Does a prime Jack Dempsey beat the Joshua of today?

These claims aren't even specific enough to have identifiable truth conditions, so far as I can see. Clear that hurdle and we can move on to what evidence may or may not exist.

 

Okay. Cite them.

 

I really can't be arsed mate.

 

It's obvious there is a lot more known about nutrition and recovery now. I also believe there are less top level trainers now and boxing has lost something there. The likes of Larry Holmes commented on just this years ago.

I don't think the above has meant there has been any real improvement in fighters nowadays and i believe various handpicked fighters from at worst 1940 onward could be picked to prevail over todays champs.

I'd still take ali over any current Heavy. I'd take Michael Spinks, Foster or Charles over the current 175's. Hagler over GGG, SRL over the 147's, Duran at 135 etc.

Guys like ali, Frazier, Marciano, Pryor, Duran, they had oodles of stamina and effectiveness late in fights. They must have been doing something right.

 

That's incorporating tools made possible by science into your training program.
Designing the training program itself is a craft, an art, not a science.

For example, Photoshop is a computer program. It's software that runs on ones and zeros, developed in a computer programming language. Made possible by pure science.
But using Photoshop isn't scientific.

If boxing training was scientific, trainers would be deeply meticulous in data collection and analysis.
How many head trainers do you see walking around with clipboards, looking at statistics, data, and formulaic analyses?

They don't do any of that.
They use their intuition, wisdom, and experience.
Not the scientific method.
Very different things.

 

I've already said that I certainly *do* need to produce peer reviewed papers if I make any contested scientific claim. I'm just not seeing what claim you think I've made.

In science all specific claims are false by default. For instance if you say that 500 milligrams of garlic powder will cure influenza, I don't need to cite a paper to disprove this. I don't have to do **** but sit back and point out you have zero evidence in favor of this (unless and until you do).

 

It has been around donkey's years though.
People are constantly being told (and sold) old things as if they are new.

 

Sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it, too.

 

This is the case for tons and tons of practices.
Industrial designers and architects use state of the art tools (developed using scientific discoveries), but those are still crafts.

 

I didn't ask you for a paper to show that "interval training" is more common. I asked you for evidence of its efficacy (or to be literal, I pointed out that you only said that it's become common practice rather than citing the evidence that supposedly made it common practice).

Now, you seriously want me to cite papers to demonstrate that intensive cardiovascular exercise in short bursts was done in the past? Unless you mean something far more specific by "interval training" I reject any such burden.

 

Correct.
But you must also keep in the mind there are other factors, environmental, cultural, that also come into play.

This content is protected

Old footwear meant you had to walk on the balls of your feet. Which is exactly how you use your feet in boxing and other combat/melee practices. Having footwear that forced you to walk that way 24/7 must've been extremely beneficial for combatants of those days. Your everyday walk was essentially a boxers gait.

We do have some awesome new tools today that help in boxing training.
However, these tools only fit our current world. These tools are based on modern conditions. Many of which are probably not advantageous for boxing.

We don't optimize civilization for boxing.