I don't think boxing skills have evolved

Yeah, I don't think today's heavies are generally better for the most part, many are just bigger. Floyd Patterson if he fought say Hasim Rahman, IMO, would win at least 5/10 times. Patterson would win because of skill while Rahman would win based on size and strength. Left up to skill, Patterson would massacre Rahman. Rahman NEEDS to be bigger in order to be competitive with Patterson, even though Rahman would be the more "modern" fighter.

 

I think skills evolved at some point, but not that it evolved so much that modern fighters are that much more above old time fighters. I think with heavies, many would beat or be favored against old time heavies by virtue of size and strength, not necessarily (in some cases) because of skill level.

For example, you'd likely favor Wlad Klitchsko over Floyd Patterson H2H or you'd favor Anthony Joshua over Max Schmeling H2H. But you'd do so mainly because Wlad and AJ have size and strength on their side. Patterson may have been just as skilled as a young Mike Tyson, but you'd probably favor Tyson in his prime over Wlad. The main difference between Tyson and Patterson would be their physical stats.

Bigger men can afford to give away something in the way of skill when they are up against much smaller men. So while Wlad and AJ may not be as skilled (both are very skilled in their own right) as Schmeling or Patterson (arguably) they'd still likely prevail H2H. So it really isn't a case of Wlad and AJ just having this advanced level of modern skill that Patterson or Schmeling couldn't deal with, it'd be Wlad's and AJ's physical stats they couldn't cope with. If the top heavies of today were 185-200 pounds and not much bigger, I think this would be more obvious.

 

If the top heavies of 2018 were 185-200 pounds like they were in 1918, 100 years ago, I think this would be more obvious. In my post I pointed out that Patterson, an old school HW, could be favored to beat a more modern fighter in Evander Holyfield, if the fight took place with the cruiser weight version of Holyfield. The 205+ pound heavyweight version of Holyfield would probably beat Patterson, not due to advanced boxing skills that didn't exist in the 1950's and 60's, but simply because he'd be the bigger, stronger and more physically imposing man in the ring and his skill level is close enough to Patterson's for size and strength to make up for the rest.

The only reason we'd favor a young Mike Tyson to walk through say Ezzard Charles isn't because Tyson was just dramatically more skilled than Charles, although a young Tyson was highly skilled himself, but because of Tyson's physical stats in comparison to that of Ezzard Charles. If one could take Charles from 1949, give him weight lifting and the same secret sauce that Holyfield had, build Charles into a rock solid 210-220 pound fighter, while allowing him to keep his skill level or a close approximation thereof and allowing his ability to take a punch to increase in proportion to his size and then put him up against a 1988 Mike Tyson, things would get very interesting.

A modern 210-220 pound version of Charles with the same 1940's boxing skills would have as much of a chance to beat a young Mike Tyson as a 1949 185 pound Charles would have of beating a prime Floyd Patterson. However, this shouldn't be the case if modern fighters are much more advanced, skill wise.