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

All those sports you've mentioned logic there's being massive developments in the equipment being used, the tracks/surfaces athletes compete on, sports nutrition, professionalism and all that.

If you put today's athletes back in the 50's with the trainers they wore, the tracks they ran on, the food they ate how would they fare?

Ask Beeston how cricket has changed due to the bats used? And no more uncovered pitches, and the amount of technology used to prepare for certain bowlers yet no one has even come close to matching Don Bradman's feats.

In boxing yeah there's greater knowledge of how best to prepare the body, what to eat and what not to eat. But has boxing technique evolved post WWII? Has there being a revolution in how fighters fight? A jab is still a jab and a hook is still a hook.

End of the day people can claim conditioning has improved but technique has not. Look at the top trainers today - Freddie Roach is a disciple of the great Eddie Futch, Manny Steward is an 'old school' trainer. Sure Freddie now uses people like Alex Ariza to ensure his fighters are in the best condition but we live in an age where a fighter fighting 3, 12 rounders a year is regarded as active and even with all the preparation and sports science that takes place many fighters still fade in the later rounds.

Now compare that to the past where fighters would fight multiple 15 rounders a year.

****ing Bernard Hopkins is seen as old school but how about Archie Moore doing 15 rounders in his 40s? Hopkins would have retired long ago if we still had 15 rounders.

 

I remember making a thread about technique evolving in the modern era. Had some good insightful replies.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161364

 

You have basically answered the question yourself.

I pointed it out earlier in this thread and someone else i think touched on it that by and far most people training in boxing do use old school methods.

Obviously i don't know for sure as i have never researched it myself but i would be willin to bet that if you look at all sports training methods, past and present, you will find that boxing is one of the least progressive sports in terms of updating traing methods.

 

I've grown up watching the likes of Tito, PBF, Pac, Barrera, Morales, Marquez. Some other great fighters i could add but when i watch the older fights i think to myself ''different beasts''. The punishment they received and dished out was phenomenal. The amount of fights they had in short period's of time meant these guys were true fighting machines. I'm in awe of them guys...the modern day fighter may be a warrior and sacrifice alot but when you see guys from way back when defending there title 5 times in 9 months etc you have to feel these guys were a different breed. Amazing to look back.

 

I firmly believe 'conditioning' has not improved in general in the sense we talk of it in boxing. Not durability and stamina wise, certainly not. The proof is there on paper, only the blind can not see that. They fought 15-20 rounds at a pace regularly, this is the single best piece of evidence that supports either sides argument.

Strength and explosiveness should have improved as people have got naturally bigger and the rest fighters get, the specialized training and increased knowledge should ensure that generally fighters are more explosive and hit a higher peak come fight night whereas a graph for an old timer charting this is likely to be fairly flat because of the constant work load.

 

It's all relative.

If you were to take the best football team from the 60's, kept them with the same training, diet, and tactics of the day and drop them straight into the modern premier league.... they'd struggle.

The science behind training, and diet in the last 20yrs has seen fitness and conditioning being taken to near super human levels. However everyone is the same. 30-40yrs back it might not of been as good, but it was the same for everyone.

A great fighter in comparison to who he is fighting, was/is always a great fighter. If Ray Robinson was a 18yr old just now, about to break into the professional ranks, he'd still go on to become a dominant fighter. However if you dropped a 30yr old Ray Robinson, straight in against an elite modern fighter... you may see him struggle.

 

Coaches like Adam Booth? Yes Adam Booth is such a brilliant trainer, **** Eddie Futch and the old school when we've got Adam Booth.

That's nonsense, Adam Booth has done it with one very talented fighter. To write off past training methods on the basis of what Adam Booth has done is complete folly. Let's see what Adam does with George Groves. He's got a decent, but flawed fighter there that needs work. At the moment he's got him fighting like a clone of Haye when he doesn't neccessarily have the same athleticism or power. Not exactly genius, one size doesn't fit all.

 

Come on man, the track, clothing and spikes do make a difference however small that difference may be.

In cycling the bikes are lighter, more streamlined, the clothings designed to be as light as possible etc. You think they do that for no reason?

Adam Booth works for David Haye but has he proved it with other fighters? Sometimes some trainers just have great chemistry with one fighter but can't replicate that with others.

Let's see what George Groves does :good

 

If anything George Groves could do with some old school common sense incorporated into his boxing the way he moves so much unnecessarily when he's under no threat, he burns a lot of energy for no reason. He's got his hands down and his reflexes were shown up. That's not a good look. I'm not one of these people obsessed with keeping your hands up but theres a time and a place for doing it, and George Groves is one of those times. If 'new school' is the way George Groves fought under Adam Booth I would say there is definitely room for past methods also.

 

How about the fact that there are a fraction of the boxers competing in the sport today compared to the 1920s - 60s and they fight much less often.

 

Pmsl, liston shatters haye to bits within 4 rounds. Yes he is naturally bigger, stronger and punches harder, you've got it all wrong.

 

I know David Haye is a blown up super middle weight - but still if Adam booth and modern techniques are so great why can't he fight properly for 12 rounds?

 

I think this is the main point, the talent pool in modern boxing is far smaller than in the past.

 

Rem Foreman won the title in 1973 and again in 1995.

 

Liston vs. Haye??


FFS!!