Only idiots think fighters 60 years on back would be competitive today

given their condition. Our fighters today are bigger, stronger and faster then they ever were. Why? Because they aren't goinghave into it alone now, now they have researchers (nutritionist, fitness experts) who conduct research to find the most positive results. This allows them to find the maximum balance of muscle to body frame / weight for strength and speed. They now have tapes to study and research other fighters methods in detail. Fighters back then didn't have this luxery. Science makes the difference. Humans make fables about the past neglecting logic, its natural. agreed that fitness experts etc have helped the sport, tho fighters today sometimes struggle to go 12 rounds hell i've seen guys JUST make it through an 8 rounder lol point im making is back in the day..... 24 rounds/15 rounds was done every week for some boxers

Resume: Yesterdays fighter >>>> Today's fighter. Skills, Conditioning, Preparation, Etc.... : Today's fighter >>>> Yesterdays fighter. toughness/talent pool yesterday' fighter>>>>>>>>>>>>>todays fighter

So you're saying Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't be competitive today? give me a break, he would dominate the WW division. Listen, there was more talent back then there was today. That means in order to be a great back then, you had to fight tougher opposition. In today's world you can fight bums 20-30 times, fight a couple champs and your a top dog. Back then nearly every one was a tough fight. Think about it - NY had over 50 boxing gyms over 50 years ago. Now there are about 3. The pool of good fighters back then was insanely deep compared to today. Your point would make sense for heavyweights only, especially the old timers that weighed like 185 pounds and ****, they would be just too small. / of the stupid thread. very unlike the ts

Resume: Yesterdays fighter >>>> Today's fighter. Skills, Conditioning, Preparation, Etc.... : Today's fighter >>>> Yesterdays fighter.

You're just picking one great fighter. My belief is that if you pick the 20 best fighters in each of the original weightclasses today and were to pit them against the top 20 of each divison from 1950/60, the modern fighters would win approximately 80% of the match-ups. By the way, a 140 and below Floyd Mayweather arguably has a comparable skillset to SRR. Match up the 1960's middleweights with today's middleweights and see what you get. Of course fantasy fights are a very unreliable way of choosing which one is better. This is Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter: A KO artist knocking out another KO artist in this fashion would be considered sensational today. However in Carter's own time, he never made it to the top of the division. In my opinion the depth of contenders, in general, was actually better. I'm his countryman, but something is seriously wrong when Amin Asikainen could make top 5 at middle. Sebastian Sylvester too, and Matthew Macklin. Personally I believe that the numerous weight classes are a part of why divisions tend to lack depth these days. Imagine the junior middles, middleweight and super middleweights all fighting in the same division. That's how it used to be.

and add the fact that fighters from 60 years ago, most of them specially the great ones face other greats more frequently! they are better conditioned... they train much more frequently and most of them face each other more than once... imagine ray robinson facing a prime lamotta 5 times! damn... thats something like PBF facing williams 5 times... or beau jack facing bob montgomery & ike williams 4 times... somehow equivalent to gamboa facing caballero and juan manuel lopez 4 times! EACH! its hard to imagine right? and fighters from the 40s did it quite regularly... you got to take into consideration these things man...

Totally disagree with this thread dont matter how many ped's they use nothing beats being agressive coupled with good boxing and good natural GOD given strenght idc how much crap you inject yourself with.

Right. So for example, sprinters from 1900-1920 run the 100 metres the exact same speed as sprinters today, and it's the factors listed above that account for the improvement in times? I disagree. I agree they contribute to a degree, but not so much that the 100 metres is run a full second quicker than 100 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression Sprinters in the 1920's didn't even have legs. Human's didn't acquire legs until the 1980's.

Improved track surfaces, batter equipment, and steroids. Try running the 100 on an old cinder track and see what your time is. Poet Right. So for example, sprinters from 1900-1920 run the 100 metres the exact same speed as sprinters today, and it's the factors listed above that account for the improvement in times? I disagree. I agree they contribute to a degree, but not so much that the 100 metres is run a full second quicker than 100 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

Yeah, how dare all you retards think guys from the 1940's could actually compete with the modern athlete. Everybody knows modern athletes aren't even born - they're bred in cryogenic labratories. If guys like Ray Robinson and Joe Louis were around today, they wouldn't even reach tomato can status.

Everything we do gets better with technology, we just remanence about times past. i somehow agree with the first post & all as long as u pertain to any physical parameter... MAYBE... but better overall as in technique or competence? man, boxers of today are actually lesser eqipped in terms of skills! can u see any present era boxer doing inside fighting? not many... any of them doing slipping or feinting? not many... old boxers have more tricks in the bag compared to the ones we have now... u are correct in a way... most rely on their athleticism now to tide them through...

Name 3 fighters today that are better than SRR. Has that been improved upon? You're just picking one great fighter. My belief is that if you pick the 20 best fighters in each of the original weightclasses today and were to pit them against the top 20 of each divison from 1950/60, the modern fighters would win approximately 80% of the match-ups. By the way, a 140 and below Floyd Mayweather arguably has a comparable skillset to SRR.

given their condition. Our fighters today are bigger, stronger and faster then they ever were. Why? Because they aren't goinghave into it alone now, now they have researchers (nutritionist, fitness experts) who conduct research to find the most positive results. This allows them to find the maximum balance of muscle to body frame / weight for strength and speed. They now have tapes to study and research other fighters methods in detail. Fighters back then didn't have this luxery. Science makes the difference. Humans make fables about the past neglecting logic, its natural. I hear what you're saying but you realize if those boxers were alive today they too would have grown up with and would have access to current sport nutrition and exercise principles/knowledge?

Completely disagree. How do you account for Olympic records constantly being broken/improved upon? Name 3 fighters today that are better than SRR. Has that been improved upon?

I think I've finally found the perfect candidate for the "Official Thread For Adolescent Retards" :puke: PS. The only myth here is that humans constantly improve everything we're involved with: As human beings we fvck things up far more often than we make them better. Poet Completely disagree. How do you account for Olympic records constantly being broken/improved upon?

Cmon Hous the oldr fighter fought way more than todays fighters. And they fought 15 round fights. Todays guys can barely go 10.

Can Sandy Koufax pitch in todays MLB? Yes Can Joe Montana play in todays NFL? Yes Can Pistol Pete Maravich play in todays NBA? Yes These athletes simply just know how to play their game and will do great in any era. Same goes for boxers. If you have the talent, I dont see why they wouldnt be competitive today. It's not a question of them being competitive, I'm sure many of them would be competitive, but would they still be the champion in their divison? Very doubtful. Generally speaking - with today's advancements modern fighters would have an edge over fighters from the past. Edit: Out of interest I've compiled the champions from the eight weightclasses in 1950 and fighters of 2010. Heavyweight : Wladimir Klitshcko v Ezzard Charles Light-HW : Best of SMW/LHW? v Joey Maxim Middleweight: Sergio Martinez v Jake La Motta Welterweight: Floyd Mayweather v SRR Lightweight: JMM v Ike Williams Featherweight:John/Lopez/Gamboa v Sandy Saddler Bantamweight: Fernando Montiel v Vic Toweel Flyweight: Wonjongkam v Dado Marino Can't say I know anything about the bantam and flyweight champs from 1950, but I suspect the class of 2010 win 6 out of 8 here.

I disagree that the old school guys would be blown out of the water, i think the old school champions would be able to compete nowadays, as in they could make the top 20 in a division or top 10 perhaps. But that extra 10/15% benefit that modern fighters have nowadays pushes today's top dogs onto a whole new level that former champions never quite reached.

Can Sandy Koufax pitch in todays MLB? Yes Can Joe Montana play in todays NFL? Yes Can Pistol Pete Maravich play in todays NBA? Yes These athletes simply just know how to play their game and will do great in any era. Same goes for boxers. If you have the talent, I dont see why they wouldnt be competitive today.

You should've said that from the beginning. Pacquiao, Mayweather, maybe, and they aren't even big welterweights. But the rest? Cotto and Clottey can hardly brag about their greater stamina as they have extreme difficulties going just 12 rounds. Same with Zab Judah. Antonio Margarito is hardly fast, not to mention the recent "champ" Carlos Baldomir, who beat a far better athlete in Zab Judah. These fighters look to have quite "efficient" bodies: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/A375E5DB-6172-4D61-B40F-BBF3B842F55C/U1373888.jpg http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/77FC65BC-5B2A-432A-8207-0ACA036F7647/U875748ACME.jpg http://i36.tinypic.com/2z85068.jpg But as we know, that has never been the be all and end all of boxing: http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0216/box_a_pavlik_taylor6_580.jpg END OF THREAD............there is no difference in those men as to the men of today...NONE. The arguments you made for Baldomir and Margarito were the defining point in all of this. Sometimes people think that muscle mass, or a great body means you will be a great fighter...hehe I guess guys like Julio Cesar Chavez and Juan Diaz should have never been champs in the modern era then. I honestly have no idea what the training was like long ago but I've heard of camps today where team members time the improvement in wind sprints so that they know when a fighter is peaking, like gaging the PRECISE moment a bottle of $5,000,000 (decent PPV payday) wine is at its peak drinkability. I thought it was lifting weights, cardio, and sparring. I had no idea it gets so complicated as judging when a fighter is reaching their peak performance level, so a not to reach it a day before or a day after the fight, but to reach in precisesly as they enter the ring. I think the fighting only every 4-8 months of today has more to do with an attempt to extend a career and the weight loss some fighters have to accomplish. Some of these guys rehydrate 10-15 pounds over night. YOu would have NEVER heard of old school fighters doing that, as squezing a LHW into a WW frame wasn't the practice back then. that can go both ways though, many people say that one of the reasons Mayweather is as great as he is, is because he walks around at about the same weight in which he fights. So being drained and re hydrating aren't a problem. You don't need to be a scientist to understand when a fighter is being over trained or is peaking, just a great trainer and the human intuition does that just fine.