Is the same true about boxers? According to a French study athletes in the first modern Olympic Games (in 1896) only used 75 per cent of their full physical potential. Today they use 99 per cent. Most of this improvement took place during the first 50 years. The study is based on an analysis of results in every modern Olympic Game (since 1896 in other words). The study shows that athletes have improved to a lot lesser degree since the 1970's, though. And these improvements are also probably to a large degree due to the use of illegal substances, according to the scientist who've made the study. Is the same true about boxing more or less in your opinion? Personally, I think it is.
No the same isnt true in boxing. the reason for the improvements is due to the improvements in training and committment in those sports. Boxing hasnt had the same improvements and in fact it is arguable that they lost a lot of those improvements and went backwards in this area.
I read about the study in a magazine so I only got the somewhat shorter version. I don't know how exactly they determined the physical potential used. But it was obviously pretty plain to see that results had improved at a high pace to begin with, while today it's down to a crawl. According to them that's because there's not much more physical potential to utilise, which seems prefectly reasonable.
I have a very hard time believing that. Why wouldn't improved training methods and nutrition increase physical capabilities in boxing just as it has done in every other sport? Likewise why wouldn't the technique improve, as it has just about everywhere else?
Well, I agree that it certainly seems as though boxers of today should be better in every single aspect - speed, strength, stamina, technique, etc. But a lot of the top 10 fighters in the heavyweight division don't seem to have made some of those improvements. Sure, they're a hell of a lot bigger than they were on average years ago, and perhaps even stronger from a weight lifting perspective, but are they really in better shape? Samual Peter, Ruslan Chagaev, James Toney, Jameel McCline and Oleg Maskaev hardly look like they're better athletes than Frank Bruno, Mike Weaver, Pinklon Thomas, or Larry Holmes. Of course, physical appearance means little, but still. I'm also not convinced that boxing skill has improved. We also are seeing a trend in fighters turning pro later, and fighting for longer periods. I'm not sure how good this is for the game. Of course I'm only referring to heavyweights, and not all of them at that.
Simple, because 100 years ago, other sports were not taken seriously. A good runner did not train all day, every day. It was only a part time sport. Boxing was never like this. In fact, if you compare what the older fighters actually trained to what the current guys do. The current guys dont train anywhere near as much or as hard. There are some advantages in strength training and nutrition but the advantages are minor. At worst it is a close to even playing field like in the last few years of other sports. For the prime example of how training dedication can make old timers perform better than modern counterparts, do a goodle search of Walter Lindrum and compare his records to modern counterparts. The ohter thing to consider, is that boxing is the only sport i can think of where equipment has actually gone backwards. Gloves give more padding, ring floors are softer, doctors stop fights at the first sign of discomfort, less clinching allowed etc. This would be akin to modern runners being forced to run with 5 pound blocks on their feet. I doubt many would compete under these circumstances.
Maybe this was true in the late 1800's, but results continued to improve rapidly for a long time. I would say that most Olympic events was very professional well before WWII, but even then the athletes still had lots of room for improvement. Jesse Owens was very professional and the Joe Louis of his sports, but his records are no more. A lot of scientific progress also wasn't available 100 years ago, no matter how professional the sport. Much less was known about nutrion and they didn't have the tools and methods to test how the body responds to different kinds of training etc, etc.
Well, this probably partly is because the improvement has been much slower the last 30 years or so (according to the study) and also because the devolopment during this period mainly has been in size and strength in HW boxing, to some extent to the detriment of speed and skill. Sad, but true. By size, I don't primarily that people overall has gotten a lot bigger of the last 20-30 years, but rather that the really big ones still can develop decent skill and speed through modern methods.
Boxing pre 1960 is almost a completely different sport than that of today, so it is very hard to have a fair comparison.