Todays athletes aren't always better

[Canelo Phresh]

Their is a huge difference in explosive strength and reliable streength or endurance strength. I lift weights but when I was on the road crew at work weight lifting muscle didnt cut that work for 5 mins. We were pouring our excessive concrete to form a road at our mine. It was to avoid epa fines. Anyways I stopped wight lifting while I was on the road crew for 6 months. Honestly it was the strongest Id ever been to that point in m life. This was before the economic collapse so we had new hires on all the time big gymrat guys that wouldnt make it one day. It was 5am to 5pm straight hard labor. Anyways Id imagine training regimens back then were more labor intensive than todays.

[The Surgeon]

PEDS are better......

[Scott9945]

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.

Football is much more sophisticated and advanced today. You can't really say the same about boxing.

[Scott9945]

PEDS are better......

Truest statement on this thread.

[TysonBomb]

For heavyweights it seems like the better athletes were in the past

Foreman, Shavers or Tyson carried the most power in their punches

Ali, Tyson, Patterson had the fastest hands

Geriatric Evander Holyfield is probably a top 3 athlete in the heavyweight division today ... with David Haye of all being perhaps the best athlete

[Cardinal Buck]

Says who? What's your basis for comparison?

Substitute basketball if you'd like. If you want to dispute that, I won't really be listening because it's not really debatable if we're talking pre-80s.

[Cardinal Buck]

Football is much more sophisticated and advanced today. You can't really say the same about boxing.

There are no improvements in rackets or clubs, because they aren't part of the game. The rules are similar to what they have been in the past, or at least since passing was well established. Like boxing, conditioning has changed in some respects.

My point is that the OP's post is basically a rah-rah argument that doesn't prove things one way or the other and even the stats cited are open to different interpretation.

[elfag]

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.

People always like to say that about boxing but look at any top 5 list and its hard to find people who dont have one or both of those qualities.

Today, PBF, Pac, Wlad, Ward, Martinez.... all of those guys have either some of the best speed or best power or both in their divisions. You have to really struggle to find examples of ATG's who didnt have those qualities. Hopkins and JMM maybe.

People talk about SRR, but he was extremely fast and was very strong.

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

[SCtrojansbaby]

v

Bigger, Faster, Stronger.............Dumber! Just watch the total techniques used by Sugar Ray Robinson and tell me WHO of todays boxers uses the Methods & Techniques used by him. Add in His Conditioning & Power and who matches up with his Total Commitment to Win!
Again watch the boxing science employed by Joe Louis, his form and style isn't duplicated by anyone today.
Theres boxers today who have the skills to be considered great fighters but they lack the desire and willingness to "commit" to their fights. The top level fighters earn alot of money so their attitude changes once they attain some wealth. Its a different game today and theres no need for a fighter to extend themselves. The champions today don't go to the top twenty competitors towns and box them in non-title bouts. They don't have to defend their BS Titles frequently and they don't progress their talents once they attain some success! The greatest fighters in history fought weekly and monthly and had opportunities to enhance their skills.
Just as in most sports when the athletes become entertainers the sport gets watered down by mediocrity!!!! Boxings no different! Ray.

Its a different business model today, that has nothing to do with desire or commitment.

[Welsh Jon]

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.