Old heavyweights vs modern heavyweights

Any combat sport can't develop the way others do.

 

To say a sport can't evolve and develop is just plain ignorant

 

That's an opinion, nowhere substantiated by facts. A combat sport is an athletic and mental performance like any other.

 

Modern AINEC.

 

Combat sport isn't about breaking records though, it is a fight between two men. Whether that fight is boxing, jui jitsu, kung fu etc. The principles of the sport are the same as they've been for years.

Man vs man combat doesn't progress in the way specific training for sprinting does, for example.

 

Nobody said that. To say the reason why boxers are greater today is because track runners are is not only ignorant its down right moronic.

 

So why is Laszlo Papp who won gold medal in 1952 regarded as one of the best amateur boxers of all time , if not the best of all time?

Is Jet Li greater than Bruce Lee because he exists now and Lee existed back then?

Why can't you understand that boxing exists in a category unto itself. It has more in common with wrestling , fencing , chess , judo , karate etc....

Sport is sport - Thats basically your simple thought process in a nutshell.

 

Yes just look at how great those UFC one competitors of 93 to the highly trained ones of today...lol...no developement at all. that is boxings equavalent of what it looked like in the early 1900's


All sports evolve ..Boxing in 1940's looks primitave to that of crisper ,cleaner and better prepared athletes of today. If anything combat sports progress more rapidly because its just a one on one sport with a limited set of rules to where the techniques and preperation is always advancing, but the principals stay in place.

 

But as I see it, every athlete in these sports gets better and better?
There is a lot of man vs man sports that can't be mesaured like running because the point is to beat the other person, not set the fastest time, or lift the heaviest.

But i just can't se why so many says that boxing is the same, or worse than before, when every other sports evolve?
When i look at old fight with good fighters from that time, I think they often look less sharp when throwing punches, get hit more often, does a lot more excessive movement. They where great at that time, but then time goes past, and the learn something new, and gets better.

 

Who? Who is getting better and better?
Boxing is a game of skill and the passing of knowledge. Not about who can throw the highest or fastest amount of punches in a minute.
Even if it was, the old timers would still win as their stamina and conditioning was on a different level.

 

Same for chess. A mental fight between the wits of two men. Its not about breaking records. The principles are the same for 1600 years. The brain is exactly the same as it has been 100 years ago. Yet a random top 50 player of today would destroy the #1 chess champion from 100 years ago. Same in boxing.

 

So Willy Pep looked primitive to you? Or have you just never bared witness to Pep box in your life?

229 fights . 164 wins over 26 years. If he was around today people would be so bedazzled by his footwork and movement they'd call him one of the greatest men to ever box.
As it stands right now he's rated as the best ever from that weight class.

 

That's not comparable. MMA has shifted focus from competing martial arts to combining martial arts.

The goal is no longer to show BJJ is the best martial art. The goal now is to combine martial arts to maximise your strengths.

Would Royce Gracie be defeated by the current Jiu Jitsu experts? In UFC probably because they have dedicated me time to learning stand up and clinch. But would he be defeated in a raw Jiu Jitsu battle? I'm not so sure.

The rules of boxing haven't changed that much since its inception. Less rounds, longer rehydration and 10 point must. But the basics are still what they have always been. Hit and don't be hit.

A man now is no better at punching someone in the face than a man was 100 years ago. Nor is the same man better St avoiding being punched in the face.

Look at all the modern training in the world, Chisora and Whyte were both knackered after 6 rounds of swinging. 100 years ago boxers fought 50 rounds. You can't tell me their training is less effective than that of Chisora and Whyte.

 

That's not the same at all. People can learn openings and defences from previous games.

New approaches to chess are learnt all the time. Since the inception of boxing no new punch has been learnt since the jab. No new blocking technique has been learnt since the parry. No new nullifying technique has been learnt since the clinch.

Are chess masters now able to see more moves ahead than pervious masters? Not imo no. It's just that they know the benefit if certain moves better because of experience.

 

Boxing has evolved. But it doesn't progress each decade like some other sports do.

Boxing techniques aren't always advancing.

The argument that boxing keeps progressing is completely destroyed when you realise that the best guys of today aren't head and shoulders above the best guys of the 80's and 90's, from 20-30 years ago.