HW evolution debate master thread

It's nice to see you again Andrew.

I know how passionate you are about the HW's.


My stance will never change on this subject.

Boxing has progressed from the M.O.Q, but it doesn't keep progressing in the same way that other sports do.

I'll be honest with you, I don't know how anybody can argue otherwise.

Boxing constantly ebbs and flows with each decade.

It does not progress with each passing decade like sprinting and swimming etc.

If it did, then the fighters of today would be universally classed as the greatest fighters of all time.


Here's a very simple excercise:

List the top 20 HW's in the world right now.

Then list the top 20 HW's of the 80's, from over 30 years ago.

Then list the top 20 HW's of the 90's, from over 20 years ago.


Show me the evolution.


A top sprinter from 30 years ago couldn't have competed against the best sprinters of today.

Yet a top HW from 30 years ago could obviously have beaten most of today's top 20 HW's.

That's how simple it is.


Boxing has progressed, but it doesn't keep progressing.

There is no natural progression.

If you put together a huge tournament between past and present boxers, you'd get mixed results. Because there is no cut off point.


We've got some great HW's today, and some exciting match ups to look forward to. But as yet, guys like Parker and Wilder etc, have yet to convince me that they'd have survived against the HW's of the 90's.

 

Ha3x glad to know your preference is right. The avatar will make a comeback.

 

When Lewis was around, which was only 15 years ago, his major advantage over most of his opponents was weight and length, obviously he was a top class fighter, but he used his physical attributes a lot.

He'd be average in size amongst top 10 HWs now

 

They aren't comparable.

Of course Rocky would have been at a much greater disadvantage against a modern HW than Ali.

Rocky was 5'10 with a 68" reach. Whilst he was extremely tough, he didn't possess great skills, and he was easy enough to hit and was prone to cuts.

Ali was 6'3 with a 78" reach. He was one of the fastest HW's of all time, with great hand speed and footwork. His unorthadox style and great reflexes, meant that he was hard to hit clean in his prime.

It makes no difference that Rocky constantly beat bigger fighters, whilst most of Ali's opponents were either the same size or smaller.

It has no relevance in looking at how both of them may have fared against modern HW's.

 

Again: HW's have gotten better over time, but they don't keep getting better over time.

The top HW's today are not classed as the greatest HW's who have ever fought.

The top HW's of today are no better than the top HW's of the 80's and 90's.

 

Just to clarify your view Loudon, is it closest to:

a) HW's in general will get better, but since it is an unpredictable process, that does not guarantee the progress is always made (i.e. the top boxers of year X+30 could still be worse than those of year X).
b) HW's in general have got better, but they have quickly reached a limit to this progress and today's crop are no better than those of 30 years ago.
c) There is no general trend of progress in the HW division at all - merely a series of ebbs and flows.

Or something else?

 

andrewa1,

I didn't say the top 20 guys of another era would beat all of the top 20 HW's of today.

I just asked you to list today's top 20 guys, and then the top 20 guys of the 80's and 90's, giving me examples of the supposed evolution.

You're focusing too much on other sports, instead of focusing solely on boxing.

Is this debate subjective? Of course it is. But I can see with my own eyes that some fighters of yesteryear were on another level to some of today's guys, and that's across all divisions.

Can I prove it? Of course not. Not without a time machine. But after watching boxing for almost 30 years, I'd bet my house on a guy like Lennox Lewis beating Deontay Wilder and Joseph Parker over a series of fights. Why? Because Wilder is uncoordinated, and he's struggled at times against guys who I consider to be B and C class fighters.

At other weights, look at the MW division and compare it to the divisions of the 80's and 90's. As a whole, today's best MW's are nowhere near as good as the MW's of the early 90's from 25 years ago. I don't see how anybody could argue against that. To me, that is clear evidence that boxing stands alone.

In a fantasy fight discussion, I'm not looking at how far apart the guys in question fought. And neither am I taking into account what's happened in other sports. All I'm going to focus on is their skills and style, and how I think they would mesh. No other factor influences my decision making.

Why wouldn't the best versions of Ali and Holmes be successful today?

Where's the logic in that assumption?


The best HW's today are the likes of:


Tyson Fury
Alexander Povetkin
Joseph Parker
Deontay Wilder
Anthony Joshua

 

I don't think that's the case Andrew even if there are more heavyweights. Training has undergone a degeneration, there's a smaller number of quality trainers and heavyweights very often take up this sport at an older age.
Moreover, some of the very best heavyweights aren't even turning professional.
There are literally only 10 HW's in the world that are good fighters, the rest are even below C level. The body size increases have not been very useful. It seems the best athletes are not even joining boxing.

 

All of the above, but mainly C.

Since the birth of the sport, a knowledgeable fan can see that there has been progression. But there is no natural progression over time.

Today's sprinters are the fastest and therefore the best sprinters of all time.

Today's swimmers are the fastest and therefore the best swimmers of all time.

Are today's fighters the best fighters of all time?

Break them down by each class.

Are today's best MW's the best MW's of all time?

Are today's best WW's the best WW's of all time?

In my honest opinion, any knowledgeable fan will either answer with: "No" or "Not necessarily"

Which makes boxing stand alone from any other sport.

If you had a time machine and you went back and chose a top sprinter from the 70's, you know he wouldn't be able to beat today's top guys. But If you went back and chose some top fighters from the 70's, such as: Duran, Monzon, Hagler, Holmes, Benitez and Foster, then I'm sure that like myself, you'd bet that those guys would definitely be able to beat a number of their modern counterparts.

 

On the first point, why do you think this is the case? I have heard this argument before but I don't understand why you would think information has been lost somehow or techniques/methods have been abandoned?

As for the increase in the size/weight of heavyweights, I can see the argument that bigger men are inferior technically than lighter heavies of the past (just like the best lightweights are better boxers than the best middleweights etc) but I would argue that body increases at heavyweight have indeed been "useful" insofar that big men are dominating. It can be argued the division does not showcase the best technical boxing but the bigger men, despite the limitations of their size, are thriving because the effectiveness of their greater size (and power?) overcomes any disparity in technical skill. For example, most would agree Povetkin is superiorly skilled in relation to Joshua, whilst at the same time Joshua would be favoured to win if they were to fight.

 

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with much of that, however I think we should confine the discussion to the HW division as it is there that one of the strongest arguments for progress arises (i.e. they are getting bigger in general). I agree with you regarding the other divisions. I also believe that the style/skill method you advocate is a logical way of comparing past greats to current fighters.

However, I do feel that in the HW division there is some concept of progress; I also think that the current crop aren't that good. Sort of like an ebb which is more significant than the slight trend of general progress in some cases. You listed Povetkin, Fury, Wilder, Parker and Joshua as current top HWs. Povetkin and Fury have issues, Wilder and Parker are completely unproven in a historical sense, and even Joshua has work to do judging by the performance vs Wlad. But if we take the great/proven fighters of the past 20 years, e.g. two Klitschkos, Lewis, and let's say Bowe to make it 4 I'd be fairly confident that in a round-robin they'd beat Ali, Louis, Marciano, Frazier most of the time. Only Ali would be able to beat some of those giants IMHO.

The thing with Ali vs modern fighters is that Ali is an ATG, arguably the ATG, while Povetkin is only a contender, Wilder and Parker are basically unproven champions, etc. I don't think we can judge progress that way.

 

There's techniques that aren't that common now. In-fighting, double hooks and body punches.

The trainers of old are long gone. They're not there to show hands on examples.

 

I agree with you, which is why i believe it ebbs and flows.

You can say that the best HW's of the 90's were better as a whole than the guys of Louis's and Marciano's era etc, but you can't say that today's best guys are better than the best guys of the 80's and 90's, which were 25-35 years ago. So whilst there's been progression, there hasn't been a gradual progression over time like there's been in other sports. That's my only argument.

Fighters simply don't keep getting better with each decade that passes. If they did, then today's guys would be universally recognised as the greatest of all time, and they'd clearly be a noticeable difference in skills and technique from the fighters of the past. Yet that's clearly not the case. The best fighters of today aren't head and shoulders above the best fighters of the last 40 years or so. Which means that boxing is unique and shouldn't be compared to other sports.

It's absurd for people to cite track and pool times as some sort of evidence that proves that boxing keeps progressing over time. Just because Linford Christie couldn't have beaten Usain Bolt in a sprint, it doesn't mean that the best fighters of the 80's and 90's couldn't have beaten today's best fighters.

 

Couldn't this be explained by stricter rules/refereeing? Or even by changing/advancing theories on fighting as an art, like maybe certain assaults are avoided because they compromise an orthodox defence*?

*disclaimer; I have no experience of boxing either fighting or training, this is all just me theorising wildly.


I cannot believe that secrets of boxing technique were not shared by late trainers and that their knowledge of boxing died with them.
There isn't less information and understanding of boxing technique today than there was 50 years ago?