in the pro and amateur ranks. Now they have little in either and it isn't as a popular sport as a result. Outside of America boxing is healthier and more popular than it has ever been.

 

maybe too much focus on strength and conditioning programs when you can just run and then train your skills?


no more pivoting, more back stepping etc et those types of techniques arent really used anymore.

 

My homie BBall, always on point, very good thread and I completely agree. :good

 

Focus has shifted to being physically ready to fight, as opposed to actually knowing how to fight.

 

I have been saying that for years bro! Boxing was at its peak in the 80s and it has been making a gradual decline ever since:deal

 

Agreed . . . today we talk about training and fitness. Back then they had great trainers and fought a lot more.

 

A ***** that says that SRR can beat Mayweather is not a ***** afterall. Bballchump11 ksab!

 

BBall and Leon are two of the best posters here mate.

 

has a lot to do with the talent pool too. Boxing used to be the #1 sport in popularity....everyone wanted to be HW champ, it's now not even top 10. ****ing golf is more popular! There are no where near as many pro boxers nowadays and the ABC's make it so that you don't have to face an A level fighter in order to grab a belt and make a living so fighters can o through 20+fights, win a belt and still never be tested. Top contenders avoid each other cause they know there's easier routes to a title and avoid improving as a result of not upping to opposition level. Guys with potential to be great stop improving cause they take too long to fight a top tier fighter and when they do they're a fish out of water and they get blown out a la Bute/Khan. Look at Stieglitz for **** sakes!! Look at Brian Magee! Guys that wouldn't even be top 10 contenders (both barely are today either) yet champions. Luckily we still got guys that wanna do it the right way but the diff between contenders of today and yesteryear is huge in class.

Another factor is trainers......there are very few old school minded trainers focused on the mental side of boxing, they're all about using modern techniques and science to create elite athletic specimens but don't spend enough time teaching them how to adapt, set traps, negate opponents best assets and how to best use their own weapons.