Size and sports science vs Golden era

Well laid out, respectful thoughts. We'll see how long it is before someone starts throwing bombs and calling everyone stupid.

A short answer is I don't think many modernists would say the modern fighter always wins, just that there's a strong rebuttable presumption for fighters of a similar in era class that gets stronger the further back it goes. Our view is centered on a few facts 1. All sports with tangible results have records that continually get broken. 2. Athletes in those sports have generally gotten larger 3. The same size increase that accompanied the tangible sports accompanied hw boxing 4 Along those lines, hw champs have usually been notably larger than the average contender, thus the size of both the contender and champ have expanded over the years by a good margin. 5. Changes in sports science, training methods etc to capitalize on different traits have been developed over the years.

I won't really go into the reasons of all that, but those are all tangible, broad based facts. They can be independently verified, and aren't centered on anecdotes but on larger trends, and therefore have more weight to modernists. It doesn't 100percent prove anything, but it provides very strong indications of h2h progress over the years.

Doesn't mean boxing is necessarily better though. As you said, the best fought the best much more often back then, and technique was more meaningful, since size can make it less meaningful. Anyway, you gave a respectful post and I wanted to do the same.

 

I think anyone subscribing to a modernist view or a classicist view is being ridiculous.

Boxing is a combat sport,this isn't track and field or swimming it's a fight under a certain rule set between two men. It isn't just about being quicker or stronger its also about being experienced and having ring generalship. It isn't just about hitting harder than your opponent it's about being able to time and anticipate them.

Every single fight should be considered on a case by case discussing the stylistic matchup.

Size of HW fighters is a different matter, that's a case of skills vs size and isn't just limited to the HW division, we recently saw Brook add a stone to compete with Golovkin and come up short. However we've also seen a former flyweight in Pacquaio beat a former middleweight in Cotto. So again I'd say these matchups should also be considered on an individual basis. It should also be recognised that a bigger fighter has a natural advantage and it comes down to considering whether the smaller man has the skill and style to defeat him.

 

No way Fury or Jennings beat Ali. That's what I do know.

 

Another massive factor that is overlooked is the mental aspect of the sport, what's inside really does count.....

 

I don't agree that new timers beat old timers.
PED's became rampant IMO by late 40's and was completely unregulated then and athletes then had the raw, unadulterated stuff. Testing was so poor in 70's, 80's and has recently become better - although today, drugs tested doesn't mean drugs free.

Moreover, boxers focussed more on technique and skill, rather than spending most of their training camps cutting weight. Their fights were actually far greater educational experiences then, it was like sparring, but a pro bout. They would spar on top of that.

Andre Ward has dominated this era because of his ability to fight old-school...by old-school standards of infighting, he certainly isn't spectacular.

It's not very fair to compare different physiques as any modern boxer with an old-timer career type will have leaner physiques with less muscle.

In old-timer boxing, boxers were made to fight more. We're seeing a trend of boxers not 'fighting' as much. Making sure the fighters are genuinely the same size, and if there were no rules beyond the basics that can be applied for both eras, for me it's very obvious that the old-timer will win (from around 40's onwards). Boxing was evolving A LOT, the same way UFC is evolving, in the first few decades of last century, until 40's.

 

hw's are debateable in terms of fantasy fights, often I pick the smaller but better and more proven guy. but you can't imagine a guy like rocky putting up that record against the modern field, he's more likely to get ko'd and if not someone will clinch him to a decision. And if he was actually around today he wouldn't fight at hw anyway.

lower weights are more clear cut for modern fighters having an advantage because of weight cutting but messier in general because of junior divisions.

fury doesn't have the tools to beat ali imo, Jennings aint beaten anyone for a couple of years in real life so not sure what's up there.

 

Tyson Fury would destroy Muhammad Ali

 

Tyson Fury is the worst hwt champion I have ever seen. The only hwt champion I've ever openly laughed at because of his strictly amateur skills. Fury would not win a minute of the fight vs prime Ali.

 

Its a fantastic question first of all.

My 2 cents is as follows.
In many other sports, improvement(better performance) has evolved via better equipment. Examples being Athletics( shoes/garments/running surface etc). Motor sports ( better cars,bikes etc) in Boxing there are few ,if any, external or associated factors that help the individual to have improved in this regard.
As a follower of the HW division , my observation is that (generally) the decline in standards that led me to lose a little interest in the last 10-15 years, seemed to coincide with the fighters getting too big/flabby/not as fit ? ( not in all cases, but in many).
Without getting into examples of time travel fights, i would always take a guy who was in tremendous shape at 200 pounds over a guy who wasn't in shape at 240, assuming that they had the same ability to start with.
I just feel some guys get too big, to be as effective as they could be.
I always use Lennox as an example of a boxer who lost something as he got bigger in my view.
Where sports science and fitness/diet awareness HAS changed things is that it's helped with longevity.
We see it in other sports also.
In Tennis, 2 or 3 decades ago a guy would be a veteran at age 30, whereas now we've had Federer at the top end well into his thirties and Murray now world number 1 approaching his 30th birthday.
There are multiple reasons behind this.Diet awareness and cleaner living would top the list i guess ?
Being in your thirties now , is often a peak time in many sports, including boxing.
There is a better social awareness about boxing now, that dictates boxers don't fight as often for health reasons , which naturally helps longevity.
People are generally bigger and stronger than they used to be , providing they live a healthy lifestyle so alot of it is natural evolution.
I have a friend who owns racehorses who has always told me the horses of now are no better or worse than the standard of 30 -40 years ago. Im not sure if thats relevant, but its interesting in that it seems that maybe the sports that change the most are because of equipment improvement/change ?

 

I admire Fury in that he did everything he said he would. Plenty tried and failed v Klitschko.
However his skill levels were questionable.I was looking forward to matchups with Him/Joshua/Wilder/Haye too see what would evolve.
Sadly the situation has fallen flat rather than come to the boil. Its entirely possible that none of those fights may take place.
As for Fury, ive always felt that when someone is unbeaten you just dont know the extent or otherwise of their capabilities.

 

Fury only has a handful of pro bouts and only one notable win. His bout with Wlad was more like watching a Three Stooges short than a hwt championship bout.

 

Holy cow... a dozen posts into as contentious an issue as this, and not even a hint of name-calling! Hope it will continue that way (yeah, I know, I'm being very naive!).

Anyway, my $0.02:

Historians often claim that, unlike in other sports, nothing new has been "invented" in boxing over the past 100+ years. A left jab is still a left jab, and a right cross still a right cross - no evolutional change/improvement over time.

But while the basics remain the same, surely everybody can see, that the way these basics are put together has improved since the early 1900s. Not so much (if at all!) over the past 70 years or so... but it's pretty obvious that (as Gannicus has already stated) a giant evolutionary leap took place from the early days of gloved boxing up to around WW2. Watching the old clips, I dont understand how anyone can honestly not reach this conclusion!

Once we enter the early 40s, boxing had evolved into a sport that produced brilliant "modern" boxers such as Joe Louis, SRR and Pep. Skill-wise, they were every bit as good as the best boxers today.

On the other hand, I don't subscribe to the idea that boxing today has DEvolved... because old-time skills have been forgotten, fewer career-fights, the best trainers have died out, etc. I don't buy that! Today we have lots of brilliant boxers, who would be competitive in any era. IMO.

 

Actually just the opposite. Fleischer as an example stated that boxing talent as a whole REGRESSED over time. His statement was that old timers were masters of the "finer points of the game". He backed that up by noting that over time there were less boxing gyms and far fewer good trainers. He stated "at one time every major city had multiple boxing gyms each full of excellent trainers". I can see that quite obviously the blocking, feinting, slipping and countering, parries many subtle techniques seen then are not apparent today. Today it's mostly range fighting. Keeping at arms distance as an example as opposed to creating openings via boxing skill and countering. It's a different game certainly and this difference makes many look upon the older styles with disdain as it's not readily apparent what's going on.