does boxing evolve?

Nothing remains the same. People evolve so why wouldn't the sport in which people compete in evolve.

This is a conversation I've had with multiple people online and in person. The perception is that today's athletes are more elite overall than previous athletes. Look at football, basketball, track, etc.......Athletes that competed in the 50s, 60s, 70s, & 80s obviously are celebrated and marveled for their greatness of their era, but when you speak to people who are involved with those major sports, unanimously you'll hear that today's crop of players/athletes have pushed the sport forward, thus making those who compete in it, much better overall.

In basketball you have the late Bill Russell with 11 championships, but when the GOAT discussion is brought up, Michael Jordan's name drowns the conversation. Kareem Abdul Jabar was the leading career scorer for decades without shooting a single 3 pointer......He's not even looked at as top 5/10 in some critics eyes, but Lebron James in his 21st year surpasses Kareem, and he's elevated to an ultimate God status of the sport.

Track and Field is easiest to measure given it's scoring system is based on time and distance. This past couple of years, we saw an athlete who ran a 10.23 in the 100m dash, NOT make his nations team because there were multiple athletes who finished in front of him. Jesse Owens won a gold medal with a 10.3.

In Football we are seeing much bigger athletes move a lot faster than the athletes who compete 4 or 5 decades before them. I can name 5-10 lineman whom are 300lbs+ who ran a sub 5 second 40 yard dash. First off, lineman on average wasn't as heavy in the 50s/60s, and combine the fact these big boys can move......

We can point out Power Lifting and other sports as well, they all evolve because the athletes evolve......

But then when it comes to boxing.................we get this notion that "no one currently" could compete with (whatever your favorite era is). Boxing fans try to convince the new generation of fans that the current athletes are worse than any product they grew up watching. As if everything went downhill after Ali, Robinson, Holmes, etc..... hung their gloves up.

More specific, I got into a debate on this site about whether Crawford would be able to compete against Duran, Hearns, Leonard, & Hagler. The conversation immediately goes left because the 4 kings are marveled as mount rush more for their era....and deserved. But not one of them were flawless in the ring and each have been clipped. Crawford, not arguing that he is superior of them, but I do feel he is cut from the same cloth. People are quick to downplay his resume, but who is it that he was supposed to face in each of the divisions he's competed that others feel was top talent. Crawford has always chase the champions. Last I check, champions are normally the best in the division. Crawford has beaten 12 world champions. 8 of the 12 were stopped. 6 of the 12 were undefeated going into the fight. Since Crawford won his first title, he hasn't faced a single opponent who wasn't ranked in his division. He's fought 2 opponents (Gamboa & Spence) who were ranked top 5 P4P by all of the major sanctioning bodies and The Ring Magazine.

Me as a boxing fan, I point this out and I'm called a Crawford "fanboy" whatever that is....... As if everything I said is my opinion and not actually documented.

Hopefully the politics of the sport can come together so we can get more of the top guys in the ring together.....but that's a different discussion.

 

Sport Evolving ≠ Superior technique + styles matter alot. Someone like Sugar Ray imo would have very problematic speed and a rangy style for Bud, and he was excellent on the inside

 

First of all, it would really help if you changed your tone and were more objective.

Also, if you were more receptive and willing to debate.

Your emotions always get the better of you.


Regarding evolution, once again, you cannot compare boxing to any other sport.

Two guys are pitting their styles against each other.

In boxing, the biggest guy doesn’t always win.

The better athlete doesn’t always win.

Even the better, more skilled fighter doesn’t always win.


In track and field, you can compare times, to say who’s the better athletes.

In boxing, we can compare the skill sets of the fighters, and the quality and the depth of a division.

If you want to say that in track and field, that the athletes are better than they were 30 years ago, then that’s fine.

But as a boxing fan of over 30 years, I’m going to tell you that today’s WW, MW, SMW, JMW and HW divisions, aren’t anywhere near as good as what they were at many times during the last 20-40 plus years ago.

If you like, we can do some comparisons.


Boxing has evolved.

But it doesn’t keep evolving.

There were fighters from years ago who were better than today’s fighters by any metric.


As a very quick example, the MW’s today are simply incomparable to the MW’s of the early 90’s.

Many current divisions have regressed since the 90’s.

And that is your absolute proof that the fighters don’t keep evolving.


Regarding Terence Crawford, I’m a part of that thread. And the consensus is:

Terence is great, and he could hang with them, but as of yet, he’s unproven against guys of that calibre.

And that is the truth.

He hasn’t got a great resume, no matter how you try and twist the stats and list his accolades.

It isn’t his fault, but he simply hasn’t fought or beat any prime ATG’s, or guys of their calibre.


Now please take this onboard, and come back and have an objective debate.

 

I would say regarding techniques, it would follow that as boxing fell out of popularity and local gyms shut down something will have been lost along the way.

I think techniques were likely improving over the early years. Especially when overseas travel was more accessible through the airplane, and coaches/ fighters could share ideas more easily. They probably plateaued, before falling off due to loss of knowledge as gyms shut down.

PEDs will definitely have improved though as you say.

EDIT: Oh wait, I keep forgetting this is that moderator account they use to start threads. Got me again.

 

No argument for me with that. Each of them have certain tools that I feel would give Crawford multiple issues to deal with. I think Crawford's toughest match up would be Hearns due to the measures and skillset. Crawford having to deal with someone with power, longer reach, a chin and the dog mentality...... That would be a hell of a task for Crawford. He's seen no opponent with that combination of tools in his career.

Sugar brings that speed and IQ combination but I'm just saying in the same sense, Crawford's IQ and timing neutralizes speed. We've seen fighters faster than Crawford get in the ring with him and even though it may take him a couple rounds, eventually he puts himself in position to dominate that opponent. Gamboa, Khan, even Brook to a certain degree.....all were faster than Crawford and he figured out how to neutralize them. Now given none of them are Sugar by far..... so there's that.

 

Little lady.....don't come on here crying. Nothing I put up was anywhere near aggressive. I gave my analysis and stated facts about what can clearly be found with a little bit of research. Don't need some chick telling me to check my tone. Goofy, I'm not talking. I'm typing so there is no tone. If reading too many words got you feeling I was being aggressive then you need to look at your own emotions when suggesting that they got the best of someone.

I'm simply here for boxing conversation. This is recreation for me. Nothing more. Apparently you seem to have an issue with a user name that's passionate about a sport you claim to be a fan of, because you definitely don't know the person to claim emotions get the best of....lol.

What's comical is me scheming over your post, you are simply saying what I've said and then trying to argue points I never said......That's evidence of emotions.....but they got the best of me huh?..........Ok.....lol

 

Three paragraphs of nothing.

Nobody but you is crying.

When somebody types things out that you don’t want to read, you just shut them off by calling them nostalgics.


The funny thing about you, is that you spend so much time looking at other sports, you miss what’s staring you in the face.

You also haven’t been a fan for a long time, as any fan who’s been watching from even the 90’s, knows that the sport has regressed since then.


Let me help you out.

The sport hasn’t evolved for decades.

It just ebbs and flows throughout each division.

Now that is a factual statement that can be very easily proven with numerous examples.

Also, why anybody would compare track and field to two guys fighting, really beggars belief.

It’s a ridiculous comparison.

And all you’ve done, is made an assumption on boxing, based off of those other sports.

Instead of asking questions on here, just go and educate yourself on the older eras and the older fighters.

The answer will then come to you very quickly.


Then you can stop asking silly questions, such as:

“Other sports evolve. Why are boxing fans so ignorant and nostalgic to believe that boxing hasn’t?”


All your answers are available on YouTube.

Go away, and then come back in a few months when you’ve studied some fighters.

 

It’s a poor man’s sport too, so less people are doing it, meaning it’s less competitive, which does the opposite of improving the level people are at.

It’s also a sport where attrition can get you far, as the competitors are not as poor, their willingness to dig deep decreases. There are less gym rats

 

Yeah but not by effectiveness. Boxers are marketed quantities. Not one says Music evolves in any context that would have you believe musicianship evolves for a reason, the entertainment value is obvious. Boxers put asses in seats.

 

A sport that doesn't evolve with time is a dead sport.

 

Look, let’s just keep things very simple.


Today’s MW’s:

Alimkhanuly
Eubank
Sheeraz
Lara
Adames
Olhia
Davis
Isley
Mosley
Bentley


The MW’s of 1989: (36 years ago)

Nunn
McCallum
Kalambay
Duran
Barkley
Collins
Milton
Watson
Graham
Benn


Just simply explain that.

That’s all I ask.


And if you think that it’s just an anomaly, then I’ll prove to you that it isn’t, by listing many, many other weight classes throughout each decade.


If your theory were true, then today’s fighters would all be superior to everyone who came before them. Yet that is absolutely not the case.

 

Boxing is an art form, it does not process in linear fashion.

 

You don't think that you are crying..... Searching the site to find my username just to complain about whatever is written and how much of it is.... You turn into a whining bytch when I point out things that, again, ARE DOCUMENTED. My opinion on something I tried to keep to myself in most cases.

People evolving yet what they do in this sport is regressing?

Stay in your lane goofy. Stick to what you know. You have no idea how long I've paid attention to this sport. I competed in this sport for 15+ years of my life. Been coaching/training/mentoring young fighters for another 25 years..... And have been a fan of the sport all my life which is over 5 DECADES.

Paying attention too much to other sports?....... You sound dumb. I'm an athlete, an old one now, but an athlete. What ignorant mfer suggest I need to only follow boxing in order to know about boxing.

You cry too damn much. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. I'm all for the discussion, but you clearly put yourself on this pedestal and feel anyone who disagrees with you, somehow is not qualified to speak on the subject of boxing. Kick rocks and stop stalking me clown.

I said what I said. The sport has evolved because the athletes participating are evolved. There are things I see in the amateurs today regularly that I didn't see nearly as often back in the 80s. Athletes who compete in the ring aren't a different type of human than athletes on a field, a court, diamond, etc...... They are kids with dreams of being the best and they do what they can to get to their highest platform. And when more money thrown at these sports, there are more programs available to young athletes that weren't available 20/30/40+ years ago. Sports medicine, training, treatments, etc.....

It's idiotic to claim the sport hasn't evolved, yet, you see multiple situations of more being poured into these fighters than they were years ago. No, not everything is on the up and up. Of course we are without HBO & Showtime along with other things....but the athletes competing are skilled and have to deal with as much or more politics during their careers than they had to decades ago.

 

Picking out one division and then going to an era where that same division was a top heavy is you cherry picking in order to try and win a competition that only you are competing in. You probably haven't noticed, but I'm not trying to win an argument. So our mission in this forum isn't the same.

Comprehension is a strong tool not always depended on with you because of the reason I gave right above. My "theory"......wouldn't suggest that everyone is superior. It suggest that what was rare becomes more of the norm. Not that everyone competing is better than everyone before. That's ignorant to say, and ignorant for you to suggest. There are clearly generational talents in every sport. But there are also athletes who are clearly just better than the field simply because of athleticism. As the athletes evolve. More of THOSE types of athletes tend to be present where as they were far and few in between before. I shouldn't have to explain that to an adult who is supposed to be able to read on the appropriate grade level to have a conversation with other adults.

 

Who's thinking that Marciano beats the modern heavies? Lol. The 60s were tough, but people get bigger and better over time, in every sport. There's a reason Olympic records still get broken after how many years - oldheads just have nostalgia goggles and that's fine.