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

Some old school fighters would definitely beat today’s fighters. Can today’s fighters fight once a month. How about once every 2 weeks and go 15+ rounds? What about no catchweights and only fight the in 4 weight divisions with one belt?

The answer is no. Bunch of these guys would die in the ring.

 

maybe they had a little less skill back then but their body were made of rock not many boxers today could fight 15 hard rounds in an unclimatised arena with leather gloves that hit a lot harder.

 

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Max_Baer_vs._King_Levinsky_(2nd_meeting)

 

So the science of boxing training has improved but that does not prove the talent of boxers has. Apply all those modern day advantages to boxers from previous eras and how's the gap looking now? Remember, although these era vs era fights are theoretical, we also have to set them in a theoretical era and a level playing field - or what I call the Time Machine Protocol. Either past boxers are granted an upgrade in training and conditioning by moving them into the current era for this theoretical bout or modern day boxers suffer a downgrade of 80-90 years of sports science evolution, and PEDs.

Boxing training has developed (to some immeasurable degree, no stopwatch helps here) but because it's a subjective sport you cannot, from that, extrapolate that boxers have developed at the same rate - or at all - when comparing talent. Talent is the key here.

You could, in fact, argue talent has declined with the sport more focused on strength and conditioning and extreme weight-cutting ('big at the weight' is not a phrase typically heard much in the past, I suspect) as opposed to technique and ring IQ. But like I say, how can this be proven? If you're arguing sports science has evolved then I agree but you can't stretch that as far as your argument demands on a sport-wide level. It's too simplistic, sorry...

 

Or the alternative, the drugs don’t make a difference? Or at least not enough to overcome natural mechanical advantages?
Is there also not a correlation with nutrition and training improving? You know, things that have actual evidence for improving performance (unlike drugs).

 

All you need is any sort of understanding of the principles and determinants of the boxing game. Then you need to look at some video of Lomachenko and compare it to Ray Robinson. If you can’t see how far the sport has evolved then you’re ****ing blind and/or dumb. That’s all there is to it. Sports evolve from decade to decade, as styles prove successful in any sport there is a rush to emulate. It’s analagous with evolution because it is evolution. It can’t be argued against because it’s an inevitable process. And without fail every generation thinks it was better in their day.

 

The only problem is it does not matter what anyone thinks on the subject.

We will never know so it's a pointless debate.

Just like wilder Vs joshua we may never find out.

 

I’ve forgotten more about the sport than you would ever know. I’ve watched all the old timers, I went through my phase of worshipping the fighters from the past. I still appreciate them in the historical context, but their skills and athleticism are at such a low level that I can’t stand to watch them anymore. Just switching from 15 to 12 rounds has a big impact on improving the sport, fighters don’t have to pace themselves as much and it gives them the need to effectively enforce their skills as quickly as possible.

 

It depends what you mean by ‘know’. We can see the difference in every aspect of boxing if we use our eyes and we are honest.

 

You've forgotten more about the sport than he would ever know?

Ha!

You have just claimed that Ray Robinson was unathletic and sloppy.

You have also claimed that Ali only beat plodders and wouldn't be able to accomplish anything today.

You might as well find another thread, because any shred of credibility that you may have had went straight out of the window with those utterly ridiculous comments.

Nobody is going to take you seriously.

Boxing has evolved from his roots, from the M.O.Q, but it does not progress every decade. There is no clear sign of that, and if there was, today's best fighters would all be classed as the greatest of all time, across all weight classes. Yet we know that's not the case. Any knowledgeable fan knows that boxing ebbs and flows, and has done now for some time. Some eras are currently strong, whereas some are weaker than in the past. And although there's guys of today who could have beaten guys from the past, there's also countless guys from from the past who could beat the best guys of today.

 

What can you see?

From what points in time are you comparing?

We have seen a regression in skills.

In-fighting, double hooks and body shots etc aren't as common as they once were.

The sport has also been diluted by the number of Org's, belts and weight classes.

We've now got some world champions who'd be nothing more than contenders in part eras. Anyone can win a belt these days.

 

I'll not trade insults with you, I've evolved past emotional responses to being challenged but thanks for your considered input....

 

Bolt is so much faster than Owens because he has starting blocks and a harder surface to run on.

We haven't actually turned into a race of superhumans in the last few decades.

 

Bolt has dimensions that are not normal for a sprinter. Jessie Owens was a standout back then. There are plenty of guys today who put up better times than he did. Adjusting for shoes and starting blocks, he would be a respected pro but the rest of his competition from back then wouldn't cut it today. And no he wouldn't beat Bolt, Gay, or a couple others.