Could the elite boxers of yore beat the elite boxers of today?

You are right, there are some older generations boxers who could hold their own, but not older than the 30s

 

The difference between now and yesteryear - is that many of the top boxers today have long amateur careers behind them, before turning pro. Often they have been in more or less constant training from a very young age - sometimes taking part in 200-300 (or more) amateur bouts. Even though they have relatively few pro fights under their belt, surely "repetition" isn't unknown to boxers like Loma, Rigo, Usyk, Bivol, Beterbiev, Golovkin, etc.

 

Boxing is a more skill based sport, where football is more atheltiscm based. Certainly atheltiscm is a factor in boxing, and vice versa.
But if we were to take a 150 lbs pound guy, who is an elite level boxer, and pit him against a 200 lbs novice boxer, the 150 lbs guy would likely win.
If we took a 250 lbs O-lineman with elite level skills, and threw him against a 330 lbs novice D-lineman, the elite O-lineman would face a tall task, giving up 80lbs despite being the surperior techincally.
As I see it, football as a sport has been enhanced far more by training and nutrition than boxing has.

 

The amateur game and the pro game is night and day. Theirs been many amateurs through out boxing history that had as many amateur fights as the fighters you listed that were garbage as pro's.
Also, the fighters you listed all became world champs at the pro level champs right? Extensive amateur career? 200-300 amateur fights? Lots of repetition? Just maybe right?
Though not one of those fighters are great in my opinion. They are better than most of the fighters around today. Because of their activity, and their repetition from their amateur days.

 

No, of course none of those boxers are great - because they are recent fighters, and therefore can't be in the discussion of greatness (in your opinion).

 

Yes, that's my opinion. But Not because they are recent fighters , but because they are good fighters fighting in an era of subpar competition .
Greatness is earned by the competition the fighter has faced. Not by facing clearly inferior opponents..... Iron sharpens Iron.

 

Concerning the "sameness"... what kind of statistical research is the foundation for this opinion?

 

"Eye test"

 

Different styles and methods have of course been used throughout the gloved history of boxing. I have never thought about this alleged modern "sameness", and honestly don't see it. So who decides, which "eye test" is better - yours or mine?

 

How can you possibly know anything about the thought process, when today's fighters are exchanging punches? In contrast to the old-timers, modern boxers don't react instinctly... really? Where on earth do you get that from?

Is that why we see Inoue, in fight after fight, missing all those counter-punching opportunities... because once he's finished thinking about it, the openings are no longer there?

Instinctiveness is based on repetition, you say... which I can't disagree with. But don't you think 200-300 fight top amateurs know a thing or two about repetition?

 

Great question! As others have said if we are simply dropping a current great into the 40s and they fight I am inclined to go with the modern guy due to modern training methods and prep.

On the other hand if we are talking about having it either with a modern fighter training like an old timer or an old timer training like a modern fighter and then they fight it leads to another question in my mind! Would the training style of the era hinder the boxing style of the fighter from another era if you see what I mean?

If we take Roy Jones and have him in the era of Ray Robinson staying in shape how they did then it is likely he would not be as good a fighter. I feel this is applicable to Pacquiao and Mayweather as well as so much of their success seems to be conditioning (lets not mention PEDs!). If they lacked the conditioning they have access to today areas such as stamina, speed and ability to take a punch would be effected.

On the other hand if we transport SSR and Henry Armstrong to today's game then possibly the lack of activity, extra muscle mass and other variables may make them less effective? Having said that I think I give the edge to a fighter having better training and diet (and less wear and tear) than I do reducing these things so I suspect a modern great would do worse if moved back in time (without modern advantages) and an old timer being brought forward in time.

What do you think?