Has Heavyweight Boxing really progressed and is more advance than Past Eras

people think nutrition has changed enough over the years that it will make todays fighters better lol. some dumb people. I hear All the time. "todays fighters have the edge in quality food" Lol. Stupid. If anything food was better back then. Its the certain Gear that has changed not the food or nutrients stupid asses.

 

There is seriously some dumb people in here. People here think protein shakes that are nothing but protein and a ton of sugars give you up to date boxing technique. An these Other "sport supplements" Lmao. Its called better quality footage. Past fighters watched past fighters on film an learned from the flaws of fighters passed. The studying of fighters got better with clearer footage.

 

Harsh.

This content is protected

 

How old was McMushtash when he retired?

"You dont know **** a bout boxing." (Floyd Mayweather Jr)
atsch

 

No,I don't think there's been any progression in the last 20/30 years or so. They've got bigger,but nothing else. The pace is so slow. Look at the first Ali-Frazier fight,for example. The pace in that one was phenomenal for two big men.

 

Why only Heavyweight boxing?

Surely if you believe the sport has advanced, it wouldn't be weight division specific.

I guess this is another "weight and height" thread. The fighters of the 30s on average were about the same size as the heavies today.

 

Definitely not. What have we seen in the last 20-25 years? Fighters have had to have less ability to dominate. They only need to be good at one facet of the game. Its not just heavyweights either. Look at what happened this past weekend. A 38 year old former LW was able to make the supposed best guy in boxing look like a fool.

Fighters no longer have to be complete to be considered great or dominate.

Take Klitschko for example. He can dominate the field so one sidedly but when he went up against an older Lennox Lewis who was able to take him into another style of fighting he drowned within 6 rounds.

Boxing as a whole is going down the tubes and most people dont recognize it because they dont have the knowledge or experience to know what to compare it to.

 

If these old techniques were so amazing don't you think at least one fighter in modern times would use them and start dominating? Or do professional fighters and trainers know far less than posters on the classic forum? :deal

 

Styles dont always make fights. Especially with what we saw last weekend when a physically smaller less powerful, older man completely befuddled the sports supposed P4P #1. Its a horrible excuse thats being thrown around. This was more along the lines of having Larry Holmes schooling a young Mike Tyson. Thats what it would have been more comparable to then comparing Norton and Ali! Pacquaiou had the supposed speed and physical tools (youth and power), to offset a technically sound fighter like Marquez, just as Mike Tyson did Larry Holmes.

What would you call Lewis Klitschko then? Who else has been capable to take it to Vitali like Lewis did and force him into a fight he wasnt capable of handling? Lewis was the last of the complete heavyweights, and he wasnt one of the better ones in my opinion.

Complete fighter: Master of multi styles of boxing. Able to adapt and fight in different styles, ie, infighting, outfighting, brawling, boxing etc.

Complete fighters can fight in more than one style. What we are seeing now is a lot of bad one dimensional fighters and the best of them are dominating boxing.

No this hasnt been said in every era. Boxing has peaked and now been on the decline for years from a technical standpoint. Boxing has come a long way from 1910, but its declined just as badly from the 80's. Your just one of the people Im talking about because your probably 20 years old and havent seen enough boxing to recognize it. :good

 

Look at the skills displayed by todays heavyweights and then compare that those displayed in the past, Boxing has improved since the days of Dempsey, IMo boxing best era was from the 60s to the 90s, since then its been going down the toilet.

Outside the Klits, who with all respect are just doing their job and doing it well, look at the other top recent challengers, Haye, Peters, Arreola, Adamek......how would these guys do in the past eras????

 

many years ago Romans and Greeks used lightweight armour - chain mail, spears for long range fighting, handy short swords that clipped into the inside of their shield for close range fighting etc, they were agile and adaptable to any situation. then after that knights came along with their long swords, wearing two ton of body armour that was so heavy they could not get up if they fell over - useless crap unless they were fighting another man also so encumbered. This is not boxing ………just a comparison of how the HW division has moved on.

 

Are you saying a Roman or Greek soldier could defeat an Armoured Knight??? Why do you think the old ways of war died out, to be replaced with the new? Armour may make you slow, but it keeps you alive. A heavily armoured knight would survive a hundred times over, blows that would be deadly to a classical soldier. With this vastly superior defense(durability), they were free to load up on their killing blows(the one that counts), which would result in decapitation. Wearing and training in this mass of extra weight, would also develop an immensely stronger soldier.

Choklab, what you just said, is one of the most insanely, idiotic comparisons i have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. You just completely butchered your own argument, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

This content is protected

Fixed.