Stop comparing the fighters of the past to present day fighters!

i think he was talking about things like periodization, more focus on interval running or running for time (instead of constant slow paced jogging for distance), recovery techniques like ice baths or active isolated stretching, timing of nutrient intake, etc etc etc.

 

Probably kids who don't know better.... little young shits always think they know it all, or have the answers. If they knew anything, they'd know they know nothing.

 

No he wont, lets not talk wet now.

 

I never compare eras the rules, equipment, training methods, activity, cutmen, teaching, judging style has all changed light years since. Boxing was way different 50 years ago. Just like it will be way different in 50 years.

 

Bunch of hacks on here.

 

You're full of ****. Obviously it's hard comparing guys from the 5 oz gloves 20+ round era of boxing to modern fighters, but boxing has been "modern" since the early 30's. The gloves were a little smaller and they fought 15 round championship fights, but that's really the only difference. Look at Joe Louis and tell me he looks primitive. Just do that, please, so I can laugh at you and call you a dumbass. Even Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney and Benny Leonard don't look too far off from today's fighters. Footwork, jabbing (not so much from Dempsey), combinations. All present, and executed at a consistently high level of skill. A lot of people would try to argue that Dempsey, Tunney and Leonard kept their hands down which is something no modern fighter would do, save Joe Calzaghe, Sergio Martinez, Naseem Hamed and the greatest HW of all time, Muhhamad Ali. And don't even try to tell me that Ali doesn't count.

**** your modern nutrition and training techniques, all that matters is how these men performed in the ring, and it's easy to see on film that the training techniques of Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong and so on were just as effective as modern ones considering their strength, speed, stamina, skill ect., ect., are all plain to see. Name me one current fighter that has the stamina of Armstrong or the composite punching ability of Joe Louis? You ****ing can't.

These guys can hire their high-priced nutritionists and shoot themselves up with all the vitamin supplements they want but that alone doesn't translate to a better performance in the ring as is evidenced on film.

Furthermore, the basic training techniques used today and then are still pretty much the same (road work, bag work, sparring, shadow boxing), aside from the relatively recent inclusion of weight-training. Consider this, though - what is the best way to improve as a fighter? Fight. Old timers fought more fights and more often than modern fighters which granted them more experience and knowledge that can't be duplicated in mere sparring sessions.

Bottom line: **** you.

 

Sugar Ray dont count he is of Modern Times
ALI too
either that or they were ahead of there time

 

Next up. Henry Armstrong's best weightclass wasn't welterweight, but lightweight. You honestly think that Armstrong would lose to guys like Juan Diaz or Edwin Valero? He wouldn't. It makes me sick that you're talking **** about Henry Armstrong when you obviously don't know anything about him. He was known for his work-rate, dip-****.

 

Evolution, in purely physical terms, does not happen in half a century.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, boxing was a much more popular sport back in the day. That means that there were many more fighters competing. As a rule, the larger the gene pool available for selection, the greater the chance of finding an elite. In a relevant real world example, this is why high school athletics are segregated by school size. In any case, given this line of reasoning, it seems as though past eras may have produced better fighters.

Also, as some have pointed out, fighters fought more often in past eras, which leads me to believe that they may have had the edge there too.

2 cents worth,

phranklin

 

The past fighters of back in the days had a lot more fights and fought like once a month or shorter. They would laugh at anyone that that retired at 40 fights.

 

What is there to break? The opening post established a basic truth: newer is better. Therefore, the best boxers we know about are those fighting right now. How can anyone doubt this obvious fact? How can anyone think that someone like Rocky Marciano was a better athlete than Shannon Briggs?

 

There's a lot of win in this post, but the modern era of fighters began more in the early 60's and there are a couple guys here and there from the 40's and 50's that fought more like modern fighters. A late 60's Ali beats every HW that ever laced them up imho.

 

Shannon Briggs is one of the few high profile heavyweights Rocky could beat today.

 

There are plenty of bums today who fight once a month, sometimes under assumed names. The only thing fighting that often is going to get you is broken down prematurely.