Todays athletes aren't always better

[Cardinal Buck]

I have already stated a FACT that Australia had many times the boxers we have now, old Australian boxing magazines had a registry of all the professional boxers active in the country, it was like 25 times as many boxers in this country back then, these magazines are available on Ebay and whole seasons are available. In my grandfathers day nearly every boy had done some boxing training, there were not as many sports back then downunder. you either played one of 3 football codes, cricket, tennis or BOXING and I knew many of them. basically it was the done thing to box... and if you couldnt you got beat up.

The world is a lot bigger than Australia.

[Cardinal Buck]

I think Vitali would actually be the easier fight for Louis given his inferior footwork and speed.

Also that low right hand. Louis would be in love with that.

Wlad has the mentality, jab and footwork to keep Louis at bay in my opinion. For the entire fight? Perhaps not, but I think no matter how great Vitali's chin is, that low right hand is a death sentence.

I wouldn't say Vitali has inferior footwork. It's one of his strengths, awkward as it is.

[Welsh Jon]

I want to give this a bump

[Humean]

I want to give this a bump

You were certainly correct to point out that modern athletes are not always better than previous generations all the time, however that is a straw man attack on the argument that athletes/sportsmen are getting better over time.

What does this tell you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ju...rd_progression

or look at the top 10 jumps in history,male or female, look at the dates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_jump#Records

Either every or almost every event that can be meaured in such a way tells a similar story. I do agree though that in Boxing's case it is less clear cut.

[billeau2]

It's simplistic to say that boxing is strictly technical. And boxers today vary in how much they rely on athleticism vs skill. Lastly, it's a stretch to dig up an example or two supporting your claim and come to a conclusion. Football is as technical as any sport and players are better today.

And pray tell: when did football become technical? We have Vince Lombardi who preached smash mouthfootball, run it down their throats. He used a sweep that everyone knew was coming and we have that line of football players all the way up through maybe the very late 70's when Kenny Stabler, "lean and mean" smart as a rattler found a way to score....

But Buck.... Today? Bill parcels revolutionized the game....in a tail of two cities we saw Mike Ditka (a guy who I adored as a player and coach) become a chivalrous dinasour and little else....meanwhile Bill scripted every play, he could tell you outcomes based on how the clock was managed...and Bill was a bastard and a half if that clock was not *****rdly watched down to the milisecond!

So yeah, today football is a very technical game. Quarterbacks have to be better, stronger, smarter and have a near eidemic memory. But that is football and football changed that is why it is a different game. The coaches who won did so by making the game technically savy. Football was not a technical sport by any means.

Very different from boxing...Boxing was always about finding technical excellence and style. From grappling properly to footwork. these two activities are as different as night and day. Football has become technical while boxing has become about lasting a few rounds and not risking a loss.

[billeau2]

Boxers are athletes and as can be seen in sports which have objective #s to compare they have evolved.

By and large today yes boxers are athletes....Boxers were, in the past, fighters. Simply put, fighters fight better than athletes. Proof? when the Ultimate fighting tourney was most approximate to real combat the Gracies beat everyone. The Gracies were smaller and actually not always particularly well built. As the fighters became more athletic things have changed and now the UFC is more about fighting with a limited vocabulary and conditioning.

[Anthony342]

By and large today yes boxers are athletes....Boxers were, in the past, fighters. Simply put, fighters fight better than athletes. Proof? when the Ultimate fighting tourney was most approximate to real combat the Gracies beat everyone. The Gracies were smaller and actually not always particularly well built. As the fighters became more athletic things have changed and now the UFC is more about fighting with a limited vocabulary and conditioning.

Yeah and it's more about technique than athleticism. The Gracies had better technique then the rest of the world caught up and kind of passed them by. The new generation seems to be starting to adapt though. It was about a style vs. a style and now it's just a fighter vs. a fighter. That's why they had to add weight classes to the sport.

[them_apples]

A common arguement for those who believe that the boxing greats of the past would be enable to compete with their counterparts of today is that athletes have evolved beyond comparison due to modern nutrition and sports science and the like. I don't believe this is quite true though.

Yes in events that reward pure strength or pure speed, such as weightlifting and sprinting the records of the past bear no comparison to the records of today. Today's athletes are stronger and faster. But if you look at athletic events that rely on technique as well as power or speed the records do not fall as quickly, there is not such a chasm between todays records and previous records.

Jesse Owens was an all-time great Olympian. His times in the 100 metres sprint, an event based on pure speed, are laughable when compared to the top sprinters today. His world record from 1936 of 10.2 would not have seen him anywhere near qualifying for the Olympic final this year in London. But in the long jump, a technical event which rewards speed only when applied with good technique the world record Jesse Owens set in 1935 of 8.13 would actually have enabled Owens to have medalled in London. This years Olympic bronze medallist Will Claye of USA jumped 8.12 metres. Britains gold medal winner Greg Rutherford jumped 8.31, a distance that could have been bettered by long jumpers of the 1960's. In fact the long jump world record has not progressed since Mike Powell jumped 8.95 in 1991 and the Olympic record has not progressed since Bob Beamon jumped 8.90 metres in 1968. That jump from Beamon was a world record for 23 years.

It's not just the long jump. In other technical disciplines world records often go many years without being broken. In the triple jump Jonathan Edwards world record has stood for 12 years. Only 9 men have been able to better the distance of 17.89 that was first set by Brazilian Joao Carlos Oliveria 37 years ago. The high jump record has not been broken since 1993. The height jumped to win this years Olympics could have been bettered by high jumpers from the 1970's.

Boxing is a technical discipline. It is not always the quickest or the strongest that wins. It is about how you use your speed and how you use strength. If 1930's Jesse Owens is capable of beating most of todays long jumpers then I don't see why Benny Leonard would be incapable of beating todays lightweights. Or why Joe Louis would be unable to beat todays heavyweights.

boxing was also bigger back then too, lots of great trainers.; The sport is a rough sport as well, it takes heart..I think because of lifestyles it will be harder to find rough hungry males like in the past.;

[rr00676]

Tommy hearns....freakiest ww ever

[McGoorty]

A common arguement for those who believe that the boxing greats of the past would be enable to compete with their counterparts of today is that athletes have evolved beyond comparison due to modern nutrition and sports science and the like. I don't believe this is quite true though.

Yes in events that reward pure strength or pure speed, such as weightlifting and sprinting the records of the past bear no comparison to the records of today. Today's athletes are stronger and faster. But if you look at athletic events that rely on technique as well as power or speed the records do not fall as quickly, there is not such a chasm between todays records and previous records.

Jesse Owens was an all-time great Olympian. His times in the 100 metres sprint, an event based on pure speed, are laughable when compared to the top sprinters today. His world record from 1936 of 10.2 would not have seen him anywhere near qualifying for the Olympic final this year in London. But in the long jump, a technical event which rewards speed only when applied with good technique the world record Jesse Owens set in 1935 of 8.13 would actually have enabled Owens to have medalled in London. This years Olympic bronze medallist Will Claye of USA jumped 8.12 metres. Britains gold medal winner Greg Rutherford jumped 8.31, a distance that could have been bettered by long jumpers of the 1960's. In fact the long jump world record has not progressed since Mike Powell jumped 8.95 in 1991 and the Olympic record has not progressed since Bob Beamon jumped 8.90 metres in 1968. That jump from Beamon was a world record for 23 years.

It's not just the long jump. In other technical disciplines world records often go many years without being broken. In the triple jump Jonathan Edwards world record has stood for 12 years. Only 9 men have been able to better the distance of 17.89 that was first set by Brazilian Joao Carlos Oliveria 37 years ago. The high jump record has not been broken since 1993. The height jumped to win this years Olympics could have been bettered by high jumpers from the 1970's.

Boxing is a technical discipline. It is not always the quickest or the strongest that wins. It is about how you use your speed and how you use strength. If 1930's Jesse Owens is capable of beating most of todays long jumpers then I don't see why Benny Leonard would be incapable of beating todays lightweights. Or why Joe Louis would be unable to beat todays heavyweights.

Well for a start, I doubt any Lightweight on the planet would threaten Benny Leonard very much at all. Boxing ain't weightlifting or the Long Jump or the 1500 metres freestyle, in boxing you get punched out for a mistake, too many variables. What hasn't changed is that 999 out of a 1000 greats come from the ghettos, like Leonard. Difference being that ghettos were more savage in the old days and there wasn't millions of grams of crack out there to destroy health then. Great fighters fought on hungry stomachs, the harder ones youth the more likely they turn to streetfighting and on to boxing. I believe most sports have improved where pure athletic ability is required but in some skills sports outside of boxing such as cricket an old timer could flourish in that sport today, in fact no one doubts that Bradman wouldn't dominate today, same as Ray Robinson would.