How come boxing hasn't progressed naturally over time the way the 100m has??

Dempsey could absolutely compete at CW in the modern era.


Running in a straight line very fast is about as far from boxing as an activity as it is possible to get. Also,sprinting is only a character driven sport in the sense that commitment to training is crucial (not that crucial though, see Bolt). Boxing is character driven above all else. This is the most important aspect of boxing.

Some would suggest that humanity's character, generally, is declining.

Furthermore, this comparison doesn't take into consideration absolutely crucial components such as talent pool, the talent pool for boxing shrank dramatically post 1955ish. Boxing is famously known as a working class sport, and was always going to suffer dramatically in an era which enormously shrank the working class in favour of the middle class during the period in question.

Robinson, Pep, Charles, Louis were all active at the same time and boxing absolutely has not progressed since that time and in certain aspects of technique has quite clearly regressed.

 

Someone like Ray Arcel, one of the most knowledgable persons in boxing ever, would disagree with you.

The fact is, outside of fans on internet forums, i've never - never - seen anyone run Demspey's skills down. Mike Tyson, Ray Arcel, Angelo Dundee, they think he's a fantastic boxer - guys like you think he had SHOCKINGLY BAD SKILLS. Even if I didn't have the faith in my own judgement that I do, there is no way I could take you seriously.

 

Would you say that Gene Tunney was "crude and primitive"? Do you consider him a part of the Dempsey era? How about Tommy Gibbons? I would say Jack Sharkey looks the equal of any 200lb man that boxed in the 1930's from a purely technical perspective, but you would see him as crude and primitive?

 

Yeah, I've seen him, loads. He looks more like Floyd Patterson than any other HW to me.