''We don't want to admit it, but athletes gets better'' ...& Mike Tyson Mysteries

I completely agree with these statements. We're on the same page there.

Like I was theorizing, just because the information to learn something is out there doesn't mean it's being disseminated properly by those charged with getting it to the proper place. The "modern is best" folks think this stuff goes into practice automatically through osmosis or something, simply because others have done it in the past. That isn't true in ANY discipline. Ergo, this theory cannot be supported.

 

The thing is with boxing the older generation were tough as hell, you barely have that today globally.

 

To address these points in order:

1: I just want to clarify that you're suggesting there was no such thing as a "boxer-puncher" before this era of boxing. Is that really where you want to go with this?

2: What "better training methods?" How are they better? How are you gauging how they are in fact better? What is the criteria for this? When you look at a fight from the 50's or 60's for example, what is it they are doing that modern-day boxers have improved upon with this terrific new training they do? No one has ever given a decent answer to this. No one can.

3: See reply for question #2, but please insert "diet and technology" in the place of "training methods."

4: How do better medical conditions teach a fighter how to feint, or hook off the job? What does that have to do with anything? This is a different argument entirely.

5: See answer to #4, and just replace the words......oh, never mind, you get the idea.

 

It is unreasonable to say that Cosimo Pinto and Aleksei Kiselyov would defeat La Cruz and Niazymbetov over 3 rounds at LHW for example. It's actually laughable.

There are always exceptions here and there, but generally Olympic boxing has greatly evolved since those times. Same case with the pros.

 

Genetic freaks like Tyson and Foreman would still fare well today. Also Fraziers left hook would still knock out 90% of todays heavyweights

 

Speaking of boxing. Now it's true that fighters have refined the art of boxing and they have become faster and stronger but they definitely are no tougher. For just pure toughness I would have to give the nod to the old school fighters.

 

amateur boxing became softer since the 80s with the helmet and all i think it affected the level of pro boxing!

real high level infighter doesnt exist anymore now everybody mix close,mid and long range to create a style.

 

The only boxer who i believe has 'evolved' is Mayweather.

In a sport where you give and take a lot of punishment, Floyd has perfected the art to the point where he's rarely hit.

Like him or not, Mayweather in his prime is a pretty much complete fighter, minus one punch KO power.

But not everyone is Floyd Mayweather. But Floyd has provided that blueprint, it would take someone special to emulate or outdo that.

 

So basically boxing itself hasnt evolved, it just that everything else has?

Society and technology may have evolved, but the sport pretty much remains true to what its always been

Athletes have got larger, but more skilled? not necessarily.

Each generation has had a couple of standout stars who could hold their own in any era, but the rest are nothing special.

Two guys fight, punch each other in the face until one goes down or it goes the distance.

 

Yup!

 

:deal

No more need be said.

 

What does advances in nutrition and sports science even mean?

And obviously, boxing has evolved since the time of Louis and Ali, because new techniques have been invented. Just like it had evolved when James Corbett invented new techniques.

 

so i guess boxing never improved through the years???

its in the nature of humans to progress...

saying athletes in the 30's are better than the 90's is bullshyt...