Marvin Hagler vs Gennady Golovkin At MW

Then why are fighters showing up in worse condition than the fighters of the 70s and even 100 years ago did?

 

I wonder how many fighters today could go over 40 rounds.

This content is protected

 

I understand what you're saying but I disagree with every ounce of your post. It is predicated on the idea that access to education and a coach for every aspect of a Boxer's health and nutrition, represents a collective magic bullet, which grants automatic victory over anyone not carrying a similar set of tools. This view is very much steeped in the theory of [boxing] evolution.

Sorry - but all that is overstated nonsense. In the purest sense, there is no substitute for natural talent, innate athleticism, instinct/drive and above all, experience. A nutritionist isn't single handedly giving me any one of those things - nor is a strength/conditioning coach. And, neither is a study guide on boxing techniques.

Today's seeming advantages may get you along the road a bit quicker; even a bit further - if you have a modicum of talent to begin with. They might even sustain one's overall health for longer, if rigidly adhered to as part of a broader lifestyle choice. But, they do not, in themselves, take a Boxer all the way to the elite level.

Studying a technique and executing it in the heat of the ring are two so very different things; so far apart in terms of an experience, there's no way to measure it. If there were a breakfast cereal or exotic shake or a salad mix that could turn me into the next SRR, I'm sure everyone would have heard of them by now.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this idea that modern fighters are better, just because they have this access to science. A case in point is, indeed, Hagler, who had had almost half of Golovkin's entire career again by the time he won his first titles. Contrary to your idea that a Hagler born 40+ years later would have made light work of the older version of himself, I would argue that the shortcuts and promises, available today, would have had a regressive impact on his capabilities.

Hagler was gifted for the sport, both mentally and physically but his greatness was, perhaps most of all, forged by his professional experiences.

 

Hagler ruled the roost during a pretty mediocre middleweight era too, FWIW.

 

I was meaning the era in general not just middleweight. But yeah it was not a patch on the 90's middleweight era in terms of talent pool.

 

They're more likely to drop dead before they answer the bell for the 40th round.

 

Hagler's era was stocked with plenty of hungry talent. Tons of top contenders who each wanted a title shot more than the other. The era in the next 10 years post Hagler is overrated imo. 15 rd title fights make or break a fighter. That 12 rd crap just ruined fighters.

 

Is this post about middleweight or just boxing in general? Since you don't name any names or details about fighters, it's generic enough to apply to any weight class.

 

I wonder about this too. Sort of impossible to predict though. I could see disciplined, intelligent fighters like Mayweather and Rigondeaux pulling it off, maybe.

 

In the good ol' days natural talent and determination were everything. If you had those two things, you could be at the top of the sport. The cream rose to the top pretty easy back then.Today, everybody learns technique, determination is the bigger factor. All of the guys that I train today are much better boxers than I ever was, but only won in 20 might make it to nationals.

Every sport is this way, one generation learns from the next. Do you think an NFL team from the 1970's would beat a team from today?

 

Check my second post on Knoetze vs Mercado for a different opinion? Mushrooming alphabet soup champions in this era.

 

Good post

I think what makes boxing different than most sports is that it's a natural activity, fist fighting. Boxing has been around forever. Football hasn't. It's a much more abstract activity. So taking into account that football is about 100 years old, and the rules can constantly change to effect the game in drastic ways, it's expected to see more differences over time.

But even then, Jim Brown is still probably the best HB of all time. He was bigger than AP, and dominated the sport for a decade. I bet his Browns, and many other historic teams like the 85 Bears can take apart many modern teams.

 

Why when commenting on this fight is cutting off the ring such an issue? Do you think either fighter is going to need to be tracked down? I think they'd both be pretty easy to find.

 

Genetics and natural talent.......timeless...in any era.......
Modern methods & science may enhance individual performance to a point but you cant compare eras based on methods...
Foremans performances & longevity for example in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's were due to genetics and an inborn will and desire to succeed and not access to modern methods and performance enhancing drugs...