Todays athletes aren't always better

[Sugarj]

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.

There are still many world class boxers with a terrific level of will, hunger, determination and heart etc. Granted, there does seem to be rather more cherry picking of opponents, catch weight issues, whinging over purse splits these days......not to mention PED cheating.

I think that the problem may be due to purses being comparatively higher these days. When you are fighting to keep your Bentley in fuel its a bit different to fighting to keep bread on the table for your family.

[rampant]

Im not sure the word better is appropriate, you can only train in the era you were / are around in.

To me what generally makes the difference in an athlete / sports person regardless of era is natural ability / skills, natural will to win, natural heart.

Teaching this person creates a monster cos they are already good at it, teach someone who isnt so natural and they will be good but nowhere near as good.

[B-Bomber]

There are still many world class boxers with a terrific level of will, hunger, determination and heart etc.

Absolutely. I was speaking about the average level, it is not my intention to diminish all modern fighters.

Granted, there does seem to be rather more cherry picking of opponents, catch weight issues, whinging over purse splits these days......not to mention PED cheating.

I think that the problem may be due to purses being comparatively higher these days. When you are fighting to keep your Bentley in fuel its a bit different to fighting to keep bread on the table for your family.

That, and consequentially a lack of ethics.

Gyms used to be places where kids learned respect. They learned it the hard way, but learned it. In many cases a gym (or a football field) used to be the only alternative to the street.

Nowadays things have changed. Even 14 years old kids are hyped, perceived as potential money cows by their parents and coaches alike (and that goes for many sports).
This, in my opinion, makes for spoiled, selfish and less focused kids, who somewhat miss what sport is all about.

It is of course a generalization, not all kids are like that, but I fear that is what we are getting at.

[New England]

Absolutely. I was speaking about the average level, it is not my intention to diminish all modern fighters.





That, and consequentially a lack of ethics.

Gyms used to be places where kids learned respect. They learned it the hard way, but learned it. In many cases a gym (or a football field) used to be the only alternative to the street.

Nowadays things have changed. Even 14 years old kids are hyped, perceived as potential money cows by their parents and coaches alike (and that goes for many sports).
This, in my opinion, makes for spoiled, selfish and less focused kids, who somewhat miss what sport is all about.

It is of course a generalization, not all kids are like that, but I fear that is what we are getting at.

sports are about competition. if you're the best you've got an innate drive to prove it. i truly believe athletes are born that way. we want to show you what we've got.


the kids with the biggest drive don't box as often as they used to. just look at the fat f#cks at HW. i'm in better shape than the club level HW i see when i go to local boxing shows. i'm certainly not in better shape than the HW i see playing in the NFL.

the drive and talent didn't disappear. it moved to other sports as boxing's popularity wained.

[B-Bomber]

the kids with the biggest drive don't box as often as they used to. just look at the fat f#cks at HW. i'm in better shape than the club level HW i see when i go to local boxing shows. i'm certainly not in better shape than the HW i see playing in the NFL.

the drive and talent didn't disappear. it moved to other sports as boxing's popularity wained.

Less kids decide to box, that is a fact I cannot deny. There were many more professional boxers in the past, and more people boxing, in general.

And yes, talent did not disappear, but I sense a growing lack of ethics in most sports, including boxing.

Taking Tyson as an example, as long as he was taught to follow a certain path, made of respect for his opponents and hard work he did shine.
Once he lost his "teacher" he started to loose it.
In spite of his talent he destroyed himself and part of his career.

The fat HW's you mention are/could be a result of lack of ethic/ dedication.


I do not claim to be right, I actually hope to be wrong, but as said that is the feeling I get.

[BennyST]

Less kids decide to box, that is a fact I cannot deny. There were many more professional boxers in the past, and more people boxing, in general.

And yes, talent did not disappear, but I sense a growing lack of ethics in most sports, including boxing.

Taking Tyson as an example, as long as he was taught to follow a certain path, made of respect for his opponents and hard work he did shine.
Once he lost his "teacher" he started to loose it.
In spite of his talent he destroyed himself and part of his career.

The fat HW's you mention are/could be a result of lack of ethic/ dedication.


I do not claim to be right, I actually hope to be wrong, but as said that is the feeling I get.

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.

[McGoorty]

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.

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.

[McGoorty]

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.

excellent, I couldnt agree more...... Bigger ????.. yeah the heavyweights are bigger, but also bigger in the lack of commitment... Of course there have been some modern day exceptions, Mike Tyson wasn't screwing about, he really wanted to rip the other guys head off, or an ear if he couldnt, but back when they were in black and white and totally worn out film with bits just cut out and glued back together, you can only get a glimpse of what is was like back then. .................................................. ............... .............................. when the guys back in the early part of the 20th century stepped in the ring 99 out of a hundred went at each other like wildcats and they had to fight up to 50 rounds, does anyone even imagine what that must have been like ?.. are you gonna go out and fight at the modern day pace of the average 12 rounder when you may have to last 36 rounds ????...... they fought so often, Darcy had at least 17 fights in 1915 and thats nothing compared to many at that time. I'm sorry to offend modernists arguments but boxing FIRST And FOREMOST is about toughness,, so many much more talented guys got their brains beaten out because the other guy was in a different league in toughness,,,, those guys were beyond tough, some just couldnt be knocked out some went over 200 fights and never knocked out, and some had never even visited the canvas.. I can see a lot of modern guys standing stunned that they simply cant hurt the old timer (providing that old timer was miraculously returned to prime of life after being dead for half a century)

[McGoorty]

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.

I cant comment on American football but I can use Rugby League as an example. You cant compare the rugby league players in Australia or England of the 30's to todays players like Billy Slater. Baxk in the 10's to the early 60's the rules had dramatically chamged the game, some things are the same but the limited tackle rule came in and it makes that game almost a different football code. Also in the old days Rugby League was an intensley violent game, those guys had more fist fights than any boxer as each week they would be involved in at least one all in brawl or a one on one. ................... ................... they also head butted each other, stiff armed the neck, deliberately broke some guys bones while the guy was on the ground,, they did a hundred things then that would have them banned for life... its still a tough blokes game but its all about speed and power now, in the old days a billy Slater would probably have been maimed for life, by a player under coaches orders...... Blokes were just tougher then,, like boxers, they HAD to be.

[McGoorty]

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.

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