Have boxers gotten better as time progressed?

I know head to head those giants would always have a good chance, but im speaking in terms of skill, not size. denontay wilder was a million miles from joe Louis skill wise despite coming along many decades later

 

I don't think one can make generalizations one way or the other. You have some very talented fighters from every era and ones that aren't so talented along with plenty who are inbetween. Ray Robinson would have been a great fighter in any era as would Floyd Mayweather, Roy Jones, Henry Armstrong, Muhammad Ali and Evander Holyfield. How the second tier of each period does is the real question.

 

boxing has expanded and contracted just like any other sport over time.

evolution merely means the athletes find the skills that best fit the current trends of the sport, not that their skills are superior to prevous eras. That is actually what evolution means, best fit, not continuous improvement.

SO if anyones going to use the word evolution to mean continuous improvement, then you are on the wrong foot already.

 

I was thought along the lines that todays boxers are better, more refined etc..but over the years I've changed my mind somewhat, especially with the HW division. I once thought the Klit. brothers would be too big, strong and talented for the greats that preceeded them but that's no longer the case. The K brothers are good but how good has thier opposition been? Who have they fought that had the skill to get inside with effective bobbing and weaving ala peak Frazier/Tyson or even Dempsey? I think they could get inside a long jab frequently enough to make a fight of it instead of standing straight up with no head movement, content to eat jabs and right hands all night. And how many fighters have they faced with the combination of size, speed, durability and chin that Ali posessed, or Holmes for that matter? Joe Louis would be a dangerous opponent as well with his precise punching and fast hands. As for the smaller fighters, lets see Hopkins last as long as he has against the likes of Robinson,Burley,LaMotta ,Zivic' Greb etc..and later on against Monzon,Valdez and Hagler. I'm not trying to belittle Hopkins at all. He's remarkable for fighting as long as he has but he's also the beneficiary of a talent weak time period. Same for Mayweather. Drop him back in Leonard's/ Hagler's/ Duran's and Hearn's era and I think "Money" wouldn't be undefeated....Competitive of course but undefeated? Nope. The sport has changed more than evolved I feel. More money, less fights per year (at least for the upper echelon) and equipment changes has forced the sport to adapt to these changes. There have been standouts in every era who could've competed in any era. Just because they're "modern" doesn't necessarily make them better. It's a different sport in some ways today. Just like it was different in the old days.

 

It is common for people to talk about evolution of the sport, but the reality is that unlike other sports, the sport has actually devolved for certain reasons.

For example:
Equipment:
In all other sports like running cycling, swimming etc, the bikes get faster, the running tracks get faster, shoes get lighter, togs get buoyant etc. In boxing, this is not the case. Shoes are not as good. John L Sullivan and co used to have long steel spikes. Some fighters wold jam them on others and break their feet. This is something which modern fighters dont deal with. I am not sure how Wlad would go against tiny charlie mitchell if charlie slams down on his feet and breaks his toe, in the first clinch Wlad tries.

They had gloves similar today, but they were called pillows. For a real fight the gloves were much smaller. ONe would expect that this is also a devolving of the game.

All title fights today are in shady conditions. the hot nevada sun finished sugar Ray Robinson and others. I really do have to wonder what effect it might have on Wlad, who used to be known for his 'stamina' problems.

A reduction in rounds makes things easier for the modern fighter. this is another area the sport has devolved instead of evolving. Fighters fight less often. How, therefore, can they possibly hope to learn as much. Old fighters were often average until they fought 3 or 4 years and hit their prime. If you look at guys like Greb, Johnson, Fitzsimmons etc, they were really able to go up another level after their first 30 or 40 fights. Today, fighters are finished by 40 fights. How can they possibly learn as much as they would under old conditions?

Clinching used to be allowed. Now it isnt. How is it possible for a modern fighter to be as good nowadays if half the skill sets are banned. With smaller gloves, Jack Johnson would Grab biceps from the inside, wrestle his opponent and pretty much make it impossible for them to throw combinations and hurt him. Wlad or Lennox, have their hands taped in virtual ball and are wearing pillows. Watch them try to break a clinch. It is impossible for them to get a grip and break a johnson like grip and in most cases the referee (quite rightly) breaks the clinch without any danger anyway. They are simply untrained at fighting in the clinch. this is a massive devolution of the sport.

In reality, because boxing is the only sport i can think of which has actually gone backwards in most areas, it doesnt follow the usual track and field argument of progressive times. It would be like timing Usain Bolt over 100m on a sandy and rocky path in barefoot. You couldnt expect him to compete. PED are the big equaliser, but it can only take fighters so far.

 

Excellent points Boilermaker and I agree. I would add that I wish the gloves that fighters wear today were more like the gloves of yesteryear. Todays gloves have turned boxers into head hunters. They resemble Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots. Hands up and go to the head. The older gloves seemed to allow more variety in offense and defense due to being smaller. There was more creativity I guess. Today it looks like fighters have pillows on thier hands that extend almost to mid forearm which gives more protection i guess but limits a fighters' options to exercise some defensive and offensive ingenuity. Too many of them seem to follow the same gameplan. maybe it's just me but I've heard other fans of similar age say the same thing.

 

Boxing is unique amongst other sports in that I think the older fighters of yesteryear were better then today. Primarily just due to the sheer number of fights they had. After so many fights you pick up what tendencies opponents have, how they react under certain situations, what works and what doesn't.
In boxing nothing can match experience.
The fighters these days are fitter and they don't smoke etc like the fighters of old, but they aren't accustomed to going 15 rounds and they certainly couldn't do that on a regular basis. Anyone that has hopped in a ring can tell you that the more nervous/anxious you are, the faster you get tired. In that scenario I'll take the guy whom has had 200 fights over someone with 40.

 

Disagree. Number of fights is a huge factor nothing replaces practical application for experience when it comes to learning and improving if you have an apprentice electrician you can't expect them to learn in 500 hours what they could in 4000.

Hopkins is still around and able to do what he has because of how refined and efficient he's become mastering his style yet only has 65 career fights. Imagine if he had that many 5 or 6 years into his career and was age 24 just starting to hit his physical prime but armed with the same knowledge of his craft that he now possesses at age 49. The contenders from past decades were far more polished then your average one today.

154 has been considered a strong division for a few years now look at Lara who is considered elite and how one dimensional he is in what he's able to do compared to just the contenders from the 50's and 60's like Benton, Turpin, Webb, Carter, Castellani, Giambra.

 

Yeah the first point is the one I'm making. However I do add that we can only measure fighters on what they became, not really imagine them being born into older eras - that makes things far too ambiguous and no one can possibly have an accurate say on how the fighter would end up as the fighter in question ceases to be the fighter in question.

 

Current fighters learning from past fighters is of course a reason as to why boxing have evolved.

 

As for the "many more fights"-argument, I'm not so sure that 10+ fights will necessarily be a plus. The risk is that the wear and tear means that your body starts to decline before you're fully developed skill wise.

On the other hand, having hundreds of amateur fights and then good sparring between your pro fights will help you build a high skill level while not wearing out your body. Mayweather is a current example of this, as is Rigondeaux. SRL, McCallum and Whitaker were other fighters that looked almost the complete article after relatively few pro fights because of solid amateur backgrounds and good training and coaching.

Look at Leonard with just 20 pro fights under his belt against Benitez, for example. Top amateur pedigree combined with top training and top match-making (Dundee was a genius at brining young fighters to the top, facing just the right amount of challenge on the way) will do that if the talent and desire is there in the fighter.

 

What do you think of Joe Gans and Jose Napoles compared to Floyd?

 

:hi:Hi Trollerby Thomas...:hi:Bye Trollerby Thomas