HW evolution debate master thread

Of all frequent boxing debates, this is probably the one that could most use a thread to be called back up to refresh both sides on the main arguments. While I believe that hws have gotten better over time, I'm going to try to be as fair as possible and put both sides best arguments up. If I see, either in this thread or elsewhere, a good new argument not already on the thread, I'll edit or otherwise add it to this thread. I'll put my thoughts on the arguments in a following post.

Arguments for HWs getting better over time:
A. There is a much bigger talent pool, because world population is much bigger and more countries participate in boxing.
B. That talent pool is reflected in the much greater size of both champs and contenders nowadays. And is reflected in the fact that, except for eras influenced by wartime, there has been a steady progression in size.
C. Humans generally progress in their endevours; they gain knowledge and apply knowledge to become better.
D. Steroids, training, and nutrition advances allow better fighters
E. Virtually every sport with a tangible record have had those records broken in the last 30 years. Those sports have generally seen similar growth of size of participants as hw boxing has. Therefore, it stands to reason that hw boxing participants would similarly be better performers than past competitors.

Arguments against HWs getting better over time:

A. There is a smaller talent pool, because boxing is less popular than before.
B. Fighters fought more often, and fought better competition more often, and therefore were more experienced.
C. Ali, Louis, and others were exceptional talents who transcended their eras or their eras limitations.
D. To the extent steroids nutrition etc matters, if you have the old fighters the modern advances, it would eliminate any advantage.
E. The old training techniques etc have been lost.

 

My personal opinion:
Reasons for progression: A, B, and E are the big reasons for me. E is the only direct, correllary proof either side can point to.
Reasons against: A is the only really logical argument here for me, but ultimately, it misses the point. Boxing is less popular in America, but is more of a worldwide presence. Moreover, many sports with tangible records that are broken by bigger, modern day competitors are also not as popular. But athletically gifted people still find their way into the sports

 

I don't think anyone would debate the shw's have more skills than the Marciano and Ali's, just that their combination of skill and size is sufficient to beat them.

 

The issue there is that Rocky and Ali are highly comparable: they were less than 20 years apart, and close in terms of "style" size. Marciano was significantly smaller than Ali, but was usually the smaller fighter. He regularly beat larger opponents. Ali was usually the larger fighter. In fact he was either taller or heavier than almost all his top opponents. The only top ten hw he beat who was both taller and heavier than him was Terrell, and that was by one pound, and he couldn't stop Terrell.

Thus, while Marciano was smaller than Ali, I can't see him being at a much greater disadvantage than Ali, due to the fact he did not rely on his size as Ali did.

I'd point to the arguments in the initial post as to why Ali couldn't beat Joshua. I'm thinking you would use argument C as to why Ali would win, let me know if there is a different reason and I'll insert it.

 

Good post, but I think alot of people would dispute that hws are getting better over time.

 

Do you have an argument you'd like me to put in the section for arguments against progression?

 

@SmackDaBum and @Loudon, let me know if there are any arguments you'd like to see added in the pro or anti hw progress pool. I'd like a comprehensive list.