Classic vs Modern. Aus Forum Only. You decide!

I try to stay away from this debate for the reason that boxing was very very different then to what it is now.
The interpretation, enforcement and actual rules back in the day were quite different. The equipment ie gloves, ring, were different.

If you took a modern fighter and transported him back in time, I think he would get ****ed up.
I dont think an old school fighter coming forward in time would be as out of his depth, provided he knew how the game had changed.


Comparing eras is very hard, its like comparing am boxing to pro boxing today.

 

Longer fights, less padding on gloves, more acceptance for fouling. No standing 8 count back in the day as soon as you were on your knees you were fair game.

One of the best ever heavyweights, Marciano, had a signature punch that was basically more of an elbow than a punch. And he was allowed to do it, no one thought of him as any less of a great.

Just in general people were tougher back then, I know thats a contentious statement but you think of what boxers had to deal with not only in the ring but outside of it too, you can could easily argue that they were mentally tougher. Even the average joe had to work harder, sleep less, walk more, do more hard labour in his day to day actions, usually have to put up with pain and injury to get by. Things like that were just part of normal life but if we were to experience that Im sure most of us would whine like bitches, refuse to work (and be allowed to do so) and have a lot more options at our finger tips to make our life easier.

I think sport was affected by the culture of the day aswell.

 

It depends i m of the belief that Modern day fighters although talented and skillful are know where near as tough and hard hitting.

Yes the great to watch today but really guys like Robinson would school Jermain Tayor aswell as being tougher and alot smarter.

They fought 15 rounders against guys that were brutal with smaller gloves.

I know we will never know but do you serious believe in your hearts that
Sugar Ray would get outclassed by Jermain (Bad Intentions) Taylor. Please Ray had more skill a bigger heart, more Power and is in another league.

 

It's difficult to say, in general I think yes, however the difference isn't as big as some make out and there are exceptions in certain weights such as heavyweights. In a pound for pound sense I think there are heavyweights of yesteryear better than ones of today, and even in a head to head sense, a small, skilled heavyweight can be succesful against a larger opponent no doubt, particularly if he possesses a knockout punch (i'm of the belief that once you get round and over that 200 pound mark, if you're a good puncher you can hurt a man, even a larger one).

In terms of athleticism, the differences aren't as great as some say, what modern heavyweight can you name that could follow Marcianos' training regimen? Rhetorical question. For all the talk of modern training techniques, and diets, etc, the fact is that many boxers do not use those particular techniques, some do some don't. The biggest difference I see between modern and old school boxers physically, is that modern boxers cut a lot more weight. There are some great athletes running around though (generally better than yesteryear), but that's something that needs to be judged on a case by case basis. For every great modern athlete, like Lewis, Wlad, Tyson and Hide, there's a Ruiz, Valuev, roided Briggs, Sanil Sam, the modern heavy weight on average isn't taller than 30 years ago... just heavier (and we're not talking muscle a lot of the time).

Looking at the top class boxers today in lower weights, I think the average boxer is more 'technically sound' or 'textbook', than in the past, but there are boxers who I feel are capable of competing in the modern era even 'as is', guys who have obvious natural gifts, like the LaMottas, Robinsons, Peps, Louis', Armstrongs. There are psychological elements like the ability to control fear, confidence, temperament in the ring, pain thresholds and physical elements, power (this is different to strength, there have been plenty of gifted punchers in the past), toughness, stamina... all these things level a playing field in terms of variables, since boxing isn't just about running faster in a straight line, or lifting a heavier weight.

In summary, yes in general, with some exceptions (like heavyweight), but like anything it needs to be looked at case by case since there are more variables in boxing than athletic ones or technical ones, and modern boxers don't necessarily always carry these advantages over ALL the old school boxers (case by case like i said).

 

I look forward to your thread MSTR... I dont think this question will have an answer everyone will accept no matter how much you analyse and interpret information and possibilities etc.

Unless you got them to actually fight you'll never really know.

To be honest, I think it goes both ways and depends mostly on the talents of individual fighters and the state of competition/skill in the era's your looking at.

Weigh up who your trying to convince with the thread in the end dude, just dont be too disappointed if it gets the same results as posting "ALI KO LEWIS EVERYTIME!" or some ****.

 

purely head to head.. i had to vote modern.

 

It's such a hard thing to debate. Different fighters = different results. Hard to generalise generations. However one thing the old fighters had was they were far more active.

 

Definitely depends on who you are matching up. I mean sugar Ray Robinson destroys every single welterweight (his prime weight) today. And would also beat every 154 lb and 160 lb fighter today. It's debatable how well he would do 168-175, as he only had one fight at 175 and that was past his prime, but in modern conditions he would have won that fight.

Not even all of the best boxers' today use modern training techniques. I mean modern techniques can make em a little faster, a little stronger. But boxing has too many other intangibles. For all his modern training, and nutrition Klitschko has been starched 3 times to journeyman type fighters. Roy been KO'd couple of times. Mosley has been beat by better fighters.

Some of the positives of the "classic era" include 15 round fights, definitely tougher, more stamina, fought multiple times a year, had to earn a living, (compared to say 2-3 times for a champion in modern times). Hopkins said it best, today's fighters are spoiled.

Advantages of modern fighters: Slightly more skill in general, quicker, stronger and bigger in general. Make more money.

Classic fighters: Higher stamina, more tougher, heart, chin proven, definitely hungrier, greatness proven.

 

I have other reasons (Socio-economic) that I would like to talk about but dont have the time at the moment that I feel deserves a mention in this topic.

later