Is the "Old vs New" debate unique to boxing?

[Bundana]

It definitely seems the strongest in boxing. I can't think of any other sport where so many people suggest with intense seriousness that a sportsman from the 30s or 40s, (or even earlier for the craziest of the crazy) is superior to the best from the 1970s onwards. I have seen the odd lunatic who thinks George Best was better than Cristiano Ronaldo but they are usually confined to care-homes.

I think you may be right.

I've actually tried to take a closer look at how tennis fans are discussing their sport on the internet. I chose tennis, because it resembles boxing somewhat - in that it's a worldwide sport, an individual sport, and, like boxing, has a long history.

So, I've been looking at different tennis sites - and find that they look more or less like the major boxing sites we all know. They have the usual sub-forums where different subjects are being discussed - but I have yet to find a "fantasy matches" forum, where "h2h" clashes between old and new are being debated! They do actually make "greatest ever" lists - but they seem to be based solely on who showed the greatest dominance in their own era! Nowhere can I find discussions along the lines of: "Well, if you time-mashine 1960s Rod Laver 50 years into the future and give him a year to adjust to a modern racket, faster balls and learn the two-handed backhand... he would sweep the grand slams with ease. The big power-servers of today would not be able to cope with the superior technique of a player from half a century ago - since the marvellous skills back then aren't being passed on to today's young players, as all the great trainers are now gone!"

[Humean]

I think you may be right.

I've actually tried to take a closer look at how tennis fans are discussing their sport on the internet. I chose tennis, because it resembles boxing somewhat - in that it's a worldwide sport, an individual sport, and, like boxing, has a long history.

So, I've been looking at different tennis sites - and find that they look more or less like the major boxing sites we all know. They have the usual sub-forums where different subjects are being discussed - but I have yet to find a "fantasy matches" forum, where "h2h" clashes between old and new are being debated! They do actually make "greatest ever" lists - but they seem to be based solely on who showed the greatest dominance in their own era! Nowhere can I find discussions along the lines of: "Well, if you time-mashine 1960s Rod Laver 50 years into the future and give him a year to adjust to a modern racket, faster balls and learn the two-handed backhand... he would sweep the grand slams with ease. The big power-servers of today would not be able to cope with the superior technique of a player from half a century ago - since the marvellous skills back then aren't being passed on to today's young players, as all the great trainers are now gone!"

Yeah the difference is certainly this view that for an example a top fighter from the 40s was superior to a top fighter from the 90s that seems fairly unique to boxing. The only defence I could make of boxing fans who suggest that is that the difference over time in boxing probably is smaller than most other sports as the technological advancements in the equipment has not changed much in boxing unlike most other sports. However I agree that if you think that Rod Laver was superior to Djokovic or Federer in a head to head sense then you might need to go see a psychiatrist, and yet too many suggest something similar in boxing. There is a weird antiquarianism in boxing where so many people are longing for some supposed lost era where everything was so incredible.

[juggernaut666]

Yeah the difference is certainly this view that for an example a top fighter from the 40s was superior to a top fighter from the 90s that seems fairly unique to boxing. The only defence I could make of boxing fans who suggest that is that the difference over time in boxing probably is smaller than most other sports as the technological advancements in the equipment has not changed much in boxing unlike most other sports. However I agree that if you think that Rod Laver was superior to Djokovic or Federer in a head to head sense then you might need to go see a psychiatrist, and yet too many suggest something similar in boxing. There is a weird antiquarianism in boxing where so many people are longing for some supposed lost era where everything was so incredible.

ALL sports evolve...fighting maybe more rapidly because its individual competition not team sports...take mma for example it grows maybe every 3 years of someone having to adapt to another guy using certain techniques...boxing is no different it just comes slower with the restricted rules of what can be used.......in short put a great white shark in the water with the average predators in a controlled radius and monitor who who eats who...well he is top of the food chain......add in a killer whale "Orca' hes taking a back seat! This happens all the time in particularly combat sports...its called evolution of species and its no different from competitors some just cant see or lie about it.

[Elroy1]

In reality boxing probably displays the MOST FASTEST evolution over time with similar sports science applied as to another sport.

This is because as an individual sport for one, the athletes own efforts must necessarily be honed as completely as possible because his success depends entirely on it whereas a team sportsman's success is also dependant on how well he meshes with the rest.

And even more importantly, the more technical factors that come into thye sport, the more scope there is for the "sieve" of progress to influence it's effects on the sport.

And because boxing is among the most technically involved of all sports (direct combat sports always are), boxing is therefore more open to progress than any other...

The reason that boxing was stalled for so long is because sports science was never applied to boxing at all for so long because boxing was considered always by the general population as a sport of bums and morons because of it's barbaric nature- a mugs game! The nut bag's are even divided on this issue either denying this totally (like Ray Corso putting up that evolution was present throughout against the evidence) or some still like guys above denying boxing makes the faster progress. 2 mutually exclusive views which serve to mask the true reason.. The mugs game theory!

Of course the moment sports science WAS applied to the sport, we see an evolution so dramatic that is visibly absolutely eclipses all other sports like no other.

A tennis player then and now look different for sure, but not so strikingly different as 2 boxers for example!!

And now that boxing has been taken out of the dark ages it will never stop. There are just a few "rabble rousers" to "clean up" first

[juggernaut666]

In reality boxing probably displays the MOST FASTEST evolution over time with similar sports science applied as to another sport.

This is because as an individual sport for one, the athletes own efforts must necessarily be honed as completely as possible because his success depends entirely on it whereas a team sportsman's success is also dependant on how well he meshes with the rest.

And even more importantly, the more technical factors that come into thye sport, the more scope there is for the "sieve" of progress to influence it's effects on the sport.

And because boxing is among the most technically involved of all sports (direct combat sports always are), boxing is therefore more open to progress than any other...

The reason that boxing was stalled for so long is because sports science was never applied to boxing at all for so long because boxing was considered always by the general population as a sport of bums and morons because of it's barbaric nature- a mugs game! The nut bag's are even divided on this issue either denying this totally (like Ray Corso putting up that evolution was present throughout against the evidence) or some still like guys above denying boxing makes the faster progress. 2 mutually exclusive views which serve to mask the true reason.. The mugs game theory!

Of course the moment sports science WAS applied to the sport, we see an evolution so dramatic that is visibly absolutely eclipses all other sports like no other.

A tennis player then and now look different for sure, but not so strikingly different as 2 boxers for example!!

And now that boxing has been taken out of the dark ages it will never stop. There are just a few "rabble rousers" to "clean up" first

More variables bring quicker change,MMa is far more rapidly developing with almost unlimited outcomes based on rules...boxing usually goes from decade to decade of a few stand out guys....you see different styles..like the up right long rangers that's that klitchko's dominated with that style the last decade...you are starting to see a mix right now a highbred of technical inside and outside fighters Joshua/Arias /Ortiz/even Haye at SHW, his last fight looked great...im missing a few!...

Corsos evolution stopped 1970 ...its not worth going over.....the main difference is all sports develope faster ,with boxing few will stand out with the limited rules,this happens every decade in which you see different types of fighters succeed and some dont...size is also a major factor, that's why the lizards who once ruled the land ran into the water when the larger dinosuars came into play ,a nother animal reference but really that's what evolution is, an advancement. Of Course animals are less dangerous today they are smaller and less vicious in modern times to what they grew but unless we humans shrink and start over again well....we are at peak level now,and have the advancements in the training already in blue print with no guess work.

[Elroy1]

More variables bring quicker change,MMa is far more rapidly developing with almost unlimited outcomes based on rules...boxing usually goes from decade to decade of a few stand out guys....you see different styles..like the up right long rangers that's that klitchko's dominated with that style the last decade...you are starting to see a mix right now a highbred of technical inside and outside fighters Joshua/Arias /Ortiz/even Haye at SHW, his last fight looked great...im missing a few!...

Corsos evolution stopped 1970 ...its not worth going over.....the main difference is all sports develope faster ,with boxing few will stand out with the limited rules,this happens every decade in which you see different types of fighters succeed and some dont...size is also a major factor, that's why the lizards who once ruled the land ran into the water when the larger dinosuars came into play ,a nother animal reference but really that's what evolution is, an advancement. Of Course animals are less dangerous today they are smaller and less vicious in modern times to what they grew but unless we humans shrink and start over again well....we are at peak level now,and have the advancements in the training already in blue print with no guess work.

A tremendous post.

And you rightfully took it a step further by elevating MMA too. By its very nature it has the most variables of the directly competitive combat sports and should theoretically display the quicker progress than even the punching restricted boxing.

And we see this confirmed in practice also, given how rapidly it has evolved in such a short time from its beginnings in the 90's until today.

Well done.

[joeandthebums]

It definitely seems the strongest in boxing. I can't think of any other sport where so many people suggest with intense seriousness that a sportsman from the 30s or 40s, (or even earlier for the craziest of the crazy) is superior to the best from the 1970s onwards. I have seen the odd lunatic who thinks George Best was better than Cristiano Ronaldo but they are usually confined to care-homes.

Levels of professionalism in soccer from George Best to Cristiano Ronaldo's period are worlds apart. I don't think the same statement can be made for boxing.

The sport of the soccer from George Best to Cristiano Ronaldo's period are worlds apart. I don't think the same statement can be made for boxing.

A direct comparison between the sports (soccer and boxing) is impossible, as is between the two soccer players mentioned above.

If the question was a pick and drop scenario, I would expect Best to find the adjustment much easier.

----

Yes re-reading the above, I can appreciate it is the position many take when discussing boxers of past and present.

[Humean]

Levels of professionalism in soccer from George Best to Cristiano Ronaldo's period are worlds apart. I don't think the same statement can be made for boxing.

The sport of the soccer from George Best to Cristiano Ronaldo's period are worlds apart. I don't think the same statement can be made for boxing.

A direct comparison between the sports (soccer and boxing) is impossible, as is between the two soccer players mentioned above.

If the question was a pick and drop scenario, I would expect Best to find the adjustment much easier.

----

Yes re-reading the above, I can appreciate it is the position many take when discussing boxers of past and present.

Oh no doubt Ronaldo would be less than he is now with 1960s/70s boots/footballs/pitches and he'd be shocked at the low level of professionalism (there was a £20 salary cap in English football up until 1961!) whereas Best would find many things a lot easier, including being protected by the referees. However the standard has improved immeasurably since Best's day, I doubt he'd be able to handle it physically if he was transported in his 1960s heyday form to today, although of course these comparisons are pretty silly and completely unfair as every sportsman is limited by their own times.

As to the comparison's of professionalism between the past and today then I suppose I agree that they ae not worlds apart unlike in football. However I often see it written on forums that professionalism was higher in the 1940s (for example) than it is today whereas I don't think that is quite right. One of the main reasons cited for this is that the typical top 1940s fighter fought about 6-12 times a year, whereas a top fighter today typically fights only twice, and therefore a 40s fighter had to be in shape all year around. I think that argument misses a few things, firstly that typically only one or two of those fights were title fights, just as today, secondly that losing a non-title fight was not so much of a big deal then due to the high volume of fights everyone was having every year, thirdly that top fighters would lose quite often to lesser opponents in these non-title fights indicating that they weren't always in the best of shape (perhaps often due to injury) and fourthly that there are fighters today that fight closer to the 1940s model of fights per year, namely a lot of the Thai fighters, but surely they are not superior in their fitness or professionalism to non-Thai fighters because of this.

Just as today most fighters in the 1940s also had day-jobs but it is actually easier to get in top shape today than it was then, however it is also easier to get in bad shape today too due to the abundance of food. There are plenty of top fighters today who are highly professional and due to superior knowledge and technology can maintain a standard that the 1940s fighter wasn't capable of. I think that you can particularly see that in the professionals who have had a long and distinguished amateur career. These fighters don't think that just because they haven't got a fight scheduled for next month that that means they can go on the Hatton or Arreola fitness and diet plan.

[them_apples]

Boxing is fighting, not tennis. Another thing is boxing is a hell of a lot older than other sports, other sports advanced because they went from smoking cigs and only playing pick up games, to serious full time athletes. Boxers have been conditioning advocates since 2000 years ago. Even before the markess of the queensbury boxing was huge.

3rd, we have footage of older fighters and they are a hell of a lot more impressive than what we see today. They were serious. No cellphones and twitter, just the cold hard streets and a boxing gym.

[them_apples]

Oh no doubt Ronaldo would be less than he is now with 1960s/70s boots/footballs/pitches and he'd be shocked at the low level of professionalism (there was a £20 salary cap in English football up until 1961!) whereas Best would find many things a lot easier, including being protected by the referees. However the standard has improved immeasurably since Best's day, I doubt he'd be able to handle it physically if he was transported in his 1960s heyday form to today, although of course these comparisons are pretty silly and completely unfair as every sportsman is limited by their own times.

As to the comparison's of professionalism between the past and today then I suppose I agree that they ae not worlds apart unlike in football. However I often see it written on forums that professionalism was higher in the 1940s (for example) than it is today whereas I don't think that is quite right. One of the main reasons cited for this is that the typical top 1940s fighter fought about 6-12 times a year, whereas a top fighter today typically fights only twice, and therefore a 40s fighter had to be in shape all year around. I think that argument misses a few things, firstly that typically only one or two of those fights were title fights, just as today, secondly that losing a non-title fight was not so much of a big deal then due to the high volume of fights everyone was having every year, thirdly that top fighters would lose quite often to lesser opponents in these non-title fights indicating that they weren't always in the best of shape (perhaps often due to injury) and fourthly that there are fighters today that fight closer to the 1940s model of fights per year, namely a lot of the Thai fighters, but surely they are not superior in their fitness or professionalism to non-Thai fighters because of this.

Just as today most fighters in the 1940s also had day-jobs but it is actually easier to get in top shape today than it was then, however it is also easier to get in bad shape today too due to the abundance of food. There are plenty of top fighters today who are highly professional and due to superior knowledge and technology can maintain a standard that the 1940s fighter wasn't capable of. I think that you can particularly see that in the professionals who have had a long and distinguished amateur career. These fighters don't think that just because they haven't got a fight scheduled for next month that that means they can go on the Hatton or Arreola fitness and diet plan.

What are you basing good shape off of? How they look in the mirror? Back in the day a day job was construction work with hardly any power tools. Today its sitting at a desk in a call center. There are 0 modern advancements that allow someone to keep a high level of cardiovascular endurance from doing nothing. There are things to make you look pumped up thats about it.