Todays athletes aren't always better

[Welsh Jon]

Originally Posted by Cardinal Buck

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.

Yes of course it's a stretch. But so many people simply say that athletes of the past were in a different league from athletes of today. I am just saying that is not always true. And I believe it is not true of boxing.

I think it is a far bigger stretch to say that boxers of the past couldn't beat todays boxers based on the fact that American footballers of today are apparently far superior to their counterparts from the past, (I say apparently cos I know very little about the sport, I'm Welsh, I watch rugby not American football) or that this generation of sprinters continue to smash the records of the previous generation.

I also didn't say boxing was purely technical. But it is a lot more complex than simply the strongest or quickest boxer always wins.

[Panthershock]

I generally agree with the OP's point. Speed and strength need to be applied to a particular discipline like boxing, hockey, football, basketball, baseball etc. In some cases, the greater physical abilities are too much for technique, smarts or whatever you may call it to overcome. I think linemen in football are a good example of this. Modern NFL lines would manhandle 1960's teams.
On the other hand, NFL quarterbacks provide an example of physical abilities taking a back seat to the brain. Drew Brees wouldn't be on an NFL roster if size strength and speed were the only criteria to playing QB. Pure physical ability is clearly less important than intangibles because the best QB's are almost never the most physically gifted. Jeff George probably had the best arm of any QB, but his career was a bust.
The same principle can be applied to other sports:
Hockey: Gretzky wasn't the fastest or strongest player of his time, he had the best vision and anticipation.
Baseball, filled with endless prospects who never panned out because they didn't develop the eye well enough to deal with MLB pitchers.
Basketball: The importance of vision, particularly with point guards.

Boxing is similar in that vision and anticipation of a live opponent dictates the physical actions that are taken to an enormous degree. Much more so than sprinting or weight lifting.

So to me, when you consider an athlete in boxing, the mental factors are so critical that they have to be considered athletic ability.
At similar weights, I don't think the boxers of today have progressed to the point where the older fighters can't physically compete, like NFL linemen have.
As for the likes of Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano against the Klitschko's and other much bigger heavyweights, it's tough to say. I think Louis would fare well, but I'm not certain.

[miamike]

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.

[Cardinal Buck]

Originally Posted by Welsh Jon

I think it is a far bigger stretch to say that boxers of the past couldn't beat todays boxers based on the fact that American footballers of today are apparently far superior to their counterparts from the past, (I say apparently cos I know very little about the sport, I'm Welsh, I watch rugby not American football) or that this generation of sprinters continue to smash the records of the previous generation.

I didn't say this.

[Kyshenko Team]

I like how 99% of people just agree with the TS, just because they have nothing to say))

we can argue as much as we want, but give me a brake man. How many times you seen "WR" or "OR" in London this year? almsot at any other competition. Runners from Jamaica along made me happy watching Olympics. In any era there always will be some one who will be bit slightly better, slightly faster etc. comparing that long jumper to all sports is straight silly.

In boxing there were greats in the past who'd beat todays champs, but at the same time we have boxers who'd whoop past boxers as well.

Give it another 100 years, once 3rd world countries will have opportunities to compete in all sports the picture will change again.

So I disagree with your post ts, Today's athletes ARE better and will be better with science developing etc

[Barnburner]

Boxing did "evolve" from about 1900---> 1930 or something, in my opinion. The general style is quite a bit different I feel. There will have been small advances due to better nutrition and other input chemicals shall we say. Better technology that allows not so much better training but better physical analysis. However overall the advances are much smaller than other sports due to boxing being more a thinking mans sport that can also rely on determination and guts/toughness etc. You don't usually see anyone win a 100m race because they have more heart than the people next to them or they outwitted them. It's purely physical and these small differences in lifestyle etc need to be taken into account.

However saying that if you put the likes of Ezzard Charles in the ring today he'd still be awesome. Same goes for many a fighter from the previous era.

I also feel that people like Bob Fitzsimmons and Sam Langford and people from that time would get thoroughly beaten by the likes of Jones Jr, Marvin Hagler, Monzon etc. Just by watching the tapes you can tell there is a clear difference in the way they fought from the way they do now. Which is why I've concluded that boxing somewhat "improved" to meet the stylistic requirements of today's era about 1930. The rules of the sport changing also is a factor in that though.

[TheHolyCross]

i think fighters have gotten stronger and faster
not many fighters of the 00's-60's compare with amir khan, gary russell, yuriorkis gamboa and so on, fighters just seem alot faster now
and so i think it's appropriate to figure they hit harder

might be all the roids

[Welsh Jon]

Originally Posted by Kyshenko Team

I like how 99% of people just agree with the TS, just because they have nothing to say))

we can argue as much as we want, but give me a brake man. How many times you seen "WR" or "OR" in London this year? almsot at any other competition. Runners from Jamaica along made me happy watching Olympics. In any era there always will be some one who will be bit slightly better, slightly faster etc. comparing that long jumper to all sports is straight silly.

In boxing there were greats in the past who'd beat todays champs, but at the same time we have boxers who'd whoop past boxers as well.

Give it another 100 years, once 3rd world countries will have opportunities to compete in all sports the picture will change again.

So I disagree with your post ts, Today's athletes ARE better and will be better with science developing etc

Actually I don't believe a record was set in any of the men's field athletic events. Also I used 3 Olympic disciplines as examples not just 1 long jumper. I could have used the men's throwing events as examples too, cos I think they all have long standing records, but I didn't want to confuse things with debates about javelin specifications or East German drug scandals.

[SBleeder]

Originally Posted by el***

Joe Louis would struggle with todays heavyweights because he would be a cruiserweight. Haye would beat him. Klitckshkos would flatten him.

[B-Bomber]

Originally Posted by Kyshenko Team

I like how 99% of people just agree with the TS, just because they have nothing to say))

we can argue as much as we want, but give me a brake man. How many times you seen "WR" or "OR" in London this year? almsot at any other competition. Runners from Jamaica along made me happy watching Olympics. In any era there always will be some one who will be bit slightly better, slightly faster etc. comparing that long jumper to all sports is straight silly.

In boxing there were greats in the past who'd beat todays champs, but at the same time we have boxers who'd whoop past boxers as well.

Give it another 100 years, once 3rd world countries will have opportunities to compete in all sports the picture will change again.

So I disagree with your post ts, Today's athletes ARE better and will be better with science developing etc

Today's athletes are indeed better, but we were debating about boxers.
There are qualities that cannot be replaced by physical strength or speed.
Boxers need dedication, hunger, an iron will.

To quote the great Cus D'Amato

"When two men are fighting, what makes you’re watching is more a contest of wills than of skills, with the stronger will usually overcoming skill. The skill will prevail only when it is so superior to the other man’s skill that the will is not tested….
As times as you see a fellow get tired in the course of a fight, note that he gets tired when pressure builds up, after he gets hurt or he’s been in some kind of doubtful situation, not being able to control the situation. That’s when he starts getting tired. That’s why when two good fighters get to fight, they’re head to head, so to speak, they won’t give an inch and they’re using all their skills and ability, until maybe about the seventh or eight or ninth round, one fighter start to visibly weaken. It only means he’s reached a point where he no longer can stand the pressure. He’s now become dominated, because when two people fight it’s very much like two armies. They seek to impose their will on one another.”


These qualities , or better the lack of thereof, are what makes modern fighters generally inferior, in my opinion.
Less hunger, less will to fight, less determination to fight.
Less comprehension of what it takes to be a boxer at high level.