Is Boxing the only Sport that has not Improved over the Years?

Actually I don't even know if Pac/May can beat Whitaker......It would be very close. I definitely know that Oscar/Tito would utterly destroy Canelo/Lara. :lol1: You can't be serious! Total troll! And I even like Whitaker!

Very debatable and you know it. But we can't pick and choose again. WE HAVE GOT to pick the entire elite+first teir for accurate comparisons. So Ronaldo/Messi BUT ALSO Aguero/Costa/ etc etc vs Henry/Ronaldinho/Zidane/Ronaldo/Rivaldo etc etc Not just the top two but overall and you can see that CLEARLY the top 25 footballers of today is inferior to the top 25 of the late 1990's and early 2000's. Now the TOP 2? Ok that's debatable. Edge to today. But you can't do that. As for boxing? You don't just pick MAY/PAC but THE TOP 25 OF TODAY VS THE TOP 25 OF THE 90'S. So May/Pac/Ward/Kovalev/Wlad/Cotto/ etc etc vs Whitaker/Chavez/Jones/Toney/Lewis/Holyfield/Oscar/Tito etc etc You don't just pick May/Pac. That's picking and choosing. That's like me picking Ali only and saying OK SEE ALI is>than everyone today so 60's is greater than today. You don't do that. You pick everything. And yes.............Looking at the top 25 fighters of the 90's........they are clearly superior to the top 25 of 2004-2014. Maybe the top 2(May/Pac) is similar to Whitaker/Chavez/Jones...........but the top 25? Yes they have clearly regressed. Can Wlad beat Lewis? Maybe. Lewis is still favorite But can Povetkin(third best) beat the third best of the 90's? Tyson from the Ruddock fights? I doubt it. Can David Haye beat Riddick Bowe? Can Kubrat Pulev beat Prime Ray Mercer or Ike? Can Ward beat Toney Can GGG beat Prime Hopkins? Here are the Ring's top 10 of the 1990 Julio Cesar Chavez Pernell Whitaker Michael Nunn Antonio Esparragoza Meldrick Taylor Evander Holyfield Mike Tyson Raul Perez Myung-Woo Yuh Khaosai Galaxy And here is the Ring's top 10 today Floyd Mayweather Jr. Wladimir Klitschko Manny Pacquiao Roman Gonzalez Guillermo Rigondeaux Tim Bradley Juan Manuel Marquez Carl Froch Canelo Alvarez Gennady Golovkin And this is not just about the 90s and now it about the whole of boxing and the progress it has made. And even if you disagree on the skill level, should you disagree on tactical side of the game or the physical.

Actually I don't even know if Pac/May can beat Whitaker......It would be very close. I definitely know that Oscar/Tito would utterly destroy Canelo/Lara.

Try and judge like for like Is Mayweather/Pacquiao better than Whitaker/Chavez? But just to make sure, you think boxing has evolved all the way and then suddenly stopped in the 90s and now is going backwards? Very debatable and you know it. But we can't pick and choose again. WE HAVE GOT to pick the entire elite+first teir for accurate comparisons. So Ronaldo/Messi BUT ALSO Aguero/Costa/ etc etc vs Henry/Ronaldinho/Zidane/Ronaldo/Rivaldo etc etc Not just the top two but overall and you can see that CLEARLY the top 25 footballers of today is inferior to the top 25 of the late 1990's and early 2000's. Now the TOP 2? Ok that's debatable. Edge to today. But you can't do that. As for boxing? You don't just pick MAY/PAC but THE TOP 25 OF TODAY VS THE TOP 25 OF THE 90'S. So May/Pac/Ward/Kovalev/Wlad/Cotto/ etc etc vs Whitaker/Chavez/Jones/Toney/Lewis/Holyfield/Oscar/Tito etc etc You don't just pick May/Pac. That's picking and choosing. That's like me picking Ali only and saying OK SEE ALI is>than everyone today so 60's is greater than today. You don't do that. You pick everything. And yes.............Looking at the top 25 fighters of the 90's........they are clearly superior to the top 25 of 2004-2014. Maybe the top 2(May/Pac) is similar to Whitaker/Chavez/Jones...........but the top 25? Yes they have clearly regressed. Can Wlad beat Lewis? Maybe. Lewis is still favorite But can Povetkin(third best) beat the third best of the 90's? Tyson from the Ruddock fights? I doubt it. Can David Haye beat Riddick Bowe? Can Kubrat Pulev beat Prime Ray Mercer or Ike? Can Ward beat Toney Can GGG beat Prime Hopkins?

I think the talent pool has decreased massively over the decades and that has led a decline in modern day boxing. boxrec data shows otherwise, but I can see that being the case for the US talent. Anyway, this is a YAWN topic. Oh great, a few douchebags disrespecting current boxers to feed their 'student of the sport' elitist attitude. Any fighters past 20+ years get a pass on every lowlight, it's hilarious.

Great Point with Marquez. For is Floyd fight he drank his own urine and threw rock, and did old school training. And he was flabby bloated slow and weak. In Pacquiao IV, he used modern day science and nutrition training, incorporated advance methods and he looked like a beast, muscle bound, fast and powerful. Proof what modern training does and the difference it can make. it's not a great point with marquez, like you mentioned, when he was drinking piss and tossing rocks it did nothing to help him and he came in flabby, when he got heredia which was before pacquiao III, he was always mentioning how he's going through state of the art procedures, sleeping in some richly oxygenated sleeping bag, doing some sort of yoga to keep himself flexible, calculated eating etc ontop of doing compound weightlifting none of those old school guys did weightlifting pacquiao definitely doesn't have one of the most sophisticated training regimes, donaire has much more sophisticated training regime than pacquiao, aswell as provodnikov which i believe has been in one of those oxygen chambers, donaire uses that high altitude mimicking mask, and a weighted vest and big weighted gloves through the entire training camp

I think the talent pool has decreased massively over the decades and that has led a decline in modern day boxing. In other sports this just isn't the case. Football (soccer) is bigger and more popular than it has ever been. It's taken over Africa and AAsia. So naturally there are more players and the top of the pyramid gets higher. This is the same in Rugby, Am. Football, Basketball, Athletics, Cricket etc etc. Boxing is just too violent for modern day western kids to get involved in. Obviously you can say the former Soviet states make up for this drop, but these guys are still way to involved with amateur boxing to really fill the gap. Most former Soviet bloc fighters turn over mid to late 20's/early 30'. To counter tthe modern day sports science argument, Manny Pacquaio has one of the most sophisticated training regimes in the sport, and he was outboxed by a guy who liked to drink his own piss :lol1: Skills matter. Great Point with Marquez. For is Floyd fight he drank his own urine and threw rock, and did old school training. And he was flabby bloated slow and weak. In Pacquiao IV, he used modern day science and nutrition training, incorporated advance methods and he looked like a beast, muscle bound, fast and powerful. Proof what modern training does and the difference it can make.

I think the talent pool has decreased massively over the decades and that has led a decline in modern day boxing. In other sports this just isn't the case. Football (soccer) is bigger and more popular than it has ever been. It's taken over Africa and AAsia. So naturally there are more players and the top of the pyramid gets higher. This is the same in Rugby, Am. Football, Basketball, Athletics, Cricket etc etc. Boxing is just too violent for modern day western kids to get involved in. Obviously you can say the former Soviet states make up for this drop, but these guys are still way to involved with amateur boxing to really fill the gap. Most former Soviet bloc fighters turn over mid to late 20's/early 30'. To counter tthe modern day sports science argument, Manny Pacquaio has one of the most sophisticated training regimes in the sport, and he was outboxed by a guy who liked to drink his own piss :lol1: Skills matter.

It has improved over the years but as an individual sport it's subject to heavy nostalgia and bias that isn't present in most team sports. If you don't like someone as a person one of your main options is to pretend they suck compared to "true legends" yatta yatta. I consciously try to avoid this path. I don't like Floyd as a person but I know he would make many historical greats look like clumsy fools, just like Wladimir and Rigo would. Gotta keep the two opinions separate.

The very question is spurious. Sports don't evolve, they change. Footballers (soccer players) score more goals because they changed rules and equipment to have more goals. If you knew what you are talking about you'd know the difference between a ball 20 years ago and now. You'd know the changes regarding fouls commited by a gk or last defender etc. For sprinting materials make a huge difference, same in tennis with lighter rackets and so forth. As for boxing, it has not improved, just like horse racing, which used to be extremely popular, but isn't any longer, and dozens of other sports.

For good or bad boxing today is more streamlined, more regulated, more diluted & a lot more safe! I think a lot of old timers view those great fighters & fights from the past & confuse these wars off attrition & in a lot of cases mainly Americans fighting Americans (No big asian, EE or Cuban contingent) with some sort of superiority complex, when in fact today's fighter are probably less inclined to machismo, bravado & cavemen like performances & more attuned to the scientific side of the sport in terms of training, nutrition, mentality & in ring performance! Probably why there's so many so called boring fighters today because the art has been so finely perfected & honed by this point, after all it is a science & the aim is to hit and not get hit.. Of course there ate exciting fighters too but still they are so far ahead of the brawlers from latter year its laughable to even compare! I think boxing has rightfully left the dark ages but for some this is hard to deal with, they need big KO's, smack talk and lots of bells & whistles! They cant deal with civil individuals plying there trade in a much cleaner sport (less corruption) with a much wider diversity of peoples & a truly international presence! On a reasonable enough time frame everything evolves & adapts over time, of course there will be the odd peaks & troughs but boxing 100 years ago looks positively archaic & almost cave man like, human beings evolve that is just fact & the sports they partake in show this! Every generation thinks the one that they fought in ****s on the one that follows them, its been going on since time immemorial but its not really the case all told! There's a lot of agenda too it too...

A lot of the top fighters get top level sparing against other top fighters. In the past they never fought this quality of sparring, hardly any sparring at all in some cases. Yep, that was the basis of Holyfield's famous speech. Amateur programs are far more developed these days and top boxers have far richer pedigrees. Once pro, the best prospects have a tremendous fight output when the competition is low, which is comparable to the top level competition of yesteryear at worst. When considering top level competition, the fight rate is much lower but it must be understood that by this time the boxer is tremendously more experienced in the ring through ammy, early pro and the much better sparring they receive and the old timers never fought at a level like today which requires far more preparation. It was not necessary to prepare for 12 weeks for a big fight back in the day because the opposition was simply not good enough to warrant it. And as stated, the quality of sparring received today is worth so much more than fights against even top opponents of yesteryear in itself. It's clear... World title fights of the past = light sparring sessions today. Fact!

A lot of the top fighters get top level sparing against other top fighters. In the past they never fought this quality of sparring, hardly any sparring at all in some cases.

They should hold their fights tournament style thus way the best are always fighting the best like UFC. But they're too busy pushing bums like Broner. Overlooking the biased comment, I can actually agree with this. If the best fought the best in tourney style then Wilder would NEVER have seen a HW title.

They should hold their fights tournament style thus way the best are always fighting the best like UFC. But they're too busy pushing bums like Broner.

Easy to look good when you in against poor opposition. Berto like to use some old school moves as well. How does that work out for him A 12 stone Cooper sparked out Ali luckily the bell saved him. A good fighter is a good fighter. These moves have not died out, and in the past not everyone used them. Ha, I forgot about that. The HW champ.. sparked out by a LHW bum. And later, thoroughly outboxed by a green cruiser bum again. Pathetic! Absolutely pathetic! :lol1:

LOL I love it how the nut bags once cornered slip on their asses badly... James Toney was roided to the gills, that's how he competed at HW. Sure he had great skills but no matter how great he could not have stepped into the same ring as Peter w/o them. James Toney was a modern fighter, not an old school fighter. A modern fighters skillset, by definition, includes everything and anything developed throughout the ENTIRE history of boxing! If it was developed in say, 1920, and survived to now, it is modern. If it was developed in 1920, and deemed ineffective now, it was "oldschool". By definition, the only tehniques that are "old school" are the ones that NO LONGER WORK. Because if they did, we'd still use them today and they'd be modern! Same as boxers, every era of trainers gets better and better from generation to generation because they build upon the knowledge and techniques of all who came before. Riddick Bowe's only real good opponent was HW record 26-10 Evander Holyfield 205-215lbs. Although I rank him highly and view him as a great opponent for Povetkin, there is really no proof that Bowe could beat Povetkin. In fact, most of the evidence shows that Povetkin would probably have busted him up badly. And in any case, I think it's amusing, we are talking about vintage eras and the only one some smart ass above an legitimately bring up is the 90's! - A recent era (90's) with similarly hefty (average 220lb) opponents That can be a thread in itself! But even if the 90's WAS better, what about cruiser bum eras like the 70's and before? From the inception of CW in the early 80's which coincided with the athletic revolution in boxing and backwards, we see a steep decline the further back we go.. The athletes got cruiseier and lighter.. And the divisions became increasingly riddled with bums! And nostalgics seriously have the nerve to call a time the "golden era" when a chinny, featherfisted, fat, punch bag, handicapped bum dwarf was a HW champ and gold medallist? GTFOOH! :lol1:

Toney didn't test positive after that fight. Plus it was his SKILL that kept him in that fight. Very few fighters use them. and the ones that do are on top? coincidence? Your too stupid to deal with. The point is that a fat former MW could compete with some big strong HWs because of those old school skills. An average fighter couldn't do that...etc etc blah blah I'm done with you go jerk off Elroy and talk about "facts" Easy to look good when you in against poor opposition. Berto like to use some old school moves as well. How does that work out for him A 12 stone Cooper sparked out Ali luckily the bell saved him. A good fighter is a good fighter. These moves have not died out, and in the past not everyone used them.

Your a fcking imbecile. Please explain how the old school techniques, like rolling, countering, inside fighting, dont work as well? Ward and Floyd BOTH employ these tactics and dominate everyone they fight. A fat old 5''10 James Toney stood right in front of a 240lb Sam peter and got ripped off in the first fight. Why? because he rolls off everything, leads you into counters and stays relaxed. You just dont know what your talking about. And he was taking illegal sups And if fighter are using them today, then they really have not died out have they. And Sam Peter is hardly great. Like to see Toney used those techniques against Wlad, Vitali or even Haye.

Boxing HAVE evolved, but it have regressed since the 90's and early 2000's. That was my point. So there isn't a 'gradual rise', there have been time periods when it actually regressed. How can you possibly claim that the likes of Kubrat Pulev and Carl Froch are the 'next step' in boxing evolution compared to say Evander Holyfield or Prime James Toney? It's absurd. Try and judge like for like Is Mayweather/Pacquiao better than Whitaker/Chavez? But just to make sure, you think boxing has evolved all the way and then suddenly stopped in the 90s and now is going backwards?