How were old timers so good?

Hate to harsh your mellow, bro, but Poverty and Hard Times are still alive and active in many places.... maybe just not your neighborhood.

 

Boxers from years ago were much hungrier than fighters today. Hunger is a great motivator
which a lot of guys today don't have. By hungry, I literally mean tryiing to put food on the familys table hungry. A guy like Bob Foster usually fought for peanuts unless he was willing to risk his health by fighting heavyweights who he really had no chance against. Guys in the 40's and 50's were fighting tough, hungry guys every couple of weeks cause that was the only way to make any money. When was the last time guys like Floyd and Manny were hungry? Don't like to get into this whole new guys vs old guys arguement, but to me it is a no-brainer

 

Amateur boxing isn't really even boxing any more. Two different sports. As far as Wlad and Louis, I don't really consider Louis much of an old-timer. I know guys in his era did still fight all the time, but he didn't and when he did he wasn't necessarily matched all that tough. Plus you have that break he took during the war. My opinion on Wlad is he woud be a champ in any era. Extremely good and gigantic.

As far as world amateurs, many of them don't even go pro and not many pros were high level amateurs. My understanding of the early to mid 1900's was that pretty much every kid boxed at least some. Most of the pros back then didn't come from serious amateur backgrounds (ie Olympic/world champs). Also I don't consider the 70's to be that long ago.

 

So, there are no hungry people in the Phillipines or Kazakhstan or Mexico or Detroit?

I'm glad we got that problem out of the way.

 

This guy knows whats up.

 

Probably true but how many of them become boxers? I think much less than in the past - which has a lot to do with boxing devolving from a primetime to a niche sport. Would be an interesting subject for a study.

 

Definitely a niche sport nowadays IMO.

 

Experience matters a lot in boxing. It's like chess in that respect. Few boxers today fight often enough over their whole careers to fully develop their skills, and the skilled boxers tend to have had long amateur careers.

The old timers fought hundreds of pro fights and so they were able to develop their skills to a more full extent, on average, than modern boxers. On the other hand, on average, they had inferior nutrition and time to train, so they weren't physically so impressive on average. Then again, people in the days of widespread manual labour and harsher living conditions were generally stronger and tougher than today, so one shouldn't overstate the physical differences e.g. Joe Louis built up considerable strength just by getting carts of ice up stairs as a day job early in his career.

 

My answer to the question is that old time boxers in general were not as good as some claim. It's mostly a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and I think this bull**** hurts the sport. It also goes against logic and common sense.

Just one example... Fighters today can study video of the best fighters from all eras and learn that way. They can break down every move, every sequence, moment by moment. They can also watch their opponents before they get in the ring with them. Fighters way back in the day couldn't do any of that because there was no video, no internet, etc. They could only learn about their opponents from newspaper reports or from watching them in person.

Of course, not everything is better nowadays. One of the main problems in boxing is that top guys don't fight each other enough and the sanctioning bodies don't force them to.

However, the idea that fighting every month (or multiple times a month) would make boxers better is doubtful, in my opinion. Most of those guys who fought that often died in poverty and were a physical wreak by the time they retired.

 

back in the good ol' days there weren't effective boxing commissions to keep one-eyed men from fighting or men who would not be allowed in a boxing ring today to fight as well. How many fighters back in the good ol' days had more than one "ring name" and does that practice still exist as commonly as it did back then?

 

they started filming fights quite a while back, was max schmelling a modern fighter?

 

Also, watching a fight in person>Video.

 

Do you think the average fighter had access to films of other fighters before VCRs became commonplace?

 

i wrote a long reply but the computer killed it,

short story, yes average fighters have more access to film, no this is not more important than experience, being poor in retirement has no relation to boxing skill, if that is your thinking then just follow the experts(not me, emanuel steward, and nazeem richardson for 2) who all say old was better

 

People here claimed that fighting often (like every month or multiple times a month) helped make better boxers. I'm not buying it. I think it mainly just ruined their health, in exchange for a pittance. Fighters should learn and hone their craft in training, not in the actual fights. Trying to learn during fights is a good way to take unnecessary losses and get beat up.

As for what the experts say, they may have their own reasons and biases. Regardless, I don't blindly follow what anyone else says. I have my own eyes and can form my own opinion. Watch Marciano vs Cockell, for example, and tell me how that's better than, let's say, Haye vs Chisora.