Originally Posted by SCtrojansbaby
You prove my point. Jesse freaking Owens the guy people considered the best athlete in the world in 1936(pretty sure nobody considers Greg Rutherford one of the top 1000 athletes in 2012) would be 3rd place finisher in 2012. To provide some context the silver medalist in 1936 would of finished 9th in 2012 and a few of the rest of the competitors are barely qualifying.
So in conclusion yeah maybe the absolute by far #1 best fighter in the world from the 30s or 40s could maybe be competitive today, 2nd best highly doubtful, 3rd best extremely doubtful, and the rest not even close.
I also think its perfectly plausible that a few of the best athletes in 1968 could still be the best today, the 30s and 40s not so much.
My point was to simply counter the lazy arguement that todays athletes are better than athletes of the past. In some sports each generation are shown to be better than the last. But that is not true of all sports. And I don't believe it is true of boxing.
I have heard people claim that Carlos Monzon was not stand a chance of beating Sergio Martinez cos Martinez is too superior of an athlete. That boxing has evolved from Monzon's time. I call bull****. I think Monzon would beat every one of todays middleweights. Just like Bob Beamon would beat all of todays long jumpers.