..TRUE/FALSE: Fighters From The Passed Are Better Than Todays Fighters...

generally true but it's just the way it is, i don't think there's anything behind it

fighters like floyd mayweather, roy jones, and sweet pea would do very well in any era, especially in their primes. they have the stamina, workrate, smarts, defense, offense, speed, and power to be the best in any era. overall skillset, these 3 are just too damn good.

as whole i think the past is better, activity wise and determining who the best in each weight class, having only one or two champions... i also think some present fighters would also excel in the past but we really have no way of telling how good they will or could have done, differences like 3 extra rounds and the weight of gloves are game changing factors... now the question is which era do we consider have the best concentration of BETTERfighters??

Some are, some aren't. No definite answer on the whole.

false, but it doesn't mean the converse is necessarily true either. it is absurd to generalize like that...

What people always seem to fail to realize is that boxers from yesteryear fight A LOT more frequently. And though that does have it's draw backs, like more of a chance to lose, more of a chance to get robbed, cheated, hurt, killed and you burn out quicker. It also has it's plusses. You also get more fights during your prime (though you DO still have to win), you don't have to deal with ring rust, and you have even MORE chances to stack your record. Which, in this day and age, is saying a lot. My point is, when discussing this, I think a lot of people neglect to look at the good and bad of EACH situation. Look from all angles. It's hard for me to say, honestly.

Today's fighters are faster,stronger, more durable and overall better conditioned than fighters of the past Better nutrition,training, workouts and boxing knowledge allow today's fighters to perform better. oh really???? the guys from the old days used to fight for 15 rounds (even more the further back you go) and these bums today get tired in 12 rounders!!! they also used to use 6 oz gloves instead of the cushions they use now!!! there were less weight divisions and you had to make weight on the day!! the fighters from the old days could easily beat the guys in modern boxing with the new rules and regulations. but if the modern fighters had to fight the old timers with 6oz gloves, 15 rounds AND on the day weigh ins THE MODERN DAY FIGHTERS WOULD GET PUT IN HOSPITAL!!!! and the greatest fighters of all time are guys like sugar ray robinson, joe louis, muhamed ali, henry armstrong............................. not these new bums!!!!!!!!!! seems to me you have NO IDEA what you are talking about!!!

I think the fighters from the old days were better.

The professional style of boxing today is influenced by the increased significance of a substantial amateur background. Definitely, amateur boxing plays a much bigger part in molding a fighter today than it did a few decades ago.

In some ways fighters from the past are better than those of today but today's fighters have some advantages over fighters from the past. The professional style of boxing today is influenced by the increased significance of a substantial amateur background.

It is hard to say. I will say that the early-mid 90's had amazing talent that any era would have a tough time competing in.

Fighters of the past were better since most were better conditioned and fought better competition and much more often than todays fighters do because they had to since there wasn't as much money involved and fighting so often meant they were never out of shape like todays fighters get between fights. The old timers also had no problems going 15 rounds while todays "better conditioned" fighters struggle to go 10 and are gassed in five in most cases.

I would say that its not so much that fighters from the past are better, just that there's a lot more past than there is present, so there are a lot more good boxers to pick from. In decades and decades of boxing history you're always going to be able to find someone who was probably better than the current best in any weight class. veyry valid point. A point that is often overlooked. It's like comparing acertain current basketball team against the allstars from the NBA-passed. Sometimes, it's unfair.

I would say that its not so much that fighters from the past are better, just that there's a lot more past than there is present, so there are a lot more good boxers to pick from. In decades and decades of boxing history you're always going to be able to find someone who was probably better than the current best in any weight class.

In some ways fighters from the past are better than those of today but today's fighters have some advantages over fighters from the past.

What I will add is that there are more weight classes, so the top ten of some divisions is pretty damn week. Also, fighters from other time periods, could travel, get ripped off and have no proof of it, without film. Furthermore, with more jammed divisions, the competition was a lot more stiff. Just adding to the coversation.

Today's fighters are faster,stronger, more durable and overall better conditioned than fighters of the past. Better nutrition,training, workouts and boxing knowledge allow today's fighters to perform better. It's like comparing Hank Aaron to Barry Bonds.

My view on the old vs modern debate is that on average modern fighters are of a higher standard but the greats of past era would still hang with the top guys of recent years and in many cases would still have crushed divisions today. I do think that people get a little carried away with the old guys though. It is also important to account for natural progression.