Will the athletes 60 years from now make the modern boxers look like club fighters

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by MarkusFlorez99, May 31, 2025 at 6:45 AM.


  1. Arch Stanton

    Arch Stanton When you have to shoot, shoot!, don't talk...... Full Member

    9,725
    17,362
    Dec 24, 2022

    And wearing sports bras...
     
    Pugguy and bandeedo like this.
  2. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,723
    10,059
    Mar 7, 2012
    There is absolutely zero evidence to support a theory that it will happen.

    Zero.

    There might well be many fighters that are better then, than what they are currently.

    But it won’t be across the board.

    We know that there is no continual evolution.

    And that’s factual.

    Because we know that there’s many, many fighters and divisions, that were superior years ago. Decades ago.

    The WW’s of over 40 years ago were much better than today’s group.

    The MW’s of 30-40 years ago were much better than today’s group.

    Now that is just two very quick examples, from many more.

    So then how can we assume that the guys in the future will DEFINITELY be better.

    We can’t.

    The sport’s history has proven to us that we simply cannot make that assumption.

    So based upon the sport’s history, there’s just as much reason to believe that they won’t be.

    The likelihood is:

    Some will be greater, some will be average, and some will be weaker.

    Again, there’s no evidence to suggest that the entire group will definitely be better.

    The sport reached its pinnacle in the 80’s and 90’s.

    And my examples completely disprove the theory of continual evolution.

    Do it would be a very ignorant adulation to make.
     
    Overhand94 and Arch Stanton like this.
  3. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,723
    10,059
    Mar 7, 2012
    Come on man.

    I don’t think you’re being serious here.

    Most of today’s MW’s couldn’t have competed with the best MW’s of 30-40 years ago.

    Adames, Sheeraz, Eubank Jr etc.

    You know that.

    And 40 years is a long time.
     
  4. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,723
    10,059
    Mar 7, 2012
    Great post.

    The answer to the question, is: probably not.

    Not whilst we’re operating under the same rules, whilst wearing and using the same equipment etc.
     
  5. bjl12

    bjl12 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,698
    2,412
    Sep 26, 2012
    No. Guys like Floyd and Manny were operating near the pinnacle of boxing. Humans cannot be significantly better than those two were.

    The same can be said for SRR, SRL, Ali, Hearns, Duran, etc. They wouldve dominated in any era.
     
  6. HistoryZero26

    HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,497
    3,004
    Jan 6, 2024
    Only from the 1st to 2nd generation because theres so much stuff to improve and because more talented people pick up the vocation then when it wasn't socially acceptable. This is not physical evolution of humans but an evolution of what works and what doesn't. The more you improve this way the less there is to improve.

    There were more small power fighters in the first 20 years of the 20th century then possibly any other time period. Fitzsimmons had the most pure power of a small guy and he came from that first generation before that that was clearly not as good. He might be tactically inferior in every other way but he is "more evolved" power wise than any comparable guy his size.

    In baseball btw Satchell Paige threw over 100 mph a century ago as did others. Its just now thats a requirement while before that was a really neat super power. Pitchers might all throw 100s but there has been a clear cost to that. Those 100 mph throwers can pitch less and less even with every benefit of modern medicine trying to help them. Once staples for a Hall of Fame career milestones like 300 wins and even 3000 SOs are being less less and realistic because pitchers just can't pitch enough. This sort of cost exists in boxing. Its easy to look refined and amazing when your typical HOF fighter will only test themselves a few times. A short career of yesteryear like Joe Frazier is looking longer and longer. A long career has went from 1000 rounds to 500 and going forward will probably be 250. There are guys who will make the HOF with less than 200 rounds. Thats 20 full non title fights. Is that evolution if fighters can only do their craft a fraction of the time but have mastered the art of looking impressive?

    Bigger fighters are more common and better but they've always existed. Its harder to beat a SHW consistantly but now thats required while in the past it was not.

    Another big reason small fighters are less successful is theres CW. At the start there was no CW or even LHW. And once there was LHW fighers fought in both weight classes. Now its one at a time and the only way a LHW or CW goes up to HW and gets title shot is becoming champion at lower weight class first and its one guy going up creating the illusion hes shattering this imagined glass ceiling. This has created an illusion smaller guys can't beat the bigger ones despite all the historical evidence to the contrary because the smaller talented guys aren't going to get that chance in numbers. "Small HWs" are now the Intermediate sized HWs who is easier for the giant HW to beat. Joseph Parker is easier for a super heavyweight to beat then a Billy Miske.

    Tweener divisions also make us think a 6 pound weight difference matters more then it actually does because we are sorting guys based on these 6 pound differences so 20-30 pounds is insane. No not really. Part of why(most)big guys sucked so much in the past is smaller ATG guys were able to beat them. Those guys aren't at HW now(if they are in boxing at all) and guys who are intermediate sized but nowhere near as good as the smaller guys has more trouble with the weight difference.
     
    Loudon and MarkusFlorez99 like this.
  7. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas FRANKINAUSTIN

    28,464
    34,828
    Jul 24, 2004
    Boxing, and all other martial arts, will be banned in Western countries by 2100. By then viewers will see only AI generated fights.
     
  8. CooperKupp

    CooperKupp “B.. but they all playin NBA basketball again!” Full Member

    1,983
    4,103
    Aug 28, 2022
    Unless they make PED’s legal or at the very least… turn the other cheek to them like 90’s MLB baseball… no. I wouldn’t go that far. I think the pro’s today are pretty close to the physical limits that can be reached.

    But… then again there might be some kind of medicine or substance in the future that aren’t exactly PED’s yet cause performance on par. So who knows.

    But the art of boxing is really what you have seen and not much more to it.

    Peak versions of Joe Calzaghe, Vasyl Lomachenko, Manny Pacquiao, Willie Pep, Oleksandr Usyk, Wladimir Klitschko, Salvador Sanchez… If Aliens came to earth and wanted to see the BEST representations of boxing (Both in AND out of the ring) look no further and show them THESE guys :thumbsup: Don’t want to shame the sport and show them the trash ;)
     
  9. like a boss

    like a boss Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,333
    7,107
    Jul 30, 2012
    Bigger question. Will boxing still be around in 60 years?
     
  10. Badbot

    Badbot I Am An Actual Pro. Full Member

    44,482
    32,182
    Apr 17, 2011
    Lets talk about it when we find another Roy Jones Jr., or even a Naseem Hamed.
    Heck, Pacquiao was a freak athlete and we have no one similar on the horizon.

    I am looking at the Ring Magazine P4P list, and the only athletic specimen that stands out is Beterbiev - he is a literal tank, it´s freaky. But besides him, there is no one who stands out. Boxing does not have any special athletes right now.
     
    Overhand94 likes this.