Would the average boxer today win a round v the best boxer 50 years ago?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Jun 9, 2019.


  1. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    31,328
    2,196
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 7, 2012
    I despair.

    Read carefully:

    Boxing has progressed from his roots, but it does not keep progressing EVERY decade.

    Try and engage your brain for just a moment.

    If boxing kept progressing in the way that other sports have, then that would mean that today's guys are the best ever.

    If that's what you're claiming, then what you are effectively saying, is the following:

    That today's MW's are the best of all time

    That today's SMW's are the best of all time

    That today's HW's are the best of all time

    Now I don't need to provide any extreme forms of evidence to support my opinion. Because It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE to any fan who has a functioning pair of eyes and an understanding of the sport.

    Today's MW's:

    GGG
    Canelo
    BJS
    Andrade
    Jacobs

    The MW's of the 90's:

    Roy
    Toney
    Nunn
    McCallum
    Hopkins

    25 plus years between the 2 groups.

    A quarter of a century.

    A significant amount of time.

    Where's the evolution??

    And I can do that for 5 other divisions, including the HW's.

    Today's HW's:

    Fury
    Wilder
    Parker
    AJ
    Ruiz
    Whyte

    The HW's of the 80's and 90's:

    Tyson
    Holmes
    Lewis
    Bowe
    Vitali
    Wlad
    Evander

    Where's the evolution??

    Where's the progression??

    It's not there.

    It's not there to any knowledgeable fan.

    The fact that you think today's HW's are superior tells us everything we need to know about you.

    You don't know anything.

    You are ignorant.

    If you were watching boxing back then, then you would KNOW that those guys of the past were superior.

    If you want me to embarrass you by listing more divisions, it's not a problem.

    Boxing ebbs and flows and it has done for years now.

    Today, the CW and LHW divisions are stronger than in past eras. But many of the other divisions clearly aren't, as noted above.

    Now instead of replying back to me, go and watch some great fights of the past.

    Go and educate yourself and save us all from the pain of having to read your awful posts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  2. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    31,328
    2,196
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 7, 2012
    AJ had access to almost every fight of Andy Ruiz's.

    He has access to state of the art training facilities.

    He has a chef.

    He has a masseuse.

    He has a sports psychologist.

    He has a strength and conditioning coach.


    Two weeks ago, he was blasted by a small obese man, after his gas tank gave out on him before the half way point.
     
  3. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    31,328
    2,196
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 7, 2012
    How much more do we have to endure?

    You are the nut who believes that today's HW's are the best HW's of all time.

    Do you know how ridiculous that claim is?

    There are no skills of the past that you don't see today?

    How do you know?

    You weren't watching!
     
  4. DoubleJab666

    DoubleJab666 October 31st, 2019 Full Member

    8,165
    9,248
    Sportsbook:
    26,176
    Nov 9, 2015
    You know, I read this thread thoroughly and concluded... neither of you are wrong... or right. Let's put it this way: Yes, of course there is a general trend upwards in line with some measurable model of evolution: no one would doubt that. But it's not a line without some peaks and troughs along the way; a line sometimes steeper, sometimes more shallow. Generally upwards, nonetheless.

    But overall not as steep as some would have you believe as this brief TED lecture alludes to.



    And you can't assign technological/training/technical improvements to the athlete himself. They belong to the sport. So yes, the sport generally progresses but not along a smooth clean line and the peaks in this line mark outliers, and outliers can't be explained away by a simplistic view of progression. Outliers are people performing above the norm for their time, and the onus is on those promoting a predictable and unrelenting improvement to explain these away. The other side of the debate has only to establish a handful of outliers and that's easier to do.

    And for those who say 'well the talent pool is bigger now' as a reason to justify this lineal progression theory probably need to take a step back and realise that's actually arguing against your own cause, if you stop and think.

    All sport is improving, but not as fast as we think and not fast enough to eliminate the likelihood some people from the past are still the best ever, or past era's may well have provided TBE if all the variables of sports science development over many decades had remained static. You can't ignore talent in deference to all other factors....
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
    George Crowcroft likes this.


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement