Myth: Boxing is the only sport where 30s era athletes handily beat modern fighters

Indeed. Indeed you do. And the main variable which needs accounting for is talent, and talent transcends. And once you introduce to the argument factors which buck the trend of overall evolution, you undermine any theory that the evolving science of boxing is the only criteria worth considering. My point. Made for me....

 

Talent is far from a unidemsional variable. And of course we can generalize with an overarching concept like evolution, conflicting variables are contained within so they cannot override. A talent that transcends evolution is an anomaly, the exception doesn’t prove the rule. Additionally a talent can only transcend within their own generation due to the purely speculative nature of what we are talking about. The best can only contend with their best from their own generation. Therefore the general trend of evolution is the most valid benchmark for measuring progression in the sport. We throw away the outliers.

 

It is not so that all sports have developed so fast that some people think. 11 track and field world records are from 1980s and many more from1990s. Actually not so many of them are from this decade. Training methods were quite similar in 1980s than they are nowadays.

 

Pretty Boy Floyd used a 1990s skill set but Money Mayweather used a 2000s skill set.

 

Can someone please actually descibe some of these advances in boxing training methods?

No one ever seems able to, just vagueries like "scientific training"

 

There are probably a lot of advances in boxing training, but one is weight training. In the old days, the cigarette smoking boxing trainer would tell his fighter not to touch a weight, that it would slow him down and make him muscle bound. Most people today understand that is not true and in fact weight training makes people faster and more flexible. Weight training is being used today by boxers and it wouldn't surprise me to see it used more.

Big Baby Miller, may or may not be the prototype of the boxer of the future. He does heavy lifting, conditions himself, and doesn't worry about his body weight. So far his stamina has been good and his strength has allowed him to dominate and push around his opponents, in addition he is busy in the ring, throws a lot of punches while keeping pressure on his opponent. If he continues to have success, others will follow. If he doesn't succeed, others will probably still take some from what he has done but they will fine tune it and get better.

Boxers learn from what goes before them. Heavyweights 10 years from now might all look similar to Miller or they might not, but they will learn from what he is doing.

 

But Miller is crap.

 

And yet it is the outliers who are constantly referenced, by both sides of the divide I should add. But do we know anything of the 10th best middleweight in 1937? Or the 20th best welter in 1956?

I disagree though, the obligation is on you to 'explain away' the outliers whereas I can point to them as clear reference that the linear evolution-over-time theory is too simplistic....

 

Seriously, put down the thesaurus because you can't spell or comprehend half the words you type.

 

Send John Ruiz in a time machine to the 30s and it might've started the War of the Worlds.

 

Ha!

All the above says to me is that you have ZERO knowledge of the history of the sport. ZERO.

It's now becoming hard to read your posts.

They make me cringe.

The end? Oh it's most definitely the end for you on this subject.

Who on earth is going to be prepared to give you an honest debate after reading the above horse manure?

If you're not trolling us all for a joke, I honestly feel sorry for you.

 

It didn't exist?

WTF?

 

Yeah, I'll go and look at that bum SRR who had sloppy skills.

 

Just stop you absolute clown.

It's becoming painful.

 

I nominate it as being one of the worst posts I've seen in the 6 years that I've been a member.