so, as athletes got better - why not boxers?

Can anyone imagine what modern day champs like Bowe, Lewis or Wlad would do with a 1920s slugger like Dempsey? It'd be painful to watch.

 

Could That be because they are now Professional Athletes instead of the Amateurs like in the past? Boxers on the other hand could make a living fighting ever couple of weeks. Swimming has been helped by Suits and Waveless Pools.

 

In terms of size,physique and athleticism can you point to anyone on the Klitschkos or Lewis's level 30+ years ago?

 

12 rounds makes it a better sport for sure. instead of watching two guys ****ing drained of energy slugging it out.

If Marquez and Pac 1 was fifteen rounds Pac would have been UD'd

 

Do you think they need to be as Big as the Klitschos ? Lamon Brewster exposed that Myth. Have you ever looked at The work rate of the current Heavies? It Sux . Vitali is effective, yes ?Peak Holyfield , Bow and the Usual suspects would test the brothers. On work rate Alone they would Test there "size,physique and athleticism " Unlike the fat slow Heavies they are moving around with at the Moment.

 

In America, sure, but worldwide there has never been more boxers

 

Wlad came back and stopped Brewster.

And what is your point with Bowe? He was one on the new breed of "super-heavyweights" He was 6'5 and 240+lbs.

My point still stands,their was no one like the Klitschkos in terms on size,physique and athleticism 30+ years ago.

Haye wasnt fat or slow, neither was Chagaev, or Adamek or Chambers etc.

 

The same reason a Ferrari will never win a demolition derby.

Performance enhancing drugs, better medical science, and equipment advances may improve size, speed, strength, and conditioning by a small level- as fast as Usain Bolt is, for example, he's only shaved 1 second off of what the world record was in the 100 meter dash 100 years ago- but there are base aspects of boxing that cannot be improved...mainly, head injuries.

Just like in football, head injuries and brain damage are common career ending circumstances that scientists haven't been able to remedy yet. The weakest link in the chain is the one everyone still has to accommodate and that's what holds boxing back. Also, shortening fights and scheduling them more infrequently has led to boxing becoming more of a "peak performance" sport, rather than the yeoman's work it used to be where 20 fights a year wasn't uncommon. This means that the athleticism on display in high level boxing, has been better the last 40 years since these practices became more common than it was the 40 before it, but the average skill level has decreased in comparison between those same time spans. It *should* be like that because the demands of the sport are different.

 

ONLY 1 second in the 100m?????

ITS A 10 SECOND RACE!!!!

As for skill levels decreasing,I wouldnt be so sure. They may only fight a few times a year at teh highest level but the fights tend to be against other high level fighters.

Its not like before where Manny Pacquiao could fight someone like Hatton then fight 4 club fighter in between that and his next fight.

Fighters these days have longer training camps,sparring with top class guy etc.

They're in the gym all year round anyway dfor the most part.

Dont see why boxing should be different to other sports where skills increase overtime as sportspeople learn new things and evolve over time

 

Boxing isnt about breaking records or being the most athletic. Its about breaking chins and beating the odds. Being born 100 yrs later doesnt give you any advantages in boxing. You have superior skills, will, or both gives you an edge. Robinson is like a work of art by Davinci where only afew can replicate and afew will ever accomplish doesnt matter what era it is. If muscle and modern nutrition were the main sources for being a champion then Briggs would be unified champ. You can have the most high tech expensive synthetic oil in a pos car, but in the end its still a pos car. Boxing is not tennis, megaminds. Just ask Tex Cobb. :hi:

 

The difference is in frequency of participation- there are fewer gym wars because trainers are smarter about it, and there's fewer professional fights. In other sports like football, baseball, basketball, etc. the number of professional games is at an all time high. Boxing was less about peak performance in a couple of big fights a year and more about being good enough to win real fights week in, week out, month in, month out. That's where the variation comes in.

The point of illustrating the 100m dash record is that, even for all the athletic improvement that people factor into today, Bolt still only broke it by approximately 10% over someone who ran before World War I. That's not much, especially once PED's and equipment improvements are accounted for. There's really not the huge difference in the level of athletes that people believe is there as compared to the old time guys, and certainly there's not a difference in level to the point where we should be expecting today's boxers to be light years better than what was once out there. I don't think the slight improvments are enough to offset the lack of activity and quality coaching. Would Tavoris Cloud would only be fighting a couple times a year 40 years ago? And if he fought even 5 times a year with two opponents being solid contenders, wouldn't he be better for it?
leap forward.