Todays athletes aren't always better

[McGoorty]

This is, and always will be, the single biggest factor in determining overall talent in an era. The more athletes across the board worldwide, the higher the talent will be. It's a very, very simple process of the strongest survive; the more there are to survive, the more each person needs to develop to get to the top.

From amateur to pro, the numbers are minuscule compared to what it once was and the overall talent has dropped off. There are always great fighters and there are always bums, but it's the overall level that eventually pushes the best to the fore. If there are many more numbers it goes without saying that if you need to be better than 1000 guys instead of only 100 it's going to take more work. If you then have to fight each month instead of twice a year, you're going to develop true fighting skills rather than great sparring skills. No matter how much sparring and crosstraining you do, it will never replace the adrenaline and intensity of a real fight.

You can't get the true skill you show in all that sparring in a real fight unless the intensity is there and the more reals fights you have the more you can relax in the ring and use all of it. That's the biggest reason why you see guys who have lots of fights in modern times (Chavez, Duran, Brazier etc) look so relaxed in comparison to the great athletes of modern times but struggle with so many simple things in a fight.

A very obvious example is someone like Lacy against Calzaghe. Lacy was clearly the superior athlete in every way, but he certainly lost the fight brutally because he wasn't as relaxed and didn't have the full range of boxing skills under fight conditions. It's one example but it's an important one because it shows very clearly that a better athlete does not ever equal a better fighter. Nonetheless, Lacy would certainly beat Calzaghe in all timed events and science tests to prove a better athlete such as muscle explosiveness and all that business.

If you took those two and never had them fight, but had them tested under modern science conditions as to who would win, I can guarantee that Lacy would get just about 100% success across the board. His 'times' would be better, his strength would be greater, his stamina under non fight conditions would probably be just as good, his explosive capabilities would be higher on a machine, and yet when they get in the ring, one thing that never gets tested, and can't be really, wins one guy the fight easily. Determination, relaxation, skill and chin under fire.

It's easy to beat a time if you can run faster. It's easy to beat a time if you are stronger. It's not easy to beat someone up if you can't hit them or if they have a monstrous chin and you don't. Everything we know about boxing straight away should end this argument before it begins. Better athletes don't win fights. Better fighters win fights and being a better athlete has never, and never will, equal a better fighter.

QUOTE : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - { It's easy to beat a time if you can run faster. It's easy to beat a time if you are stronger. It's not easy to beat someone up if you can't hit them or if they have a monstrous chin and you don't. Everything we know about boxing straight away should end this argument before it begins. Better athletes don't win fights. Better fighters win fights and being a better athlete has never, and never will, equal a better fighter.} ------------ ---- <<<< THAT !!!!!!!!!!! this maybe the best and most brilliantly put paragraph I have seen here for a very long time

[Sugarj]

This is, and always will be, the single biggest factor in determining overall talent in an era. The more athletes across the board worldwide, the higher the talent will be. It's a very, very simple process of the strongest survive; the more there are to survive, the more each person needs to develop to get to the top.

From amateur to pro, the numbers are minuscule compared to what it once was and the overall talent has dropped off. There are always great fighters and there are always bums, but it's the overall level that eventually pushes the best to the fore. If there are many more numbers it goes without saying that if you need to be better than 1000 guys instead of only 100 it's going to take more work. If you then have to fight each month instead of twice a year, you're going to develop true fighting skills rather than great sparring skills. No matter how much sparring and crosstraining you do, it will never replace the adrenaline and intensity of a real fight.

You can't get the true skill you show in all that sparring in a real fight unless the intensity is there and the more reals fights you have the more you can relax in the ring and use all of it. That's the biggest reason why you see guys who have lots of fights in modern times (Chavez, Duran, Brazier etc) look so relaxed in comparison to the great athletes of modern times but struggle with so many simple things in a fight.

A very obvious example is someone like Lacy against Calzaghe. Lacy was clearly the superior athlete in every way, but he certainly lost the fight brutally because he wasn't as relaxed and didn't have the full range of boxing skills under fight conditions. It's one example but it's an important one because it shows very clearly that a better athlete does not ever equal a better fighter. Nonetheless, Lacy would certainly beat Calzaghe in all timed events and science tests to prove a better athlete such as muscle explosiveness and all that business.

If you took those two and never had them fight, but had them tested under modern science conditions as to who would win, I can guarantee that Lacy would get just about 100% success across the board. His 'times' would be better, his strength would be greater, his stamina under non fight conditions would probably be just as good, his explosive capabilities would be higher on a machine, and yet when they get in the ring, one thing that never gets tested, and can't be really, wins one guy the fight easily. Determination, relaxation, skill and chin under fire.

It's easy to beat a time if you can run faster. It's easy to beat a time if you are stronger. It's not easy to beat someone up if you can't hit them or if they have a monstrous chin and you don't. Everything we know about boxing straight away should end this argument before it begins. Better athletes don't win fights. Better fighters win fights and being a better athlete has never, and never will, equal a better fighter.

Great post and I agree with just about all of it.

Only dissent comes down to Lacy vs Calzaghe. I'm not convinced that Lacy would have been the 'superior athlete in every way' at all and probably not in 'timed events' too.

Lacy had a superior muscular physique and was clearly stronger than Calzaghe, he certainly hit harder too. But hand and footspeed? Its Calzaghe......and by a country mile too.

Many on this forum know that I'm a keen runner and barring 100/200m sprints, guys with Jeff Lacy's physique get literally murdered over even lower distance timed events by less impressive looking athletes with 'Calzaghe like' physiques. Its well known that Joe's training focused hard on longer runs as well as explosive hill work. He'd have likely left Lacy for dead on the road and track as clearly as in their fight.

A better example of a superior athlete losing to a better prepared fighter with more nouse and experience is when Sugar Ray Leonard lost to Roberto Duran. Ray Leonard would have probably decimated Duran over any 'timed' event, he was faster of hand and foot, his physique was more ripped, he'd have probably been able to outlift Duran in a weights gymnasium too (being the naturally bigger guy).

[Anthony342]

Threads like this is why I come here. Thanks for the good reading, guys.

[Earl-Hickey]

Great post and I agree with just about all of it.

Only dissent comes down to Lacy vs Calzaghe. I'm not convinced that Lacy would have been the 'superior athlete in every way' at all and probably not in 'timed events' too.

Lacy had a superior muscular physique and was clearly stronger than Calzaghe, he certainly hit harder too. But hand and footspeed? Its Calzaghe......and by a country mile too.

Many on this forum know that I'm a keen runner and barring 100/200m sprints, guys with Jeff Lacy's physique get literally murdered over even lower distance timed events by less impressive looking athletes with 'Calzaghe like' physiques. Its well known that Joe's training focused hard on longer runs as well as explosive hill work. He'd have likely left Lacy for dead on the road and track as clearly as in their fight.

A better example of a superior athlete losing to a better prepared fighter with more nouse and experience is when Sugar Ray Leonard lost to Roberto Duran. Ray Leonard would have probably decimated Duran over any 'timed' event, he was faster of hand and foot, his physique was more ripped, he'd have probably been able to outlift Duran in a weights gymnasium too (being the naturally bigger guy).

Not even sure lacy was stronger, calzaghe manhandled him.

It reminds me of when gym junkies work their first day on a building site and can't work out why these skinny guys are so much stronger

[SCtrojansbaby]

Every time you comment on threads like these you show that you are indeed ignorant of the art of boxing, Jesse freaking Owens was a sprinter, NOT A BOXER, does running fast have anything to do with boxing unless your name is Anthony Mundine ???... how does that help your useless and silly argument, I have been absent for months but you haven't changed a bit, maybe the guys here have just given up on you, but as i go through this thread from start to finish I will find out.

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

[STREET CLEANER]

They are great athletes in every era. Scientifically things are broken down better but it will always come down to the individual.

A lot of the stuff that was used in training and supplement back it the day are still effective today.

Fighters of yesterday had to fight more frequently than today will ever fight. I just don't see how anybody can justify that todays athlete are so much better than those in the past

[B-Bomber]

Joe Louis is a bit small to deal with a very good giant... but put him in with ANYONE his own weight in the world for the last 20 years and Joe Louis would blast them into eternity. Lets get real, Joe Louis was freaking awesome, there is only one guy like him,, and thats himself

I might be biased on this, so correct me if I am wrong, but Joe Louis was
6′ 2″ / 188cm , thus rather tall , with a rather good 76″ / 193cm reach.

In my opinion he would blast most, if not all the current HW division, Klit Bros included.

Even though he only weighted around 202lbs/92kg on fight night, I can see him dominating most opponents at a weight around 215lbs/98kg .

[dde91]

there is a reason barry bonds has more home runs than babe ruth and it is not because todays athletes are better. We live in the modern age.

take away steriods, and bonds doesn't touch his record. Probably gets around 500 hrs for his career. Ant thats a big maybe. But he wouldn't get the 714 mark. And mcguire, take away his steriods and sosa and him dont get passed 61 hrs. So besides guys who did steriods, who was clean and beat the records? Nobody. Just roger maris and he barely beat it. But he was clean. So im saying babe ruth was a pretty good athlete back then. And would be great in this error to because he is where the mouth is higher up. So babe ruth would be great in the modern era.

[New England]

if you guys are really saying that athletic qualities you're born with have no bearing on the fighter that years of work int he gym is able to produce you are wrong


a kid with zero talent might not make the same steps in years that a premium athlete makes will make in months.

they "get it"
when you're talking about physical endeavors they are "fast learners," and their bodies will adapt and change much more quickly, especially when they are young.

[New England]

take away steriods, and bonds doesn't touch his record. Probably gets around 500 hrs for his career. Ant thats a big maybe. But he wouldn't get the 714 mark. And mcguire, take away his steriods and sosa and him dont get passed 61 hrs. So besides guys who did steriods, who was clean and beat the records? Nobody. Just roger maris and he barely beat it. But he was clean. So im saying babe ruth was a pretty good athlete back then. And would be great in this error to because he is where the mouth is higher up. So babe ruth would be great in the modern era.

bonds would be an ATG without steroids. that guy was a complete baseball player


sosa would be a lot less memorable. mcguire is hardly a HOF anyway. junk average, etc.