Are the boxers of today better than the boxers of yore or vice versa and where is the dividing line between the boxers of today and the boxers of yore?
This subject has been beat to death. The real answer is that every era has been blessed with special fighters. Ezzard Charles would be a great fighter regardless of when he competed, same with Uysk. The are also different evolutions that have affected every sport including boxing and everyday life. Nutrition has greatly improved as have training methods specifically strength and conditioning. When I started boxing in the 80's, running 3 miles a day with very little if any weight training was the norm. Today's guys put way more work in the gym and have much better diets from a nutritional standpoint. Fighter's from the early 1900's through the 50's fought way more often by necessity. They simply did not get paid the same as the top guys of today which is why so many of them were a physical and financial wreck. Also, the simply did not have the amateur programs that the guys today have. Most guys back then would have some amateur fights and turn pro as soon as they could sometimes as teenagers. Today's guys, especially Eastern European's have 200 plus fights and are very seasoned when they turn pro. I will say the one advantage the older guys had especially in America was the sport was far more popular and there were gyms and excellent trainers everywhere. Today that is not the case and you have to be an elite talent to have access to the top trainers. Boxing rules have also evolved which has no doubt had a huge impact. I can't stress enough that like every other sport, it's evolution, not necessarily better. Take football for an example. How many true pocket passing qb's are left in the NFL? Almost all of the teams feature dual threat mobile qb's. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. Today's qb's are also protected from the punishment that the older era's took from defensive lineman. Older boxers learned on the job and would have multiple losses on there records before getting title shots. The boxers of today take there losses in the amateurs and are brought along much more slowly. Again, not saying one way is better, just different.
Sports develop new techniques over a 30-50 year period from their inception. Boxing is older than most sports. Gloved boxing has been around since 1892. By the 1950's, almost all techniques and combinations of techniques that are used today had been developed by then. The idea that sports evolve in perpetuity is comical. There are, of course, new developments. For example, we have a lot more southpaws now than in the 50's. So you can make a good case that left handed modern fighters are better than left handers 70 years ago since most natural lefties in the old era were made to box right handed. However, outside of the left hander issue, i don't see modern boxers being more skilled. Marvin Hagler was doing the switch hitting that Terrence Crawford does 45 years ago. SRR threw combinations with speed and power comparable or better than any middleweight today. Etc. etc. I love Usyk. I picked him to beat Joshua and Fury before many other people did. And defensively, he is among the best ever. But does anyone actually believe that his offense is better than Joe Louis, for example? Can you show me Usyk throwing a triple right hook like Louis threw a triple left hook vs the durable iron jawed Max Baer? Can you show me Usyk throwing the 5-6 punch combinations with the power or Louis? Usyk throws some lovely combo's, mixing up hard shots with softer ones, but Louis could throw 6 punch combos where every punch was a hard power punch. Ditto with a young Mike Tyson. Watch his offensive ability. There is no heavyweight today that can put together the combo's that he could. It depends on what you mean by skill. Usyk is an elite defensive fighter with good well rounded offense. And he would be an elite fighter in any era. But the idea that he is way more skilled than heavyweights of the past makes little sense if you are looking at both offense and defensive ability. So overall, i do think that there is a little less individuality in modern boxing as most fighters are taught great fundementals. Whereas in the past, you had great fundemental boxers like Ezzard Charles (who was just as skilled as anyone today), but you also had guys like Ali and RJJ who were natural talents who did things the unorthodox way. I wouldn't say modern boxers are more skilled. I think there are a higher number of modern boxers with perfect fundementals whereas in the past, you had great fundemental boxers and also outliers like Ali, RJJ, etc. who relied on unconvential ways of doing things due to their natural gifts.
Kinda coin flip,the sport did evolve and you can see that in Saoul Mamby's career here.. This content is protected But I don't think all boxers from the previous era acts like that,many elite ATG boxers found an effective way to fought and just uses it with good brainpower too. However,back then you have tougher conditions and arguably more ATG coaches,those made up a great fighters,but nowadays you have better nutritions and safer training regimens,allowing for fighters to last longer and get out from the sport safer. Depends on what your interpretations of greatness are,resume wise old fighters excel mostly,but for skill wise, it's quite debatable, although I'd slightly lean to older fighters as they're more proven.
Honestly the only era I hold the time period against them in this way is the 19th century and the first few years of the 20th. During that period the sports stars were older than the sport of gloved boxing itself. Said stars didn't grow up with boxing and there was no infrastructure in place to support it and in many places it wasn't legal. So thats where I draw the line. After that its fair game and I take the 1910s era very seriously historically. I want to use the term "mid 1900s" but people are going to think I'm talking about like 1950s and 1960s not 1905,1906.
Look at the Middleweight rankings now, look at the Welterweight rankings now, are they better than Welterweight/Middleweights of the 80s/90s absolutely not. But then you have strong divisions like the Jr Middleweight division which is arguably one of the strongest in recent memory. It's a mixed bag you have 3 special fighters now in Usyk, Inoue, Crawford, that would be competitive in most era's. But you also have some pretty forgettable weight classes that an older great would clean up with no problem like Hagler in the Middleweight division now. As I've always said I think it's good to have a balance and recognize greatness in all era's. Unfortunately you get 1 crowd who is too nostalgic and refuses to recognize anything positive in the modern era. And then there's the other crowd who believes bigger is better and that all the old boxers are outdated and couldn't compete now. Both of the opinions above are absolute rubbish again as I said the best boxing fan is the one who can appreciate the old and the new.
Boxing today is suited for its own newer ruleset. Fighters have less stamina and fights are more point based, and a high guard is implemented more due to the larger gloves. Fighters today dominate this new ruleset more, whereas back in the day they had differing styles to adjust different body types to their own ruleset. Everyone is within their own time. Regardless, the modern fighters are better due to performance enhancing drugs. The boxers of the 90s are probably "the best" overall due to having the best combination of the best drugs along with terrible tests that wouldn't catch anything, and easy to bribe officials. Nowadays the drug tests do stop certain PED usage but not all. In the 70s, steroids were used, but the drugs were far more simplistic and did not give the same effect as certain compounds nowadays. Simply put, boxing has changed but not IMPROVED, although athletes nowadays benefit from certain drug advancements that had not even been imaginable at the times of say, Jack Dempsey. If we were to suddenly switch back to an old school ruleset, and allow the past boxers a chance to equal the playing field with a similar drug protocol as modern fighters, they would slaughter the modern fighters. Similarly, you cant put someone like Louis or Marciano or Dempsey in with Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson simply due to the drug advancement and differing rules.
Every era has great fighters and every era has people spouting the same old **** about the mythical good old days and hating their own era and denigrating it's best boxers to a preposterous degree. Especially the heavyweights. I am sorry but a 13 stone bloke like Marciano would be utterly obliterated by any top 20 of todays behemoths. For me the modern era for the glamour class started with 215 Liston. The only heavy fighters I think could have competed post 1990, Liston, Ali, Foreman and Holmes. The rest were just too small, sorry both Joes.
I could conclusively argue that boxers in Britain today are greatly less skilled than British fighters of the time period 1980- 2015. A strange culture has arisen where a disproportionate amount of British fighters stand in a very long and wide stance, are southpaw, don't know how to get inside or fight inside...and are inferior physically with less output due to a reliance on weights. There are obviously great exceptions like Fury and AJ to name just 2 who are skilled and proficient in many areas. But I don't see anyone with the skills and nous of a Lewis,Honeyghan,McGuigan,Sibson ,Froch,Calzaghe,Clinton Woods etc etc. I've not followed modern world boxing since 2014 and can't comment on anything other than the British scene
There are out of shape dad bod to arguably obese heavies that don't have close to true 15 round fight stamina, none are truly savage finishers like Tyson or Liston, look at the injuries Tyson caused Golota Ali and Frazier would determine the true winner by who spent less time in the hospital after the fight, some of the guys today might actually die if they tried to do 15 with someone like that
There are great Boxers in every age. but the foolishness starts with Achievement Based Rankings... a 17 Career Fighter that finds himself a Belt Holder is suddenly being compared with guys who fought for 15 plus years and fought at least 30 Top Noted fighters, won a Title, Defended it a few times and beat Top men, equal to or better than him, plus had another say 50 fights. and there are literally Hundreds of Top Fighters who done the same, especially in Recognized Greater Eras. So a 30 Fight Career guy, might indeed be great, but Not just because of Achievement and say only against 2, 3 or 4 Real Opponents, its ridiculous. the point is if they fought even 50 - 60 Fights with at least 15 - 20 Real Live Opponents would they still remain on Top??? Would Roy Jones Jr's Tarver show up and burst their Bubble? The Short Answer is, the Top Men with lengthy careers fighting Dozens of Top & Real Opponents ARE ALREADY PROVEN... History has written it in stone. The Fighters who have had the luck of being born into less demanding Eras, while Hype, Flash, Box Ticking Pay per View big tickets, Millions of Dollars and Internet Social Media Chit Chat (for 5 minutes), CompuBox Stats and all the shifting & slotting into Achievement Lists Makes NOT a Great... and lastly it is plain to see in the Thousands of Proper Quality Boxing Film & Reels of Great Fighters that actually do exist and again, as mentioned above... IS RECORDED WRITTEN HISTORY. they Already Did It, while others have Not!
Boxing has plummeted since the 90's. There's no where near as many young men going into boxing especially in the U.S. Local boxing cards have shrank to virtually nothing. Look up the champions in the 8 major weight divisions in the 70's, 80's and 90's.. Compare it to today,,,it's not even close . That Usyk would clean out the 1970's heavyweight division is the most ridiculous comment this year on Boxing forums.
