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

My personal opinion is that all sports evolve with time, I firmly believe are footballers today would crush our heroes of 66 and I believe that in 30 years time they'll crush our guys now, everything improves with time, nothing ever stands still. I mean Usain Bolt is the perfect example. All records will be broken and all fighters skill sets and power barriers will be surpassed as this is just the way it is, heavyweights will contInue to grow and the physical limits will also continue to be pushed, boxing is no different to other sports and has vastly improved over the last 3 decades IMHO ;-)

 

Usain Bolt is not the perfect example Tony. You are talking about something that is measurable. The 100m time has shortened because it's a physically measurable thing. Boxing isn't, nor is football.

Hence there is only one way to approach the 100m and that is obviously to run as past as possible. There is any numbers of ways to look at a subjective sport like boxing or football that isn't measurable.

Regardless, how do you think Jesse Owens would have done if he was 6'5" with those long strides, and could run on a perfectly designed race track rather than what he used to run on in his era. And if he had perfectly designed running shoes like Bolt has, rather than what he used to run in.

 

I've said this before aswell. If boxing has 'evolved' so much, put Joe Louis in with today's heavies, put Charles in with any light-heavy, put Robinson in with any welter, put Burley in with any middle, Pep with any feather, Ortiz with any bantam, Ike Williams in with any lightweight.

 

Could you break it down mate, what physical limits are you on about ? Weight ? I agree, size ? yes both obvious.Now that aside What has impressed you with the heavys now than of those 30 years ago? You got some seriously shite fighters to pick from now to be comparing them to the ones from the 70's fella. There actually an embarrassment to the sport to be fair the heavys.Lennox, evander would do very well and maybe klitschkos would be names in the 70s.Not a great deal there is there. The word "better" or "progression" is alot more difficult when assessing boxing than most other sports its not black and white as such. Haye is getting wasted in the 70s BIGTIME. I'd pick a contender like quarry to **** him

 

It's not the perfect example at all. The fact that's it measurable means there is one certified objective, to run as fast as possible. There is absolute no subjectivity towards the 100m at all, which means that attempting to better those times has been far easier.

Of course the times are going to be quicker in this day and age because it's scientifically measurable aswell. People can sit there researching the human anatomy and finding out what makes us run as fast as possible. They can sit there designing tracks and running shoes to give sprinters an advantage.

How do you do so in a sport that isn't measurable and is all subjective like boxing? Nobody can sit here and physically measure whether today's fighters are more advanced than those of yesterday. You are merely assuming that because a measurable sport like the 100m has 'evolved' because of advances in technology and understanding, that a completely unrelated, unmeasurable sport like boxing has aswell.

Again, if boxing has evolved so much, take fighters from the late 40's/early 50's and put them in today's scene. Louis with the heavies, Charles with the light-heavies, Burley with the middles, Robinson with the welters, Pep with the feathers, Ortiz with the bantams etc. Are you telling me all these guys would be out of their depth in today's game? Yep, I didn't think so.

 

They wouldn't be out of their depth, but they were exceptional fighters. It's pointless mentioning Robinson because most people consider him the greatest of all time. 'How would the average welterweight from back then compete in todays division', would be a more suitable question.

Even then, people who have been involved in the boxing business during both eras, say a lot of techniques have been lost. There are plenty of subtleties which Charles, Robinson etc. used that aren't in boxing any more, so even if you think the average welter in the 40's was better, that's not really the point either. They could be technically better, but still less 'evolved' as fighters.

The point is whether these fighters are in better condition on fight night. Does the modern conditioning help or is it excessive or even not nessecary? The only comparison that should be made, is to look at the training regime of an elite fighter like Pacquiao and compare that to Robinson's.

 

Usain Bolt :rofl

Completely irrelevant. All they have to do is run to the end of a course. Nobody would deny people are likely to be more explosive, which is exactly what 100m is about.

Running to the end of a course in 100m is not even remotely comparable to a fighting sport, and its certainly no reflection on 'fitness' or quality in boxing.

 

The simplicity of the 100m is what makes it a valid point. In every other sport there are variables because of technique and things like that, but to prove whether there has been a physical evolution, you must take technique out of the equation and the 100m is the best event to look at for that essential simplicity.

 

No, the simplicity is what makes it a nonsense because running 100m does not make a guy 'fit' in boxing terms.

Fit isn't fast, fast could be argued to be one sub category of being 'fit' in boxing along with stamina, hardness in terms of being fit to fight, ability to avoid injury and the old timers have the advantage in all those categories.

 

Looking at just the physical conditioning, it is proof that things have evolved. Going beyond the 100m, every event in the Olympics has vastly improved since the 1940's. Limiting the improvement to just the 100m can be criticised, yes, but the fact there has been in improvement in every sport which you can actually measure, proves the point.

Can you name one sport which factually hasn't improven? By looking at times, weights and those things. If you can, that is the basis of any argument.

 

I'm aware of what other sports have done.

But I think in boxing its different for 'fitness' because of the safety aspect. We've actually brought in measures that handicap fighters ability to build up a natural fitness and hardness that the past guys had. I believe they had greater fitness, and it is demonstrable simply by the fact they fought more rounds, more often, at a good pace compared to their contemporaries. So its actually the modern boxers that have to prove their fitness, not just bringing out the 'other sports' argument. When they gas in the 8th round it doesn't help the argument.

Speed and strength, maybe, but then I think speed is 90% natural talent. SRR was fast too. You can do certain things to increase it but there is a bottleneck on speed, nobody is going to make Margarito fast which goes to show with all the modern techniques in the world that is largely talent. Strength I would not argue.

 

atsch

You've really just strengthened our argument here. Fighting in boxing makes on fit. Gymwork makes one fit. Past fighters did an awful lot of it and didn't sit on their ass for 4 months at time. There is no way you can't get boxing fit by boxing often.

 

What I mean mate is the boxers as athletes and even as far as technique have improved, I'm yet to see a heavyweight as technically good as say Lennox or one as good as a prime Tyson, I'm also yet to see a better gifted fighter than Mayweather, this is just my personal opinion though. Every fighter from every era has flaws ie chin, stamina etc etc but if you just look past that and look solely at things like technique, speed and overall strength then the game has come on leaps and bounds, yes David Haye would have lost to a lot of past heavyweight champions but my point is are they physically better than him? Do they punch more correct than him? Are they better athletes than him and generally I don't think they are cos quite simply they did not have the things available to them or have the knowledge that these guys have now, everything in life moves forward and boxing is no different IMHO mate ;-)

 

Pacquiao is one of the most committed trainers around though, and Robinson arguably wasn't. On the other side of the coin, did Pacquiao have to fight 15 rounders and such?

Henry Armstrong fought 9 times in the space of a year once, 8 of which were scheduled 15 rounders [4 of which went the full 15, including the first 3] and the other a 10 rounder.

All titles defences so top opposition throughout [he fought Barney Ross, Baby Arizmendi, Ceferino Garcia and Lou Ambers in that period, and for what it's worth, won all 9 fights].

He had a hard-fought 15 round contest with Garcia and just 10 days later was back in the ring for another 15 rounder.