Why do people say that boxers of the 1940's and 50's were so much better than boxers today?

I don't see a lot of folks on board here saying that, many times quite the opposite. But you have to take eras into consideration. I've grown sick of the Vlad vs. Dempsey-Tyson vs. Louis arguments. Try putting a post-czarist Russia Vlad against a 2000 Dempsey pvp? Try putting a 1940 Tyson against a 1988 Brown Bomber pvp. See my point?
My $0.02

 

Boxing is the ultimate sport of activity the more its practiced the better one becomes (like all sports), and fighters from those eras practiced to the point it became instinctive. When a fighter is fighting 2 - 3 times a month, and Lord only knows how much sparring they were doing, to me it's pretty simple to understand the reasons, especially when the safety concerns were not close to what they are today. Though in my opnion, the time span is longer, because There was a lot of fighters from the 60's thru the 80's that could fight in any era, and would absolutely dominate today's era of fighters. The drop off in skill level is much more pronounced the last 20-25 yrs than the prior 60-70 yrs.

 

I definitely don't.

 

Boxing is unique in that it seems too only accept the possibility that it’s practitioners improved and built on the skills I was for fathers at the expense of the earlier practitioners. Where else is it a shortcoming that someone was successful or even dominant against his contemporaries based on speculation that he may not of fared as well against hypothetical opponents of the future?

 

Neither do I!

But there will always be "experts", trying to denigrate the present. Claiming that now is crap compared to earlier times. They said that 100 years ago - just like today. That will probably never change.

 

ETM described it perfectly a while back. Not sure he's posting of late but man did he nail it.

 

Do you have a link to the post JT?

 

No mate i will try to find it tonight or more likely tomorrow night. It was a superb little post that despite being short hit all the right notes.

 

it´s human nature to be nostalgic. most Boxing "historians" are old men and they have a tendency to view the past through rose coloured glasses.
and lots of Boxing publications are also to blame. before YouTube it was Pretty difficult to get your Hands on old fight films…….so you basically had to rely on what magazines like "the ring" reported on fighters of the past. and alot of those Reports falsely lionised Oldtimers to a totally unrealistic Degree.

but thankfully the Internet came along with boxrec and YouTube so People could form their own opinions………...and suddenly the supermen of the past became alot less "super".

 

You're right... the proliferation of "world champions" must necessarily mean, that there are lots of belt holders today, who aren't really the best in their division (and often far from it!).

But how about simply looking at the best of the best - regardless of which phony alphabet titles they may or may not hold? If we compare the very best of today's boxers, with the very best from (for example) the 50s... are we then certain, that today's boxers are inferior?

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/was-the-1980s-the-greatest-boxing-era.522594/page-4

Pretty sure this was it -

ETM - In terms of glitz and glamour the 80s was pretty awesome. Boxing was big show business. You an uncommon # of great legendary fighters around the same weight classes willing to face each other {Fab 4}. Mike Tyson also was a once in a generation type of exciting, spectacular performer.

You can make a case for the 80s but I think in a pure boxing sense the 1930s and especially the 1940s boxing peaked. Pre Television when the fighters learned their trade in a more thorough way. Sugar Ray was fighting once or twice a month, Joe Louis was still the heavyweight champion, Zale and Graziano were beating the hell out of each other. Willie Pep was an absolute magician in the ring fighting quite often. Just the lightweight division alone in the `40s was off the charts. Ike Williams facing fighters like Jack, Montgomery multiple times. When PBF first came on the seen in the late 90s Eddie Futch made the comment about seeing him do things defensively that he hadn't seen since the great boxers on the `30s and `40s.

The 40s cant be topped in my view.

 

Thanks mate - I see I'd actually commented on that thread previously. I totally agree with ETM about the 40s and yeah, the reasons given for them being greater than today.

 

here is a great footage example of just that, the first time I watched this I thought precisely of PBF, and this was a relatively 'unknown' though noted Irish Welter cum Middleweight Champion, who was also a British Contender Paddy Roche fighting the end of the line Kid Berg...

the first fight are second/third raters, but good film footage all the same, Irish HWs.

Berg vs Roche beginning at 124 secs in... watch the PBF Skills from Roche that Futch describes haven't seen much since the 40s.

there were virtually hundreds of great fighters who fought DOZENS of great fights against other equally great and capable men... that's what makes it superior overall.

This content is protected