Modern Vs Old fighters.

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?

 

Having personally witnessed Joe Louis club Tyson Fury like a baby seal, I can attest to the factual accuracy of @Journeyman92's prediction.

 

Odd that so many people get up in arms about PED speculation, then. Ah, well.

 

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?

 

Training year round can be done even with fewer fights. You'd just peak less often.

Although in practical terms, you may be right that the pressure of an immediate fight would be more likely to deter a fighter from slacking off during the "off season." Human nature being what it is.

 

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.

 

The Ali / Frazier 2 and Fury / Chisora 1 stats are interesting to compare, as 12 round nontitle fights.

 

Just to make one thing clear: I do NOT believe new is better, and that today's boxers are superior to the oldtimers. I have argued many times on this forum, that I see no improvement/evolvement of the sport over the last 80 years or so... since brilliant boxers like Louis, Pep and Robinson came on the scene.

On the other hand, I don't believe boxers from the last couple of decades are completely useless, and that a massive slump in ability/technique has taken place since the start of this century.

And how many times do we need to hear, that today's boxers wouldn't be able to go 15 rounds, that today's fights are slower paced and less intense than in the old days, that no one wants to go to war anymore, that superior old-school technique and knowledge have been lost forever, that today's trainers are crap, etc., etc.... and that today's top boxers would get their asses collectively kicked by the oldtimers!

I'm sorry... but I just don't buy into unverifiable stuff like that!

 

"The Arc of Boxing" was the best sustained case for the old-school position.

I didn't buy a lot of it, but it was interesting and made some good points. Also fairly well organized.

There really should be an anti-Arc-of-Boxing written for the other side of the argument, though.

 

Correct