Does anybody employ the "advances in sports" argument consistently?

Yes and no. Good training is part of the puzzle, but a modern supporter could still argue that Lewis (who had more "modern" advantages than Ali anyway) was simply always a better athlete in a larger talent pool. Vitali's superior training only partly compensated for the discrepancy. Someone arguing for modern superiority could also still argue that the general upward climb of heavyweight ability happened unevenly.

With that being said, I sometimes suspect that Lewis and the Klitschkos would massacre the 70's heavyweight division. (When I'm not imagining a prime Foreman destroying the 90's guys).

Maybe, except that the cruiserweight division is talent-starved. Most of the best cruiserweights are fighting as fat heavies.

The "modern is better" argument does suggest that not only Wladimir, but guys like Haye, Vitali, and Povetkin would beat really old 30's guys like Louis.

 

This is rather simplistic way of looking at things. The boxing as a sport has advanced but you will need to look beyond "Wladimir vs Louis" to see it. You can actually see how the sport has advanced in "Wlad vs Louis" but it is not in their mythical H2H match up but in their amateur careers. Louis was essentially a local club fighter in amateurs, while Wlad participated in global international tournaments. The field of competitions has grown dramatically across pro and amateur ranks thanks to advances in communications, technology and travel. Athletes can push their bodies longer and harder than ever before. Injuries that would have been career-ending in 40s-50s are treatable now. It is far more ridiculous to hear people say that they rank Louis over Wlad and therefore boxing has not advanced a single bit in the past century.

 

I don't think the actual training methods have really improved or changed that much. The core of a boxer's workout is still roadwork, heavy bag, speedbag, sparring, skipping rope and pad work. Of course there are some additional components like the medicine ball, weights, etc, but most are very much the same as 80 years ago (although i think the speed bag is relatively modern - existing since the 50's or something).

What has changed is the size of the modern heavyweights. It's shifted drastically compared to 70 years ago, back when there was only the odd untalented oaf getting by on size alone. The increase in dimensions is mostly due to better nutrition, health care and general living circumstances from the 50's on compared to 30's and before. "Steroids" (categorize anything you like under that term) may have also helped this change since the 60's/70's. It's all the reason that the 180lbs heavyweight champion has gone instinct since the 70's. And since the 80's, the 200lbs heavyweight champion is also pretty much instinct. It's all evolution. A leopard can be the apex predator in a habitat. But as soon as a tiger joins that habitat, the smaller leopard has no chance for that claim anymore.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STMeQlu8jA4[/ame]

 

Boxing is a skill sport like football (soccer) and I think their are similarities with both sports progressions

Both have allot of aspects to master, but still speed, power, stamina and strength are paramount, although they too are also technique based, to generate power you need great technique

Unlike football the talent pool of boxing has decreased over the last 20 years or so. The quality of top boxing trainers is generally considered to have dropped off. The modern amateur system also have less of cross over with pro boxing. Fighting 2-3 times a year is going to have a lower learning curve than boxing 5-10 times a year against better opposition. Some modern fighters today have the problem of not being able to get any big fights near their prime, at least Lamotta and Burley got to fight on the B Circuit when they couldn't get big fights

Like football though at the turn of the 20th century boxing was very much a developing sport with much smaller talent spools and an obvious lack of modern technique and tactics. As both sports became more popular tactics and technique and standards improved

Like Football/soccer nutrition plays a much bigger role today. Boxers at heavyweight but also in other divisions have grown bigger and stronger with the increased use of scientific nutrition. Weights and explosive training has helped supplement more traditional training for both

Pad work is relatively new

 

In an ironic turn of events Burley probably wound up fighting tougher bigger murderer's row opponents instead bigger easier fights

 

I think the best of today would be a match for a best of yesterday - and that has always been the case.

advances is size and nutrition, health care and "Steroids" would level off against the seasoning and craft that came with the greater competition of yesteryear. It would level off or neutralise matters on an equal measure.

Even today you can watch a good fighter who looks a superb athlete given a sound walloping from a smaller, inferior athlete (who cant hit as hard) - and so long as that happens you cant out rule fighters from long ago. equally you will always see a good little fighter get walked down by size. I cannot say there has or ever will be a time when modern advances will ever entirely succumb to seasoning and ringcraft alone or vice versa, therefore the fairest thing is to say is that it would always be competative at top class regardless of background era or size.

 

The sport has changed over the years as well. Equipment has improved and the rules are different. Bouts are shorter and fighters fight less frequently than thier predecessors so there is more time to recover between fights. Plus the purses are a lot bigger so many fighters avoid fighting the top contenders so as to not lose thier earning potential as opposed to to fighters of yesteryear who had to fight the best around to keep thier names in circulation. Make championship fights 15 rounds and you'd see leaner heavyweights as well. "Old school" training methods would suddenly resurface as fighters would need to get in better shape to fight those last 3 rounds...the so called "Championship" rounds. Boxing is unique in that you really can't compare it to other sports. Fighting is fighting and what's required to become a good fighter is often different from what is required to become a good football player...or basketball or Baseball player. Men like Charlie Goldman, Ray Arcel, Teddy Hayes, Angelo Dundee, Eddie Futch et al knew how to train a fighter...certainly moreso than many of todays armchair trainers who never set foot in a ring. Call me old fashioned but I'll take the accumulated wisdom of those boxing sages over a guy with a PHD in exercise physiology any day of the week when it comes to getting a fighter into shape.

 

Actually, I'd say that far from "not knowing **** about boxing", I'm just keeping an open mind. Notice that I'm presenting one point of view for the sake of argument, not saying where I fall in the debate.

I haven't seen any 30's top contenders fight their modern equivalents. Nobody has. It's notoriously difficult to pick the winners in modern fights, where both contenders have fought against the same talent pool. You can't judge a fighter on film very well, since so much depends on the caliber of opponent. Some guys look borderline supernatural against journeymen, only to fold against contenders. Picking a winner in a fight between two different time periods, complete with different rules and slightly different consensus "best" styles? Good luck.

I've often said that a fight between someone like Wlad and someone like Louis would surprise a lot of people. You might get a modern walkover (Louis horrified when he finds a guy who looks like Buddy Baer and moves like a 200 pounder), or you might get something like Thai kickboxers vs. their Western equivalents (athletic, modern-trained guy gets massacred by his smaller, weaker, but somehow subtly skillful opponent).

 

If these modern training methods and nutrition is that great, why are heavyweights flabby??? K brothers are fit because they work hard not because of these methods...Just look how flabby Arreola is, Helenious, Fury, even Chambers 95 96 kg and still looks flabby, and look at Clevland Wiliams, Foreman, Norton, even Louis, Jack Johnson looked much better than 90% of today heavyweights, I'm just wondering why is that the case??
I would like to see real response not some hate or something.

 

Well thats my point, today you can maybe get to perfect condition easier, but you still have to work damn hard, just like 30 40 years ago, it probably is easier today but for example Ali was ready for 15 rounds with high work rate in 60s, and many other fighters were in better condition than today heavyweights. Wlad himself had stamina issues but worked hard and overcame it. Guys i mentioned like Arreola Fury Helenius they dont have single muscle on them, if someone did not know them no way would you ever think they are professional boxers.