Do you think hw boxers from the past (20s-50s) were more skilled than now?

I don't think Joyce is any better than the Foreman that fought Holyfield.
That Foreman KO's Parker fairly early.

American heavyweights have devolved. Wilder, the top ranked US heavyweight, has the KO shot, but skill-wise that's about it.

 

yes I think so too. clearly. it would be trouble to name 6 or 8 good American heavyweights today. even hardcore boxing follower will struggle with that.

go back to 1982, 40 years back. & Holmes. Dokes. Weaver.. Page. Cooney. Thomas. Witherspoon. Snipes. Tillis .. even Tex Cobb. American heavyweights. not all time great line up. but where are the heavyweights like this in America today?
has clearly gone backwards

 

No, they are inferior.

 

Just goes to show, how difficult it is to have a serious debate in a forum like this!

 

I have a hard time understanding, why boxers should be less skilled today than back in the 1920s.

We now have access to thousands of hours of film, where we can study most of the greatest boxers of the last 100+ years. Something the oldtimers didn't have, and couldn't take advantage of. Are we to believe, that all this knowledge of superior oldtime skills accumulated over the years, has miraculously been evaporating into thin air during the last few decades - leaving us with a generation of poorly-skilled modern boxers?

Sorry... but that doesn't make much sense to me!

 

Yes.

 

Some people (not necessarily me) could argue that the boxing is significantly less popular these days than it used to be. We have so many sports popular world wide now, more than ever before.

 

no boxer was watching the thousands of hours of 100+ years boxing film. except might be teenager Tyson with Cus D'amato.
& only since YouTube has it really been easy access for most others.
& doubt they are watching. from interviews some of this modern boxers & trainers are ignorant of boxers before their times.
persons on this forum is watching it. fight film geek. but not many boxers or trainers is watching as much.

 

This is very true! A lot of other things to capture fans' attention these days. Not least in the US, where interest in boxing certainly isn't what it used to be.

In other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, former communist Europe) pro boxing is much bigger than 100 years ago.


Just to make something clear: I'm not here to put down any boxers, or era(s), in particular. I'm here to counter-balance the widespread view here on Classic, that boxing has seriously devolved over the past few decades. The reasons for this range from the unverifiable (harder times, more fights, etc) - to the plain ridiculous (internet stealing too much time!).

I'm not even saying, that I believe modern boxers are superior to the best from 100 years ago... I just don't understand, why some posters will go to such great lengths in an attempt to denigrate the present crop of fighters!

 

For sure, few prople are likely to watch as much old-time boxing as the geeks here - probably (though I don't really know!) not even most trainers (not to speak of the boxers themselves!)

However, not all of today's trainers can be complete idiots, who don't know what they are doing! To claim (I don't mean you) that all the great trainers have died out, and been replaced by inferior ones... well, isn't that just another unverifiable "truth"?

 

Then I agree with your take here, nothing to add.

 

the top levels boxers skills & the trainers knowledge & skills are not necessarily worse today at all.

but structure of boxing has gone through much change
& this could make negative impacts

 

Keep in mind, boxers then had part time jobs and sometimes they boxed multiple days a day or a week. They had no chance but to b cagey so they could keep enough of their health in tact to do their other professions. As well as fighting way more fights, 150+ even.

Boxers now can focus on just that n get paid decently making boxing their only profession. Another advantage is that they can look at film from many decades, another privilege those ol timers didn't have. As well as the advancement of science n medicine since then so ppl can continue their careers more instead of being forced to retire as much as then.

Hard for me to compare the two but I notice ppl do have the tendency to glamorize the era they prefer.

 

There are some things that might have given athletes a advantage compared to the present. The kids would play ruff, even when I was a kid in the 80s we would wrestle and play king of the mountain during recess every day l doubt kids are allowed to do that now. My Dad when he was in school they had boxing in gym class at public school. It was a more manual life style for everyone building more manual skill.

Plus the air and food was more pure. Before the 50s all the food was organic because they were not using pesticides.

 

As Janitor said, it's not really a worthwhile comparison of 190-200 lbs fighters to those that are 240-270. But looking at today's LHWs and CWs, I think they hold up well to any era in terms of skill. Bivol, Briedis and Usyk are greatly skilled fighters, and Beterbiev certainly isn't bad for a puncher. Even among the HWs thare several that have fine skills, but some, like Ruiz, let themselves down when fitness is concerned.