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

So how do you come to the assumption that Haye loses to a lot of great past heavyweights, but they are less technically proficient and not as good a athletes.

Of course you are right about Haye losing to them, but how are you justifying that if you are saying that they aren't better fighters technically or physically?

Would you not say that Joe Louis is technically superior to David Haye, despite Haye being 60 odd years more 'evolved'. Would you not say he punchers harder?

 

Tennis is another example. Give todays tennis players those wooden racquets they used to use back in the day and then see how fast their serve is. Maybe they would still serve faster than the guys of the past, but that doesn't mean they are better players overall.

Training methods have improved because today we have more knowledge, but this doesn't mean the human body has evolved positively or that we have more skill.

I don't have much knowledge of boxing from the 1950's but I'll tell you this about the 80's. When I see guys like Hagler, Hearns and Duran, I see some tough mutha****as that would have totally ****ed up todays boxers. It does not take more energy to throw a punch in 2010 than it did in the 80's, yet those guys would fight very frequently, at a fast pace. They could take some punishment too.

I hate it when people use past fighters to try and discredit the Klitschkos, but I honestly think that Joe Frazier would have destroyed them with ease. He was just so tough. A very, very hard man. Natural too. He made boxing look natural, not something forced.

Duran, and Hagler are sometimes referred to as "brawlers", but they were ****in skillfull. If they were around today people would be using words like "genius", "slick", "mad skills" etc. Look, my knowledge of boxing is poor, but that's what I think when I see those type of fighters. I think they had something that todays fighters don't have.

Todays cricketers are fitter, stronger, faster and more athletic than ones of the past, but in terms of pure skill, they are way behind. I agree with those who say that our knowledge is so much better these days, but I disagree with those who say things like "the human body will keep evolving and improving". The reason they are athletically superior is because of knowledge, and not evolution, and maybe one day we will have devolved so much that even our vast knowledge will not be enough.


Life evolves, but it doesn't always improve, it just changes to suit the times. People are fatter than ever before, got all these health problems like heart disease, diabetes etc. In this day and age, we don't need to be tough, cuz we got ****in computers. We don't have to break our back to get paid, we can just sit at a desk all day. Do you think humans will keep evolving to become physically superior beings? No, we will in fact go backwards because there is no need to be physically strong and in good condition in this age. It's basic science. That's how the wolf became a dog.

If Usain bolt married an athlete, and their kids married other athletes, then his lineage would evolve physically, but that's not gonna happen. The general population is fat, unhealthy and unathletic. There are not enough athletes for everyone to marry.

This is not Spartan society where they weed out the weak. The weak will have to mix with the tiny percentage of people who DO actually make good use of todays knowledge of training methods and push their bodies. Since the weak people dominate, the future generations will be fatter than before. Medicine as come a long way.... but people didn't get ill very often back in the day. Somebody once told me that in the old days, the only reason someone visited a hospital was because they were having a baby. It was very rare to actually become ill. These days, the main reason people go to a hospital is because they have some ailment.

Where does the dog come from? The wolf. When they got the wolf and domesticated the **** out of it, what happened? We got a dog. Do you think a dog who relies on his master for everything, and spends a lof of time sleeping, and maybe gets a 10-minute walk at the park if he's lucky is going to be as tough as a wolf? An animal that has to fight for it's food, has to fight for it's survival? Humans from the past were like wolves. Humans today are like dogs.

Knowledge, and supplements are the things that have benefitted athletes in certain areas like strength and power but they do nothing for skill or natural toughness and mental strength. Nothing! That's why they have to keep changing **** to make guys look good. They have to design special racquets in tennis. They have to have bigger bats and flat pitches to make todays batsmen look good in cricket, they have to make special trainers so that runners can run faster. They won't fool people forever.

The boxers have to cut the number of rounds from 15 to 12 and fight only twice a year to look good. That's what they have to do! Think about that. Then they say "oh but the old guys used to fight bums" to try and justify it. They do all that **** because otherwise they would seem like trash when compared with the old guys.

In cricket, they mess with the speed gun, which makes it look like bowlers like Tim Bresnan are bowling at 90mph. They measure the speed from the hand. In the old days they measured it at the batsmen.

 

They'll all improved because I've been saying, they are all physically measurable. At the end of the 100m, you get a time. The guy with the fastest time wins, that's not subjective, is it? It's measurable and the outcome is, the fastest guy is the best.

Same with the triple-jump, the guy who leaps the furthest is the best. With the pole vault, the guy who can clear the highest bar is the best. With the shot-put, the guy who throws it the furthest is the best.

There's obviously no debating that, because it is measurable. Is boxing measurable in the same capacity? No. Because there are so many different variables and it is so subjective. There is no absolute goal for people to work towards, i.e, in the 100m, of course the goal is to be the guy who runs the fastest time, hence in such a measurable capacity, it has been easier to make technological advances.

Hence people have obviously developed aids such as better track surface and better running shoes to help, along with obviously studying the human anatomy and finding out what works in terms of fitness to help a guy achieve maximum capacity. You can do that because again, it's measurable. The fitness of all the guys is to work towards one goal, to help them run the fastest.

Fitness is boxing is not the same, is it? It's not as measurable becuase there are so many variables. Fighting style, we are talking aerobic and anaerobic capacities. I don't get how people can use a simplistic and measurable sport like the 100m and compare it to one as complex and unmeasurable as boxing.

 

But that's not a valid argument because there are too many things you can't prove. Just because they went more rounds and fought more times, it doesn't mean current boxers are less capable of doing the same amount of rounds. I can't think of any elite fighters right now, who aren't capable of fighting at least 6 times a year, without injuries, and going 15 rounds in each of them. They just don't have to any more.

I was thinking about other sports, but, yeah, you're right.

The thing is though, if you can statistically prove that every sport which doesn't rely on technique has improved, such as everything from the 100m to marathons, and from the discus to weight lifting, then you have to assume that other sports are the same. The reason they are better is part natural, part evolution in training methods, part nutrition and all the rest - Whatever it is, is undeniable that purely physical sports have improved. It's a fact, so you would have to assume that this has also improved in boxing, unless there's a genuine reason why it wouldn't.

I do think that someone like Alex Ariza or even Kerry Kayes, would make any fighter in the 1940's better.

 

The older I get, the more I realise..

Nothing much changes.

ps The kids with all the answers but no direct knowledge of past eras amuse me. They are every bit as annoying as those who see the past through rose tinted glasses. More so, in fact..

 

He's wrong.

Can you imagine Cotto, Jermain Taylor going 15 rounds? they can barely do 12 without getting tired.

They might be more quicker, more athletic that way.

 

Their probably not as physically good as him but if their knocking him out or beating him it does'nt matter does it ?

 

There is absolutely no doubt that fighters from the turn of the 20th century were fitter than those today.

The fact that they had to train to fight for 45 rounds meant that stamina was the single most important component of their training, and their training regimes reflected this.

It is not a matter of a lost golden era of man gods. Its as simple as the logic that a man who trained to run races at marathon distance in 1900 is likely to have better stamina than a runner who specialises in 10k races today.

 

Of course its valid. You want stats but the stats are there right infront of you. 15+ rounds, often. The footage is there. If you want stats to compare or some form of proof you're never going to get it or we wouldn't even be discussing this, its the impicit evidence in the condtions past fighters fought in compared to todays that is important in forming my view. It's definitely AT LEAST if not more relevant that whats going on in non-fighting sports, thats my view.

I don't believe that just because we've got sports scientists and jars of whey that it more than makes up for the time these men spent in a boxing ring. Boxing fitness is largely built up by boxing, everyone knows that, these men simply had to be in great, great shape.

 

There is not a fighter today comparable to Arguello, maybe Manny, but even he is not comparable, as Arguello got stronger as the fight wore on, carried power late to, as was capable of laying you out in the 14th/15th round.

 

Warren said fitter, not better. :-(

 

Why all the had waving?

 

Differing opinions but a damn good thread!:good

 

Thing is, do I believe I'd have steamrollered my dad, I play football now, he played in 66. There's little reason to think that.

Ryan Giggs has been playing in the top flight for 20 years... with no real noticeable difference in terms of his abilities, even though the division attracts the cream of world football these days.

I think things do move on, but relatively slowly.

TFFP summed it up, old school were ready for the long haul, all the time. Todays fighters train to peak, on an infrequent basis. Different things really.

 

See post number 6.....