Frank Warren was asked the difference between now and when he first started....

I was about to make the point that Ed made. Maybe the modern guys can score higher in computerised fitness tests but the old timers were fighting 10-20+ times a year and must surely have picked up technical aspects/ tricks a lot easier than fighters who end their careers only having had 30 fights.

 

Modern training methods are the only thing that is better. It's not just boxing. In cricket, Jeff Thomson used to bowl with a hangover. Imran Khan would just do a lap of the ground for his fitness. Just pure talent and toughness. Skills that don't exist in the days of ice baths, and sports psychologists, and physios, etc. All these things are good, but they can't replace natural toughness and skills.

 

Put it this way, if the only information I was given about a fantasy fight was that one fighter was from the 1950s and the other was from the 2000s. I'd take my chances on the 1950s guy.

 

In this way boxing has a lot of similarities to Hurling (Irish sport ... with sticks) over here, Hurling is like a microcosm of this argument.

Hurling is an amateur game, but these days the lads on County teams (top level) all train pretty much like professionals. The levels of fitness and their dedication is really a credit to them, and amazing for an amateur game.

But the skills in the game is being eroded according to a lot of people, most old timers but a lot of my mates would agree. There's just a lot less people playing now, a lot less teams and competition. In my dads time it was the only game you could play, and everybody played it. There were several teams from my town which now only has one.

If you watch the old games, lads wouldn't be as athletic (fit like, but not as explosive) but the skills are much cleaner, the games less scrappy, the control they had was much better.

 

Yeah, I would also say a lot of the old-timers had more of an ingrained toughness, and were more willing and able to fight through pain/physical barriers, hitting the wall, but then bulldozing their way through it. You just gotta think about the numbers of guys who went into boxing after coming back from serving in the two world wars - what an apprenticeship that would have been.

Plus, as mentioned in another post (ED7890) there were a lot more people involved in/going into boxing back in the day, and those that rose to the top were really some tough *******s.

 

I'm reading a book on Freddie Mills right now, I don't think many modern fighters could have taken the path he took to a world title.

 

What if it was lets say, #10 in the world at a weight, 1950-something vs 2010? Who would you go for?

 

It should be pointed out that we're going off topic here. Frank Warren only mentioned that 'fitness' was improving, not boxing skills, heart, toughness etc.

Though as many current pro boxers cannot go 12 rounds at a brisk pace, who knows?

 

So what you're saying is Pacquiao beats Robinson and that Haye would beat Liston and Patterson more often than losing?

 

Todays guys are fitter. Jack Dempsey when in training limited himself to "only" 4 cigars a day.

 

Fitter in what sense? Of course they look fitter - they only do 12 rounds.

In the past they fought 15 or 20 or even until it was stopped. How can you be fitter than that? How the **** can they be 'fitter' anyway? They couldn't run or spar 50 years ago?

 

Did I say he couldn't? But if this was a 'fantasy match-up', then I wouldn't make Haye the favourite.

I'd like to see your reasoning as to why Pacquiao would be favourite over SRR and why Haye would be the favourite over Liston.

 

In what sense is David Haye fitter than past fighters then? I'd love to know more about this blanket reasoning that todays are fitter. Jermain Taylor, another 'athletic' fighter that gasses after 8 rounds. So why does Haye throw on average about 15-20 punches a round if he's so fit when he only has to do 12 rounds?

Then he needs a ****ing 6 month break...

Pure bull****, todays mollycoddled fighters can't fight 4 fights a year nevermind 4 a month. Fitter my ass, complete and utter bull****. You can't be fitter than guys that could last longer distances, fight more often, and were injured less. There is no basis for saying that.

 

The boxers back in the day were doing 15+ rounds against guys of a similar fitness level.
If they didn't have a clock on the 100m, people would be saying Jesse Owens was the fastest man that ever lived. Boxers and their trainers today have access to the mountains of research in how the body reacts to exercise and how the body processes its food intake.

 

I totally agree with this post. deal

I would also add Floyd Mayweather and Bernard Hopkins aswell, I would put Mayweather and Hopkins in against anyone from the last 50 years and give them a good chance to win.