How would the old time fighters compare today?

I don't think the "modern nutrition" would help the fighters nowadays as much as the steroid use. Steroids have become so prevalent in sports from the mid-90's into the 2000's. Fighters such as Mosley, Jones Jr. and Toney have all been caught using them. And though I don't agree steroids help in baseball (thats an entirely different sport) I think steroid use helps immensely in the sport of boxing due to the fact that it increases strength. After saying all that, I think if some of the fighters of the 40's on up were to fight some of our more modern fighters in a clean tested fight, that there probably wouldn't be a blaring difference and some of the older fighters would win depending on who you matched them up with.

 

Agreed -- Willie Pep is the perfect counter-point to this lateral movement argument.

 

Something to do with guys back then fighting twice a month compared to guys today fighting twice a year.

 

Todays fighters are stronger, faster, hit harder, are more skilled, and far bettered conditioned. Most old time fighters would lose, and badly

 

In a word, bollocks.

 

Thats not what I said.

The old time fighters are hugely overrated.

 

Explain, and elaborate on what you mean by "old time fighters".

 

In other words the nutritional benefits give them no advantages whatsoever over the old timers because their activity level balances it out. In fact, based on what we know, the higher activity level gives the old timers a distinct advantage in that department, despite the changes in nutrition.

 

Maybe but they were tough SOB's

 

What is with these generalizations? People act as if every single "old timer" was some un-skilled white guy who got by purely on toughness. There's quite a bit more to it than that.

 

Yeah maybe,or the guys from these days are pussyes

 

Margarito's technique is "****ing awful", yet somehow he's one of the top 10 P4P fighters in boxing at the moment. Odd.[/quote]

That's a big part of the answer right there. I contend that a great fighter is a great fighter regardless of the era. A lot guys from way back, even the 20's would do fine today if they were allowed to train for a while and view footage of modern opponents. Likewise, great fighters of this era would do great back then.

 

How about 'fighters who come at you with their palms facing up, whose idea of good boxing technique was to windmill til they dropped from exhaustion, and whose opponents could go 240 rounds against them because they couldn't punch in combination?'

Is that a good definition for you?

We've seen what happens with a sharp, correctly thrown punch with small gloves in MMA. It is not humanly possible to take too many good punches to the chin with the tiny little gloves they used to wear in the old days yet they regularly went 20, 30 or more rounds. Old time fighters couldn't finish.

I mean seriously, if you can't watch the tape and extrapolate what would happen to these guys today, you're just ******ed. Jack Dempsey wouldn't even be competitive against a modern HW. Stop being stupid.

 

Margarito's technique is not '****ing awful'. He is a well schooled pressure fighter who just happens to take a hell of a punch and takes that into account when he's putting the heat on. His uppercuts land with savage force, he cuts off the ring well and he throws fluid combinations and can counter very well. The only thing rough about his technique is that he's willing to take two to give one knowing that he can outlast the other guy.

Also, guys from the 20's couldn't get up to speed from 'watching a couple tapes'. Most successful fighters today started when they were kids, and have counters and combinations so deeply ingrained into their muscle memory they could do it in their sleep and several HAVE done it so badly hurt they didn't even know what they were doing.

 

The reason you don't see that activity level today is because you can't fight that often in this era. You will either be beaten ******ed or be shot before you're 25.