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

Of course they have. Just look at Lomachenko.

SRR is just a hands down fighter who was a novelty at the time. He gets called the greatest ever and he is an ordinary fighter by today’s standards. He telegraphs punches, loads up, drops his right hand constantly.

 

evolution isnt improvement, its change to suit the current environ. This is why you are fundamentally mistaken.

 

Yes, as the population grows (talent pool) it is more difficult to stand out. Evolution isn’t improvement but it is the cause of improvement. That is why you are fundamentally mistaken.

 

You're just making a fool of yourself.

I remember you now from previous threads.

You've obviously never seen Ray Robinson.

You don't know anything about him and his era.

Like I've said previously to you, boxing ebbs and flows.

It doesn't keep progressing year after year, decade after decade.

Today's WW, MW, SMW and HW divisions, aren't as good as what they were 25-30 years ago.

Where's the evolution??

 

Yet Andy Ruiz proved that height is not an issue! The old fighters would do great with these modern heavyweights!

 

Weight is the issue. That's why we have weight divisions and not height divisions.

 

Wilder weighs 212 in most of his bouts he has no issue?

 

Would the best marathon runner beat the best marathon runner from 50 years ago?
Would the best chess player from today beat the best chess player from 50 years ago?
Would the best International Mathematical Olympiad gold medal winner beat the IMO champion from 50 years ago?

 

And some welterweights can beat middleweights, but it's nevertheless a disadvantage, allbeit one that can be overcome. And Wilder is a freak of nature with the power of Godzilla. There aren't many of those.

 

One fight is not "proof".

If your theory were correct then inverse HW Boxrec ranking should be completely uncorrelated to height, i.e. correlation should be zero. I assume however it is highly correlated (> 0.7) to height.