Modern Vs Old fighters.

There’s a number of top level guys today, especially at HW, who enter the ring in less than top shape.

They don’t enter the ring in the best possible shape that they could be in.

I’ve seen a fair few fights over the years where the fighters have gassed before the latter stages of a fight, even in fights which weren’t fought at a high pace.

Many fighters today wouldn’t be able to fight 15 rounds as they currently are.

Again, the assumption by many people, is that everything modern = better.

The TS has said that modern guys are generally WAY fitter.

I don’t see that.

That is just an assumption based on nothing.

I’ve watched a lot of fights over the years, and I would say that generally, the older guys were fitter due to their circumstances.

 

"Injecting people with stuff" is not new. I have seen that for many years. In the gyms on the border with Mexico, the older trainers are always going across and you see a lot of guys in the back corner of the gym getting shot up. Does it work or does somebody just think it does? There is a lot of stuff in boxing that works like that.

 

In my opinion- and this doesn't apply to heavyweights- there is a sacrifice made in order to gain a weight and size advantage come fight night.
From the studies that I have read, the process of losing a lot of weight and then rehydrating comes with a loss of performance- generally around 10 or 12 percent. But, today, that is acceptable for the weight advantage. And it works that way because, when name fighters or fighters with "potential" are involved, one guy is preparing for the fight. The other guy is walking around at 137, for example, so that he is ready to fight on call. So he gets in the ring at 137- if you weighed 137 you will not rehydrate to 150- but the prospect has cut down to 135 and will be 150 in the ring.

 

In my opinion, the only limit on what guys were willing to be shot up with to improve performance was the available products to shoot up.

 

How about boxing's "Golden Age", the busy 1920s - would you say, that boxers back then, ON AVERAGE, were fitter than today?

 

that being true, is not the same reality though of much biggermen fighting down 1 & 2 Divisions with 3, 4, 5 months to do so... they are bigger men, in a division they have No Business in... the Whole modern game is a lie.

it's not about 175 lb man losing power to fight at 160, No, the comparisons are Today vs Yesteryear...

the 160lb fighter back then, was typically 5' 10" or less, weighing 155 - 170 roughly, they were Not - 6'2" walking around at eitherside of 200lbs and then with 4 months or more to cut weight, they claim to be 160lb 'middleweights'...

in the Past, not only would'nt they have done that, they would'nt even dream of such possibilities, 6'2" inch, 200lb men were typically HW's and at best L-HW cum HWs.

that's what people are saying here.

 

I disagree with every single inch of this post. You’re wrong not even as a matter of opinion, it’s a 1+1=2 situation with those examples. Moore would crush RJJ, Loma is a great amateur fronting as a pro. About Louis the size difference exists but all bar maybe Fury would I favour Joe to club to death like a baby seal.

 

Are you saying, that Austinboxing's post is FACTUALLY wrong?

 

Yes.

Wouldn’t you?

They were in shape all year.

Some of them fought every single month.

They didn’t have to shed a lot of weight.

Their bodies were honed for fights scheduled for 10 and 15 round fights.

Many fights of that era were fought at a fast pace.

I would say that a guy who kept his weight down all year, where he literally fought 10 plus fights per year, would generally be fitter than a guy who took lay offs, shed weight and only fought 2-3 times per year.

They wouldn’t have been healthier, but definitely fitter.

In the 1920’s, Harry Greb was sometimes fighting 3-4 fights in the same month.

An average of one fight per week.

That means that he was fighting more in a single month, than what most guys of today fight in a whole year.

 

Roy’s prime was at SMW, but if we take into account the old same day weigh-ins, then Roy would have been at 175 in Archie’s day.

I think that would have been an incredible fight.

I think that Duran at his best would have been a significant favourite over Loma.

I think Joe Louis was a great HW.

You don’t think that he would have beaten most of today’s HW’s?

Who do you think would have beaten him?

 

Many guys today tick over like most guys do, but whilst they’re ticking over, they’re not in truly great shape. We know that when we can see them, and we can see how much weight they need to shed in camps.

Of course, that doesn’t apply to everyone.

There’ll be guys who only fight a few times per year, but who live the life are in great shape. But even if they’ve kept the weight down and are in great shape, there’s still a difference between being in great shape and being in fighting shape.

It’s like football.

There’s a difference between being fit and match fit.

 

Agreed, early 2000s is around when the downward spiral started.

Many fighters, agreed. And it seems to be more & more prevalent these days.

 

BoxRec lists a little more than 300,000 KNOWN fights from the 1920s decade. I say "known" - because obviously not all fights from that era have found their way into the database. The real number may be considerably higher - but exactly how much higher, we just don't know!

But if we just stick with the 300,000 or so... how many of these fights are available to us on YouTube? 1% maybe (if that much!). How many down-the-bill fights between two journeymen, scheduled for 4, 6 or 8 rounds, have you seen from that time? Maybe there are some to be found on YouTube - I just can't recall having watched any! It seems to me, that most videos are of world champs or future HOFers - or both!

So if we can watch only a tiny fraction (the absolute top men) from that decade - how can you have a qualified opinion about what the average boxer looked like, or how fit he was?

"Many fights of that era were fought at a fast pace", you say. But if you haven't seen the vast, VAST majority of them, how can you possibly know that?

 

It appears to me that you’re just being argumentative.

When I say ‘average’ fighter, I’m talking about an average top level professional fighter, both modern day and old.

Instead of making assumptions that everything newer is better, I’m using my knowledge of certain fighters and eras, as well as applying logic.

I have seen with my own eyes where modern day fighters have gassed.

I don’t know what you have an issue with.

A top level guy who fought 2-3 times per month, at the highest level, in scheduled fights between 10-15 rounds, would generally have been fitter than a guy who ticks over in the gym, and who has to shed weight in order to fight 2-3 times per year, in fights scheduled for a maximum of 12 rounds.

What’s hard to understand about that?

Again, yes, it took a huge toll on their bodies. They aged quicker. They took more punishment. They suffered more in old age. It wasn’t good for them. But it’s obvious that due to their circumstances, they’d generally have been fitter.

Many top level fighters of the 20’s to 50’s fought under those circumstances, with hectic schedules. And we have the footage on film, as well as respected ring side reports.

So I would say that the average top level guy of those eras, would have been generally fitter than the average modern day top level guy.

The TS has just made a terribly ignorant post.

The only reason that he has assumed that today’s guys are way fitter, is because he thinks that everything modern is better than everything of the past.