so, as athletes got better - why not boxers?

Because the best nutrition in the world can't give you grit and balls, two things you were forced to have if you wanted to be a top fighter years ago.

 

They fought more often....against bums
Nowadays ATG are sometimes even sparring against belt holders.
Trainingcamps are 8-12 weeks and they do more than 120 rounds of sparring.
Could that be better than fighting a 3win-14loss BUM???? no, never, not on this planet, fighters from pre 1900 R TEH BEST!!!1111 even if their technique is ****

 

haha you don't think Pele, George Best wouldn't cut it today against the best? nonsense

You ever see Bobby Chartlon or Ari Haan?

 

the uk amatuer scene is fantastic at the minute and getting a lot of funding. Frochs coach McCracken is training them for 2012 London and i think they will clean up gb that is.

Katy Taylor for gold for Ireland definitely.

Point is the uk is quite lucky at the minute in America its the opposite most of the Gyms have closed since the eighties heyday.

 

If you transported them as they were from the 70s?

No,def not.

Well....DEFINATELY not George Best! Pele wasa freak athlete.

In the modern premiership I dont think Best would last a full half!

Drinking the night before, sneaky cigarette during the warm up...Yeah,I dont think he'd quite hack it against modern Premiership soccer players.

 

Pele played in the 1958 World cup , he did play in the seventies just to let you know.

George Best retired because he made more money being George Best. hed be 300k a week in todays game.

had more natural talent and balance than any footballer ive ever seen and this was in an era of shite pitches, heavy balls and muderous tackles where people got a pay rise for breaking your leg.

 

take into consideration that they fought fifteen rounds. You can't fight like the devil for fifteen rounds like you could for the majority of 12. unless your on roids

 

also do you think Robinho would have gotten into the Brazil squad in the seventies?

no ****ing chance or Neymar or ****ing anderson.

 

Is his balance and natural talent any better than Messi for example?

Or maybe Zidane from a few years back?

And Messi has all that natural talent and balance with modern training,and minus the alcoholism and chain smoking.

 

defence is alot better today so boxers dont look as good in attack because the other is defending so well.

 

Have things really improve that Much ? This is the 100 till 2006. Take into account improvements in tracks and not having to work a full time job with more time to train.It has improved **** all. http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2442751

 

That progression only goes up to 2006,and has been blown out of the water since.

They've shaved a second off the 100m in 100 years.

Thats a little over 10metres, in a 100 metre race....thats quite a bit.

 

Try this ! http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2139/full

 

Yup, no doubt tracks have helped.

Marathon records have also come down hugely too and thats on roads.

Weightlifters are lifting more.

Jumpers jumping higher/longer

Throwers throwing further.

Aides like better tracks etc have hel[ped but theres no doubt that the athletes have improved aswell.

 

Boxing is drawing from a smaller pool. I havent seen any hard numbers but the truth is only a faction of the kids turn up for training compared to the 60's 70's and 80's. If you dont have the base its ard to build a pryramid with such small numbers.

For those that are too young to remember boxing was a much bigger sport in the 1940's thru 1980's then basketball, and on par with football until the mid to late 1970's. And because of that there where many more kids starting out at a young age. Now-a-days most American fighters start much later mostly after failing at another sport.