Modern Fighters Are Better

Talking heavyweights: The heavyweight division is being dominated by two fighters who have little dimension to their game. Vitali is more well rounded, but still lacking a part of his game that was needed to maintain the type of status they have now, in past era's. Its almost like were watching amatuer boxing in championship fights.
Even in past weaker eras, there were fighters that emerged as solid opposition and presented good diverse challenges. Its absolutely not because the Klitschkos are that good, its because their opposition is that bad.
Modern fighters are getting worse because there are less and less teachers to make them complete. Im also not certain many of these modern day heavyweights are physically capable of fighting multiple styles.

 

well we all know a 5'10 nothing floyd patterson would have all the chances in the world to whoop lennox lewis

 

In a head-to-head sense, yes, heavyweights of "today" (meaning the last 40 years really) certainly are better than those before that. And the reason is simply really: an increase in size while retaining the level of athleticism and overal ability.

Indeed, fighters like Wlad, Lewis, Vitali and Bowe are something new. Where Corbett and Tunney were 6'0 / 6'1 and 190lbs, Ali and Holmes are 6'3 and 215lbs. Where Marciano and Dempsey scale 190lbs, Tyson is 216lbs.

Whenever a skillled 210+lbs heavyweight used to come along, he completely dominated the scene (Jeffries, Johnson). Half of the HW contenders were lightheavyweights. Middleweights competed there as well, without bulking up. They could, because of the smaller size gap.

When there are very few men that naturally scale over 200lbs, there is going to be little talent in that stratosphere, and the rare one that does have some ability, in general cannot cope with the higher talented 190 pounders. This is why Mexican heavyweights are so rare: there is no lack of Mexican fighters at all, but on average they are very small, and as a consequence, the talent pool at higher weights is too little to bring any significant talent. So, their champions are at lower weight.

Since the 60's, there have been 17 linear HW champions. 3 of those came from below 200lbs (both Spink's and Moorer); all three of them lost the title during their first title defence attempt, and all of them are considered to be very weak champions, despite M. Spinks and Moorer both being undefeated and great fighters at LHW.

The 190lbs heavyweight champions have gone instinct pretty fast and there's a reason for it. And please don't start that "well, those stupid boxers would go down to 190lbs instead of using useless muscle, they'd be champions" crap...

 

whats your take on it? You dont have to go back very far to see a steady decline in th talent pool. 1995 was really the turn in my opinion.

 

That is the only reason, but a good amount of the guys 40 years ago could beat a good amount of the guys today, because the level of overall ability has really diminished in the last 10 years.

 

I just see it like this, some fighters are good, some fighters aren't, it doesn't matter when they were born

 

Here's the guy with the realistic take on the topic. Excellent insights.

 

Let us not forget that out of those 17, the most dominant ones were below 220 and 6ft 4. The only real exception was Bowe, who split his series with the former cruiserweight holyfield, Lennox Lewis, who struggled with the smaller Holyfield, and was KOd by two average fighters. I suppose you could probably add in Shannon Briggs (is it really worth it) or the two Klitchskos, although neither has really been dominant, and one of them (like it or not) was beaten by a former middleweight.

 

I'll let Chris answer this, but i can already see where he will make inroads.

 

maybe.maybe not. theres no welterweights over the last 15 years id pick to beat a prime leonard or hearns though

 

It depends if you're talking 100 years ago or 40, 30 or even 10 years ago (most other sports show progress in 10 years).

Compare today's top 10 p4p with the p4p list of 10 years ago. Not only will you find the overall quality of the fighters 10 years ago better, you'll find out that about 3 or 4 of the fighters are still in the top 10 p4p. Obviously boxing can't be compared to a sport such as sprinting (as it often is) where Usain Bolt would outrun any sprinter from the 1990's.

1999:

1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
3. Felix Trinidad
4. Oscar De La Hoya
5. Shane Mosley
6. Mark Johnson
7. Ricardo Lopez
8. Erik Morales
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. Stevie Johnston

2009:

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Floyd Mayweather
3. Shane Mosley
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. JM Marquez
6. Nonito Donaire
7. Miguel Cotto
8. Celestino Caballero
9. Israel Vasquez
10. Rafael Marquez


Are today's Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez, Vasquez, Hopkins, Mosley, Cotto much better than the Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Spinks, Gomez, Sanchez, Pryor of the early 1980's? I wouldn't say so.

 

im with Teeto if i see a fighter who is good hes good if i think he is crap he is crap dosent matter what era he is from.

 

I never said anything about them having to be over 6'4 and 220lbs. :huh I'm just saying that the 190lbs champion is a thing of the past, and will remain a thing of the past now that there's a good deal of talent available at 210+lbs.