Marciano (and his predecessors) would probably get KTFO today

Perhaps. Certainly, a little bit of help from his Mafia friends (applying leverage outside of the ring) would help guarantee that... :yep

Actually, that's another thing I'm surprised no one mentioned. The current HW just bigger. So it would be even tougher for the heavyweight champions of yore to establish themselves today...

 

If conditioning had a hard roof, then I think your point would stand. As it is, I'm not sure it has. Why are the differences in marathon times so large, if people today are as conditioned as they were before?

A point sometimes made is that you often see fighters today totally gassed. But even that is not necessarily an argument in favour of the old champs. If people hit harder today (because they are stronger / more dynamic / better trained) and getting hit by harder punches is one of the factors contributing to gassing out earlier, then that's exactly what you'd expect even if they were better conditioned.

I disagree. Oscar De La Hoya might not want to fight ten times a year and he doesn't have to. But there are many hungry young wolves out there. And if there was anything giving them an edge over the opposition they would do it, I think.

Why do cyclists dope even though they know that it can kill them and they can be banned for life? Because it gives them an edge. And an edge at the very top can translate into lots of money. And for lots of money people are willing to do things that are very unhealthy.

Another way to put it is this. If sparring / fighting all the time was so useful, some trainers would advocate it. And if it was really good, the guys they trained would come out on top more often than others. And other trainers and fighters would copy them. The fact that this is not happening is saying a lot about the 'optimum amount of sparing / fighting'.

You started by making a claim that skills have changed and used feinting as an argument. In your reply to my post you then gave examples of lot's of contemporary fighters who feint. To me, if anything that casts doubt over your initial statement that there was more feinting in the past than there is now... But I don't feel strongly about this point. I haven't seen that many past fights to be able to judge whether skills have changed a lot.

Having said that, since, in general I believe in evolution, I would imagine that if skills have changed (which is what you are arguing) the current skill set is better than the past ones... People typically switch to things that work better, and not the other way round - and that was the point I was trying to make with feinting.

I remembered that Dempsey worked in a shipyard. I thought it was more general, but can't give you more examples of the top of my head. I freely admit, that I could be wrong here (the second part of my argument still stands, though).

Strength in boxing comes from somewhere. I understand that how hard you punch is not a direct function of how much you can bench press, but I don't think they are totally unrelated.

To me Olympic records are indicative of what top athletes are capable of doing. Accordingly, they give some information about the potential gains made in say strength or speed. While the mapping from these disciplines to boxing is certainly not perfect, it suggests that similar advances might have been made in boxing... That's why I think that such comparisons have some value.

Ok. But you have to agree that this is purely subjective. Your guess is as good as mine (though you might think otherwise ), and it's hard to discuss when we have no hard evidence.

The argument I was making above, is that people looking to succeed typically don't worry too much about health twenty years down the road (or even premature death). That's more to do with human nature, than any specific discipline. So, if it worked, I think people would be doing more of it - if not officially (because boxing comissions don't allow it) - then at least in sparring (which is not controlled by anyone).

As to your other examples and cancelling fights. My understanding was that Klitschko ****ed up his knees during his kick - boxing career. That's one example of how having too many fights can actually prove detrimental in your later career. More importantly higher numbers of cancellations (if it is indeed a fact) could well have to do with much more intensive training. People are simply pushing their bodies much harder than years ago, and these tend to crack more often...

One thing that's well documented is that repeatedly doing IQ tests won't keep your scores improving. You get an initial 10 -15% increase relative to doing none, and that's pretty much it. It could be that there's a similar threshold in boxing...

If we want to draw parallels, ****ing a lot won't necessarily make you a Casanova either. To make it relevant to boxing - there are risks - you have sexually transmitted diseases, you have AIDS. ****ing a lot could kill you - or seriously lower your life expectancy. Of course, to link it to my previous examples, the high associated risk doesn't stop pornstars ****ing on camera with no protection. The rewards make the risks worthwhile.

 

Some good arguments here - thanks. I'll start by reiterating: I was not claiming that boxing is exactly like running. To your list, I'd also add: better training techniques / better understanding of nutrition / better understanding of the human body in general. All of these give today's boxers an edge.

The first I can't deny. The shorter careers point I agree with as well (though not sure how it is relevant).

The second point is debatable - ok: numbers don't lie and the old guys did fight more often. But how did the amount of sparing now and then compare? Most contemporary fighters do way more rounds in sparing than in actual fights. In terms of getting experience - it's not 1-1 I agree - but surely sparing has benefits...

On your last statement. If we agree with all that you say, it surely means that if you match up an 'old champ' with a current one over 12 rounds, the 'old' guys would be at a disadvantage, right (if only because they trained for a slightly different event...)?

I'm with you here.

Sadly we'll never know who was right. Thanks for the input though.

 

Well, not that much has changed in running a marathon since Pheidippides first did it. And yet old records don't stand up to the new ones. I know people who can run it in under 3 hours which would make them world title record holders in 1898... (and they're not professional runners either). How does that square with your argument?

 

I agree, though we don't want to push that argument too hard, I suppose - since RJJ (who held a HW title not so long ago) also fought at MW... But I think its fair do say that while he won against Ruiz, even RJJ would have been simply too small too hang in there with guys the size of Klitschko.