Were Australian's better fighters 60yrs ago?

I actually doubt that many of the top liners from the last 80 years would need much of a change in their routine to fit into todays game, if any change was needed at all. The tempo of the M/W's and below doesnt seem to have changed much at all.

If anything, guys like Ron Richards would be near impossible to stop with the modern dietry supplements and conditioning. Vic Patrick would have a field day. Jimmy Carruthers was no less conditioned than Vic Darchynian, even with the alleged 'supplements' he was fed by Dr.McGurr.

The games almost over-scientific now...

 

So boxing would be about the only sport in the world that hasnt improved in 60 years.?

 

Im not saying there''s no improvements. A lot has changed. They used to fight in black and white back then....

Seriously though, the work rate was no less than it is today. Difference being that fighters had to prepare for, and pace themselves over 15 rounds for even a state title from the late 1920's. Take a look at any extended footage of the local fights over 15 rounds from the 1940's.... the blokes never let up until the final bell. Many would do this each month. I doubt they'd have any problems adapting to 8 round state title bouts, or 10 rounds for a national title...

...one good example is that of Les Darcy after arriving in the USA in late 1916.. he literally laughed at the Yanks, fighting 10 rounds for their versions of World Titles. He was licking his lips at the prospect of making a bloody fortune fighting over the 10 rounds, after he'd been engaged in around 25 bouts scheduled for 20 rounds here.

The skill set of Darcy might not be considered polished by todays standards, but the fighters of the 1930's onwards are not necessarily less than that of today... if anything, the blokes on the local scene today are less than professionally skilled by comparison.

You think Dave Sands would have trouble with Anthony Mundine??
Would Mickey Miller have trouble with Billy Dib?
Would Carruthers have trouble with Fenech at bantamweight??
Would Ron Richards have trouble with Danny Green at Lightheavy?

 

Do we have alot of old ****s in here that watched these fighters 60 yrs ago?

Sure top liners would go well in any era, question should be do you think the general average Joe back in the day is better than todays average Joe.

I think they would be the same.

 

Bobby, I'd favor all 4 of those guys to win by one sided ko.

Boxing is not like athletics, swimming, tennis etc. Boxers need to train, eat and live completely different. Boxing is over scientific today, and with proliferation of titles and shortening of rounds and just todays society, it's gone backwards. Men today on a whole are more feminine than they used to be. Only goin back to the 70's here, but can you imagine a 17 year old kid of today fighting ten rounds (J.Malcolm) or even in the case of W.Benitez -15? Today, blokes who work want the day (sometimes more) off work before they fight, the old timers werent allowed that luxury.

You get blokes today who can lift twice there body weight but can't do ten push ups, can't do two burpies.

Take away the dole the gyms would be more busy.

 

On the first night of TV Ringside in Sydney, a Bernie Hall opponent was matched in the main event. At 5 pm fight night, Bernie pulled him out. Alan Moore was home, showered and just finishing dinner before heading over to the fight. That day he'd done his roadwork, gone to work, sparred Dick Blair then completed his afternoon session on the bags. The phone rings. "Allan we need you to fight the main tonight" No problem. He won on points over 10.

Tell me one of these blokes today who'd do that.

 

The promoters today would ring the Bohols and get an unwashed kid out of the garage.

 

If duplicates of Sands, Richards, Miller, Curruthers trained using the knowledge available today and fought an original version of themselves I would put my money on the latest version.

Understanding how the body works and how best to maximise the potential of your body for your given sport is not being over scientific.

 

Ok, lets revert back to 20 round bouts. Should be a walk in the park for todays fighters hey mate??

 

wow. You got me

 

The big difference is that the fighters in the old days were fighting just to eat.... which is why so many great boxers come from the Depression era) or from the poorest areas of the Country or underpriveliged areas of the world.

Also.... The competition back then was much fiercer.. (I knew guys that were fightin 2... maybe 3 times a week under different names).... and they were fighting so that their families could eat.

Desperate men fight like Tigers.... and there were a lot of them

The guys nowdays.... as good as some of them are.... would in the main get absolutely destroyed if they stepped in the same ring.

 

^ These are working men your talking about too. Dad's always saying that if a pair of boxers put on a really great show, then the crowd would shower the ring in pennies after the fight. The collections gathered from the ring would be divided between the fighters, many relied on this just to survive, for many having a full time job just wasnt enough.

When they stepped in the ring they applied their trade, it was their job and they did it well, a poor bout may mean no work for the following week.

 

common tekes , you cant go as good as your grandfathers just as i cant blue like mine , christ the blokes were 6th division veterans , they'rd eat me alive in any fight . even in their 60s too tough for young bucks in pub fights here in the isa.

 

Time tends to create and amplify myths especially so in the historic view of boxing.

As Oz said they fought for their food more often than fighters today so they were dangerous.