What makes 60-80's fighers so much better than today?

[gatorDelux]

trainers...........

[DosRounds]

I'm guessing that back in those days fighters fought more regularly

[soul_survivor]

Is it nostalgia that clouds minds? Were guys actually bigger per weight class compared to today? Were all fighters of these generations better technically then the preceding generations even the c/b grade? Is it that boxing was bigger mainstream in those times? I mean seriously I'd like to hear all reasons that actually make sense and are logical as to what makes these nostalgic fighters that much better!!! Do other sports downgrade better players of now compared to past like boxing? Is it the fighters persona nowadays compared to old that clouds your judgment over the fighters skill? Did fighters not "duck" fighters with less reward than risk back then compared to now? Were there promotional or network contracts that blocked fights from happening like there is now? Is it that they were allowed things back then in the ring that is now banned for some apparent reason?

I think you're aiming this at guys who automatically name guys from that era as being better than guys here. Personally I think a lot of guy from the 90s on wards would be very competitive with guys from the golden age.

But, the reason why so many guys from the 30s onwards up until the late 80s were/are held in such high regard is because many of them were pioneers, the tricks u see fighters using now, they were started of by those men. Plus they fought a better list of opponents in shorter spans of times, none of this one top rated opponent followed by a group of bums which defines so many modern title reigns.

Back then, there was mostly one championship belt per division, meaning the best HAD to fight the best. Can you imagine a title reign like Ali's now? or a run at middleweight the likes of which Robinson had? or beating 3 true world champions, in 3 different weight divisions as Armstrong did? None of that will happen now. Times have changed.

But let us not automatically assume that guys in black and white are better than the guys now.

[LeG00N]

I've always said boxing is more evolved now.

Boxing came a long way from this...



...to what we see now.

that right there is one of the greatest fighters to ever lace them up. He beat 13 Hall of Famers.

He would've obliterated GGG, Martinez etc

[#1Assassin]

ther are a number of reasons.

1. fighters like people in general were tougher before, physically and mentally.

2. there were much better trainers who taught their fighters how to box from the ground up, guys were much more fundamentally sound AND had more advanced skillset than fighters today.

3. fighters boxed more often, by competing on a regular basis they were able to hone their craft in a way fighters dont do these days. becoming more skillful and intelligent in the process.

4. better competition, the sport was more popular which meant more talented athletes picked boxing as oposed to other sports. fighters had to fight their way up a much taller ladder before reaching the top and work harder to stay there. less titles add to this as well.

5. more dedicated, because of aformentioned competition and the fact that they competed more often fighters stayed in the gym year round working on their skills. unlike todays fighters who box twice a year and train two months for each fight, taking a vacation the other 8 months of the year.

[Weltschmerz]

to me, they never seemed better in any ways back then. To the contrary, I believe athletes improve and evolve with time.

[boliodogs]

I'm guessing that back in those days fighters fought more regularly

You would be guessing correctly. Most fighters fought 4 or 5 times a year instead of the two to three times a year they fight to day. Good champions defended their titles 3 or sometimes 4 times a year compared to the twice a year most champions defend their title these days. I don't understand why today's fights don't fight more often. It did not seem to harm fighters to fight about ever 3 months. It kept them sharp. They would take it easy a month or so after a hard fight and then start training for their next fight. Most fighters did some training almost every day. Some of today's fighters still fight this often but most of them don't. The big name fighters make so much money per fight that maybe they don't think they need to fight so many times a year.

[Citizen Koba]

To me the answer is very simple, why the fighters were better skill wise back then.

1) Better trainers~teachers (It is better to learn from a master than a apprentice)

2) Larger talent pool~more pros (The more people doing something the better the talent)

3) The fighters fought more often (The more you do it the better you get)

Pretty simple really.

One by one.

1) Many of todays top trainers were champs from the periods in question, not only that but the increase in availability of footage has opened the way for a broader range of technique to be disseminated. Also stylistically, modern fighters have to face more international styles and some kinda synthesis has necessarily taken place.

2) Talent pool. Back in the late 20s and 30s the talent pool was from a few hundred million Americans and Europeans. Now boxing is a global sport in which fighters can be the best amongst billions. Even in the post war or 60-80 peaks, The overall pool of available talent was far smaller. A similar number of guys might be fighting but this implies that better guys are fighting now.

Also not to forget that in the 20/30s and late 40s eras, a large %age of the fighters were simply doing it to almost literally keep bread on the table. Do these conditions make for quality fighters?

3) The fighters fought (competitively) more often. This I do acknowledge and is one thing that it could be argued made for more skilled fighters. However, looking at point 2 above, the vast majority of these fights were against opponents that would be considered low level part-timers (often hungry ones who were constantly injured as a consequence of having to fight every coupla weeks to feed themselves) by todays standards. The number of actual fights against serious full timers was probably no greater than today. The physical standard and conditioning of todays pro fighters is worlds above the norm for fighters prior to the 70s/80s periods. Ditto with access to training facilities.

There is a lot of nostalgia in boxing - probably more so than in most other sports. It's not a criticism of past fighters who had to endure hardships which would have appeared unbelievable to most of todays fighters but in terms of quality I don't believe the 60s - 80s period fighters were any better than todays H2H, tho' taken on the whole, were far better that any previous era (again H2H).

The most valid reasons I can see for the argument that 6/7/80s boxers were better is a point made earlier about matchmaking - with promoters and broadcasters now holding so much of the power WRT who fights who, and desiring to create lucrative unbeaten 'superstars' it could be argued that there are fewer competitive fights - especially early in careers when they would be most valuable from a developmental point of view.

[bklynboy]

Is it nostalgia that clouds minds? Were guys actually bigger per weight class compared to today? Were all fighters of these generations better technically then the preceding generations even the c/b grade? Is it that boxing was bigger mainstream in those times? I mean seriously I'd like to hear all reasons that actually make sense and are logical as to what makes these nostalgic fighters that much better!!! Do other sports downgrade better players of now compared to past like boxing? Is it the fighters persona nowadays compared to old that clouds your judgment over the fighters skill? Did fighters not "duck" fighters with less reward than risk back then compared to now? Were there promotional or network contracts that blocked fights from happening like there is now? Is it that they were allowed things back then in the ring that is now banned for some apparent reason?

One of the key reasons is that the best fought the best. Nothing makes you better than constantly facing the best. Today there are 3-4-5 belts and often times the top 2 or 3 fighters never meet. GGG and Quillin and Martinez and Barker should be fighting each other. We shouldn't be arguing about who *should* be able to win - they would be fighting each other. And if there were close fights they would fight again. And again.

How good, for instance, was Calzaghe? We will never know. Was he a protected, feather-fisted slapper. Or had he deceptive power and better skills than his detractors (like me) realize? We will never f**king know.

It's like if in football the GreenBay Packers and the NY Jets in SuperBowl III never met due to contract disputes. We would all "know" that of course the Packers would win.

[Black Barty]

Short answer: nothing.