Not really, I only watch old fights, but I hate hearing about people saying that old school fighters ie. Dempsey, Marciano etc would have no chance against modern fighters, largely due to modern training. But these idiots forget, although yes, every sport in the world, records keep getting broken, runners become faster, people jump higher, further, throw the shotput further, run longer etc. there is one thing that has gone down, and that is SHEER TOUGHNESS. Boxing came from bareknuckle FIGHTING. Emphasis on FIGHTING. a FIGHT can be classed as sport but it isn't really. It's a FIGHT. So that's what separates boxing from all other sports. People just don't realise how tough these old school fighters were. What do you think?
The world was a different place. Less technology and medical advancement. Im 28, I remember when there was a lan line and beepers haha. It always Depends on the individual, but yes I believe people were tougher, and perhaps there were more masters of the scientific aspects of boxing. I forget who it was it was in a ring Mag the welterweight fighter from the 40s who worked in an airplane Part factory I believe, and still was A hell of a fighter. People back Then knew what real work was and to fight Often meant putting food on the table. I think people had to balance more back then. I do admire modern fighters with old school dedication And sensibility like Hopkins, prime Tyson, whitaker etc, I just Love the defense and the art Of hitting and not getting hit.
I don't think it has anything to do with so-called toughness. There are tough people from every age. That's the kind of argument that raises the hackles of the defending side, and rightfully so. There's no way in the world to quantify such a statement, so it has no use. Repetition and practice are the thing. Fighters fought more then. The argument that most of their fights were against ham and eggers only holds water to a certain extent, because these ham and eggers ALSO fought and learned far more than their second or third-rate brethren today. I still have never heard any decent argument from the opposing side about what it is exactly that makes these "modern training methods" so great, or exactly what benefit we're seeing from all of it. What precisely is it they want us to see that is so advanced as opposed to fighters from yesteryear? I'm still waiting on that one. Their heroes gas out more often, they are less fluid, feinting is an art all but dead, yet they insist that the passing of years should somehow mean that today's fighters benefit from all that came before....... Only it doesn't. The knowledge has to be applied, just as any other discipline, and it isn't. There is a dearth of real trainers, the fight clubs that almost every big town used to have, that allowed up and coming talent to improve and learn, are a thing of the past. It's a natural thing, though, for today's younger fans to want to engage in the argument in favor of those of their generation. It's an ongoing thing every generation has had to go through with those that sneeringly came before. I don't begrudge them that.
Let me put it like this. No smart fan of soccer will ever consider Messi or C.Ronaldo higher than Pele, Maradona, van Basten or Cruyff for example.
I know it isnt your argument, but is there really a valid suggestion that they fought more 'ham and eggers' in the old days. I would have thought that is one of the valid arguments against modern fighters. They simply not only dont fight as often, but they never fight the top fighters. To become a world champion today, you dont even have to beat the best in teh world, because there are four of them to choose from. Sometimes more if you allow for Super Champions, peoples champions, lineal champions etc. Then you the further dilution in that there are so many extra weight division a couple of pounds apart, so that most of the champions can interchange divisions, so you can pretty much double or triple that. Then add the fact that it is very rare for fighters to actually risk paydays by fighting top 5 contenders much less top 10 contenders. Eg Adamek is a top 5 contender, but just fought Walker who probably isnt even top 20, or Grant who might not be top 50 even. He has rarely fought any decent contenders. Haye is just as bad, as is virtually every other fighter. Wach just got a title shot and i am not sure he has even beaten a top 5 fighter. going further down the chain, because there are not as many fighters, it is not possible for good local fighters to get good local matches because there are not enough fighters around. this is where things really struggle and therefore as better fighters progress through these levels, they are not getting the same competition that older school fighters got. In other words, a ham and egger from the old days was a hell of a lot better than a ham and egger from current times. And that might be one of the biggest differences.
Let me use this analogy comparing the oldtimers to the "fighters" of today...We all know that by and large the largest number of great boxers came from the USA...Numerically there is no comparison from 1900 on to 2000... Why is that ? Because the USA had by far the greatest number of pro fighters fighting the largest pool of contenders...So to get to the top you had to be better than the countries much smaller with MUCH LESS competition...So the lesson was that where you had the most fighters competing against each other [USA} you had most of the best champions..... So because the USA by virtue having the largest amount of boxers competing developed the best fighters.. Therefore in the old days fighters from all countries fought maybe 3-4 times a year against other fighters like them [ one large amount of fighter pools ] than today's greatly smaller pool of boxers who can become champion with 15-20 bouts, it stands to reason that the "oldtimers", as in my favorite era 1940s, HAD to be better for the reason that the deeper the pool of pro boxers, the more often they fought , the better you had to be to stay competitive...Of course there are exceptions to every rule but the oldtimers were better because they had to be...Just think for a Greb,Walker, Robinson,Canzoneri Britton, Rosenbloom etc fighting every 3 weeks, nursing wounds that might still ache but overcoming this made them tougher than they are today cause they HADE to be to survive...I recall in my era growing up, you had to have on average 40-50 bouts to get a main event in MSG...
