Why would we expect historic heavyweights to do well in the modern day?

He'd probably be roided to the gills from a pretty early point in his career, assuming his life choices remain the same as far as criminality goes.

 

1) yes a larger gene pool and a larger number of countries participating does give modern guys an advantage. They are exposed to a wider variety of training methods, habits, and tricks.

However, the flip side to this is that a lot of modern trainers are not particularly great. Many of the old school legendary trainers like Futch, Goldman, etc are long gone and not very many guys picked up on their methods and knowledge so their craft died with them. In addition, while boxing has become more global it has also become more inactive ironically. Boxers, especially the more well known ones, barely even fight twice a year (even before the pandemic it was getting ridiculous). This makes them stagnate more and dulls their reflexes, timing, and less likely to actually improve by taking advantage of the larger gene pool and wider variety of opponents.

2) this is true, nutrition today is better than it was 20 years ago and in 2000 it was better than it was in 1980, etc. However, a lot of modern fighters are slobs and eat whatever they want. I mean, you can't sit here and tell me guys like Kownacki, Ruiz, and Fury are the poster boys of nutrition. Even in the lower weight classes you have guys who have terrible diets and/poor stamina from a lack of intense cardio and endurance training. You will see guys ranked in the top 10 in their physical primes huffing and puffing and gassed by round 9 and that's completely unacceptable. This doesn't account for everyone obviously. You do have noteworthy exceptions like Usyk, Spence, etc. But it happens often enough that it sticks out.

3) also true. The question is, how often do modern guys actually study old school footage and techniques? I don't see it happen very often. Some modern guys (trainers include) are either apathetic toward old school techniques or completely ignorant of them. Parrying, feinting, inside fighting, etc are all dying arts.

4) of course peds gives modern guys a big advantage. But they're still technically illegal even if a lot of guys get away with having them in their system. Sanctioning bodies do in fact punish (most) guys for getting caught with things in their system. So how exactly is it an advantage in a h2h discussion when if the fight took place and the modern guy got caught, the fight would be cancelled?

 

Usyk put this to rest.

 

How can you have any idea, how much (or little) the thousands of trainers around the world study old school fighters/techniques?

 

Let's try and see: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...film-and-actually-used-in-competition.676584/

Honestly, though? I really doubt most boxers are going to study film of Jersey Joe Walcott or Archie Moore like Toney did. It's just not something that you'd expect from a functioning combat sport athlete. The whole exercise is the kind of thing that antiquarian history / martial arts hobbyists with too much time on their hands would do.

That doesn't make the techniques themselves garbage, mind you. But the nerdy types who'd do the lion's share of digging this stuff up aren't likely to be plugged into the professional boxing mainstream.

 

Yes, they surely would! But to take 5 of the most outstanding HW champs over a period of more than 30 years, and compare them to the top-10 TODAY... is that really a fair way to argue, that we right now are in a weak HW era?

 

If you can't make skill judgments across eras, then there's no way to criticize Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, or other old timey boxers for antiquated looking technique.

At that point, you're basically left just trying to argue from fighter demographics or something. Because literally the only measuring stick in boxing that matters is what fighter X did to fighter Y in the ring. There are no objective stats comparable to deadlift numbers, 100 meter times, or shot put distances.

 

It was a mere example.

Okay.

How about the current Ring’s top 10, compared with the annual ratings from 30 years ago?

30 years ago is a huge amount of time if people truly believe that the sport just keeps on progressing with each decade.


I’ve not said that this era is weak. I didn’t mean that. It isn’t. However, it is weaker than SOME other eras of the past.

Anybody who doesn’t realise that the sport just ebbs and flows, doesn’t have any comprehension of what they’re watching.

It’s absolutely baffling that people assume that the sport keeps progressing because other sports have, yet without actually studying what’s staring them in the face.

It’s utterly bizarre.

Mind boggling.

If the fighters and the sport kept improving, then we’d all clearly be able to see that ALL of today’s world class fighters are the best of all time.

We’d all be in complete agreement that today’s group of HW’s are absolutely head and shoulders above every other group of HW’s from 30-40 years ago.

We’d all be in complete agreement that today’s group of MW’s and SMW’s etc, are clearly levels above any group that came before them.

Yet if you have an understanding of what you’re looking at, then you know that that’s not the case.


Here’s today’s top 10 HW’s:

Tyson Fury
Olexasandr Usyk
Deontay Wilder
Dillian Whyte
Joseph Parker
Andy Ruiz Jnr
Luiz Ortiz
Michael Hunter
Joe Joyce

These are the top 10 HW’s from 1991:

Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Riddick Bowe
Donovan Ruddock
Ray Mercer
George Foreman
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tucker
Lennox Lewis
Michael Moorer

30 years difference!

The sprinters today have recorded times that are faster than the top sprinters of 30 years ago.

Yet where is the CLEAR improvement between the 2 groups of HW’s?


ANY knowledgeable fan of this sport KNOWS for a fact, that if you had a tournament between the above 2 groups, that it would yield MIXED RESULTS, depending on how the fighters matched up stylistically.

Today’s group of HW’s would not win EVERY match up.


Not only are today’s group of HW’s NOT ALL clearly a better group of HW’s than their peers of 30 years ago, SOME of them aren’t as good at all.


Anybody who truly believes that the sport keeps progressing every decade, is absolutely deluded.

The sport ebbs and flows and has done for years.

Today’s CW division is strong and thriving. It’s currently at its strongest for years. It might even be at its strongest.

Yet the MW and SMW divisions are much weaker than what they were 25-30 years ago. And not just in terms of strength, but in terms of quality. In terms of the fighters skill sets.


Boxing is a stand alone sport. And it can’t keep progressing as a whole, as the outcome of the fights are more skill based than many other sports, where the fights are determined by the stylistic match ups, and not just by who’s the most powerful.

 

Look, any knowledgeable boxing fan should be able to appreciate what they’re looking at.

Would we really need to see Amir Khan fight Ray Leonard, for us all to decide on who we think the better fighter was?

I’ve been watching the sport for 30 years.

Not just watching it, but analysing the fights and the fighters.

We can use the eye test.

The whole progression theory is absolutely smashed to smithereens, when you realise that there’s a number of whole divisions today, which aren’t as great as what they were 25-30 years ago. And not just in terms of competitiveness or the exciting characters etc, but in terms of quality. In terms of the fighter’s skill sets.

Some divisions are thriving. Some are average. Some are weak compared to other eras.

No knowledgeable boxing fan believes that today’s MW’s, SMW’s and HW’s etc, are the best group of MW’s, SMW’s and HW’s of all time.

How could anybody believe such a thing?

Sure, there’s lots of great fighters today. But not every fighter in every division is great, and certainly not greater than their peers who all came before them.

What do you mean that the skill of the fighter is relative to their era??

Great fighters are great fighters.

No new techniques have been invented since the sport’s roots.

There’s been no rule changes for years.

There’s fighters from 50 years ago that are more skilful than SOME of today’s guys.

Go through today’s HW’s and tell me how many guys were as skilful as Larry Holmes? In terms of everything. Technique, balance, timing, accuracy, ring generalship etc.

Fury and Usyk are tremendously skilled. But other than those 2, nobody else has Holmes’ level of skills.

A peak version of Larry Holmes from 40 years ago would be a top 3 HW today. If you can’t agree on that, I don’t even want to waste any more time debating with you.

If boxing keeps progressing, then my comment regarding Holmes would be absolutely laughable, considering that his peak was 40 years ago. Yet if you did a poll, I guarantee you that 90% of the forum would agree with me. And we’re not biased nostalgics who can’t let go of the past etc. We’re just knowledgeable people who know what we’re looking at.

How many MW’s today are as technically skilled as Mike McCallum and James Toney?

Why aren’t there whole groups of guys who were as good as, and better than what they were?

Why aren’t today’s MW’s all clearly on another level to what those guys were, considering that their peaks were 30-35 years ago?

The overall progression doesn’t exist.

The fighters don’t keep getting better and better.

The sport has progressed from its roots, but it doesn’t keep progressing over time.

There’s some great HW’s today, again, like Fury and Usyk, yet the rest would struggle to make the top 10 in some of the other eras. And when you realise that, you know that the ‘modern is better’ theory holds no weight.

Any tournament between today’s guys and guys of the past, would simply yield mixed results, based upon how they matched up stylistically. And that would be the case across any division.

Today’s guys would not be able to win every fight.

The greats of the past would also not be able to win every fight.

Fights aren’t always determined by who’s the biggest, strongest and most powerful etc.

Every fighter has a stylistic nemesis.

Every great fighter past or present, could lose to another great fighter on any given night.

It’s not a race from A to B.

It’s 2 guys in a ring, in a physical game of chess.

 

Oh. I’m sorry.

How about if I add the word: Always

Is that okay for you??


A fight isn’t ALWAYS decided by who’s the biggest and strongest guy.


The old adage: ‘Styles make fights’ is as true today, as when it was first spoken.


Athletic sports are based more on power and strength.

Getting from one point to another, in the quickest time possible, against a clock.


A boxing match, is 2 fighters in a ring, pitting their skills and styles against each other.


They’re not hurtling down a track.

They’re feinting each other out of position etc.


A fantasy fight between Deontay Wilder vs Mike Tyson, is a mismatch on paper, in favour of Wilder, due to his huge physical advantages.

Yet in an actual ring, his huge size advantage would actually have been a disadvantage for him against Mike.


That’s what makes boxing different to any other sport.


Joe Frazier gave Ali hell.

George Foreman destroyed Frazier.

Yet Ali beat Foreman.

You can’t get that in other sports.


A fight is determined by who’s skills and styles come out on top on any given night.

Which means that there’s fighters of 50 years ago who would be able to beat some of today’s guys.


Yes, today’s generation of HW’s are bigger.

Are they all better?

Would they be able to beat every HW from the past?


History tell us: No.

 

There are people who would look at you with a straight face and claim Whyte and Chisora would easily beat Joe Louis and Marciano 9/10 times (only granting a punchers chance) and would wipe out everyone on their resumes easily.

 

He would actually have several advantages over modern guys.

Better jab. Usyk is the only one to consistently (key word) establish a Greta jab.

He had better defense believe it or not. The stats show he was very good at partying and blocking, he wasn't just a mindless slugger charging guys down.

He was a better body puncher than any HW in the top 10 today.

Far superior inside fighter.

While it's true Liston wouldn't have the size advantage over many of his old school opponents, he was still a big dude with an 84' reach and huge fists. Back then heavies actually cut weight for stamina and speed and avoided lifting weights. With modern training and dieting Liston would be a huge problem today and could easily carry 230+ lbs of solid functional muscle.

 

It's quite simple. I can watch boxers to see if they're using those old school techniques.

A lot of them aren't. It doesn't really require some brilliant journalist to determine that.

Many training camps are highly publicized with youtube clips or extensive coverage in the form of programs like the 24/7 face-off promotions. Trainers are interviewed all the time and are bombarded with questions and cameras. Freddie Roach can get more than 100k views just by rambling for 2 minutes.

I have yet see any modern trainer reference old school trainers or techniques outside of simply mentioning them in passing for historical reasons or to pay their respects to their predecessors. Even Emmanuel Steward is slowly slipping from the memories of modern guys despite the fact he was a pioneer in changing the game for big heavies not too long ago.