Or are boxers just what they are? Would Jerry Quarry have thrived in the fifties? Would Mike Weaver be dominant in Louis's era? Surely class is class and the same people who were special in one era would be special in any? Or do you see certain eras as shabby and think that certain "greats" were just lucky?
We're right in one and I wonder if we'll ever come out. When you have a fight to decide the era's p4p best between a 36 year old fighting at a weight nearly 50% up on what he started out at and a 39 year old fighting at 24lbs up on what he started out as 20 years previously and who has had his career split by a spell in prison, it doesn't say much for the rest. I read a theory that crack has ruined boxing, For a tough kid from a tough neighbourhood, why spend years toiling away, getting hurt, sacrificing in order to earn peanuts when you can earn big money selling crack without getting hit in the head all the time? Okay, you may get sent to prison or shot but at least you're getting paid well to take the risk. For years, boxers get hurt without earning a penny (or dime). Not saying that's why boxing has fallen so far down. It's probably one of many reason - the death of the small clubs which guaranteed fighters regular work, other sports like WWE, MMA and UFC surfacing, less general poverty among many communities including the Irish, Italian and Jewish. Whatever. You get my drift.
I see no reason to believe this, given how much skills, styles, and physical traits evolved over time (I assume from the names that you list that you're mainly thinking about heavyweights). For example, it's much, much easier to be a defensive wiz when you're fighting guys who don't consistently jab or throw fluid combinations, or who aren't much bigger than you, etc.
Just speculating but I think it probably has more to do with: a) the rise of the NFL and NBA, and those sports better capturing the public imagination; and b) America's mass incarceration prison policies than actual drug-selling per se. Most of the kids I knew who sold crack and other drugs didn't really see it as a long-term road to riches, but just something to do for pocket money & nice gear.
Boxing is better now than it has ever been simply because the talent pool is much bigger and more global. Americans call this a weak era simply because Americans can't do **** anymore once boxing got global and once commie restrictions don't exist anymore in Eastern Europe. In reality there have never been fighters as talented as Kovalev and GGG in this sport and if they were Americans they would be hyped beyond anything you can imagine. Same goes for Klitschko bros. UFC is popular because of one reason only, it's full of (white) Americans.
I tend to think that the line between a strong era and a weak era is a fine one. I would expect there to be some fighters in the weaker eras, who would give the champions of the stronger era’s problems.
When did these new skills appear? What were the old timers doing, throwing one punch at a time every fight? I swear I have tapes of them jabbing, too.
1) It varies. New skills, tactics, and ideas emerge over time. Some get developed and become popular, others not so much. 2) Never meant to suggest that, but if you watch very old clips, you'll see that guys fell in with their punches way more often, instead of being able to fire off multiple punches while staying balanced and in a fighting position. Even in the 40s and 50s, you'll see far more heavyweight title fights where guys are basically lunging and charging off balance. 3) Far as I can tell, people knew how to throw jabs over 100 years ago but they didn't know how to use them to maximum effect and rarely used them as consistently and effectively as many modern fighters do. But maybe I'm wrong: Do you have many old fights where guys controlled fights with stiff jabs? Doubled and tripled up on them? Used their jabs to maintain distance from their opponents? Even if you watch a Master of the Ring like Ezzard Charles and then watch a slugfest like Holyfield-Bowe, you'll see far more frequent and high-impact jabbing in the latter (by both men) and far less standing around and pouncing in with lead power punches.
Let’s phrase the question another way: Which fighter was the first to use these new skills, and why did nobody comment on it at the time?
It's hard to say because new skills, tactics, and ideas emerge over time...If I had to speculate, it seems to me that Liston and Ali probably revolutionized how heavyweights jab but the sea change is not really completely apparent until the early 1980s, imo. Plenty of people commented on the way that all of these men jabbed, so I'm not sure what you're asking/suggesting.
If there was some major shift in boxing technique, then presumably we would want to identify exactly when it happened, and we would expect that somebody would have noticed it at the time? If this did happen, then I am certain that it was well before the time of Liston.
Then you should have no problem at all naming a ton of great pre-Liston heavyweight jabbers right, since you're certain that whatever I'm talking about happened before Liston? People who jabbed the way that I described above. Thanks in advance, I look forward to learning!
PS - what do you think of my Ezzard Charles v. 90s heavyweights contrast? I could rattle off plenty of other examples too, but it seems pretty pointless.