Busting The Modern Myth!

[Toe Injury]

The article seems to simply quote guys who agree with the author and base their own opinions on... absolutely nothing. Not very scientific.

Here are two of many reasons older is always better in boxing:

1. Boxing journalists can never be wrong if they always doubt new fighters relative to long-retired legends. After all, their great record is already locked and sealed. Even if the new fighter goes on to exceed expectations, it can become a vague "era thing". It's insurance for your "sweet science" reputation.

2. People who are obsessed with the word "heavyweight" even more obsessively compare the speed of would-be lightheavyweight/cruiserweights like Louis and Dempsey to today's giants. Whoa! Big surprise, they're faster and more athletic with better endurance, compared with guys who could give birth to them.

Amazingly, these same fans completely ignore the 175 and 200 pound divisions full of fighters but can't even get their name on the map in the mainstream because the word "heavy" isn't by their name.

I don't think any era is clearly superior to another. Hand to hand fighting is inherently primitive and ceremonial, and outside of increasing nutrition, totally stagnates. It's likely the best of all time lived in an era before gunpowder where melee combat was a purpose-bred, life and death profession. And that's the whole appeal.

However I do get tired of people simply dismissing modern boxers based on how they "look" (again, completely ignoring weight gaps), or abstract tidbits like modern trainers not having as many fights as older trainers. Again, not scientific at all.

[bojangles1987]

My opinion of new vs. old has always been this:

The sport is so different that it's nearly impossible to fairly compare most fighters head to head, but you have to take into account how much better fighters then would be if they had access to the evolution in training and equipment fighters today do. It's ridiculous to dismiss fighters like LaMotta or Monzon or SRR or Joe Louis, etc., when they were such hard workers and great fighters without the advantages fighters today have. Give them that advantages, you damn better believe they can beat the hell out of many fighters now.

[bojangles1987]

Really, people should think of it this way.

70s-presently: All comparisons head to head are completely fair. Athletes then compared to now are not that far off.

50s-60s: There are some fighters you can compare to present day fighters, but you are reaching a point where modern fighters will mostly have too much an athletic edge.

20s-40s: Comparisons reach a point where they aren't that fair. We're talking 60-80 years of human evolution here, people are just naturally bigger, faster and stronger.

Pre-20s: Just stop it. Completely unfair.

This doesn't mean fighters from then are worse than now, though. It's just that you should not be comparing them to fighters now as far as head to head matchups, you can only justifiably compare them as far as what they accomplished.

[Spartacus Sully]

20s-40s: Comparisons reach a point where they aren't that fair. We're talking 60-80 years of human evolution here, people are just naturally bigger, faster and stronger.

60 years.....1000 times shorter then **** sapiens have existed.....and guess what......we're still **** sapiens.

you think if 60 years could make humans incomparable.....60000 years should make us a completely different race eh?

you see it actually dosnt work like that the same genes we have when were born are the same we pass on to our children and there is a field called eppigentics allowing for slight mutations after birth but they are only passed on and very slight so for an improvement in boxing as far as evolution it would require you to have like 10 generations of boxers before you.

[Barn]

Really, people should think of it this way.

70s-presently: All comparisons head to head are completely fair. Athletes then compared to now are not that far off.

50s-60s: There are some fighters you can compare to present day fighters, but you are reaching a point where modern fighters will mostly have too much an athletic edge.

20s-40s: Comparisons reach a point where they aren't that fair. We're talking 60-80 years of human evolution here, people are just naturally bigger, faster and stronger.

Pre-20s: Just stop it. Completely unfair.

This doesn't mean fighters from then are worse than now, though. It's just that you should not be comparing them to fighters now as far as head to head matchups, you can only justifiably compare them as far as what they accomplished.

Yes but, there is as always two sides to every story. Pre 20's had to fight 25 rounds + so they will have a lot better stamina and will be much tougher.

[Tiozzo]

Really, people should think of it this way.

70s-presently: All comparisons head to head are completely fair. Athletes then compared to now are not that far off.

50s-60s: There are some fighters you can compare to present day fighters, but you are reaching a point where modern fighters will mostly have too much an athletic edge.

20s-40s: Comparisons reach a point where they aren't that fair. We're talking 60-80 years of human evolution here, people are just naturally bigger, faster and stronger.

Pre-20s: Just stop it. Completely unfair.

This doesn't mean fighters from then are worse than now, though. It's just that you should not be comparing them to fighters now as far as head to head matchups, you can only justifiably compare them as far as what they accomplished.

you didn't get it did you ?

[Tiozzo]

I agree with some of it, but you can see a definite improvement when you compare a large time gap. Like the 20's to the 70's and on.

I think some people (i used to) used it too drastically and make 10 years seem like 100.

Looking at the olympics, if there is any improvement it is very, very small improvements over time. So compare bolt to someone from the 40's...then yes you will have a decent level of improvement.

Compare Jack Johnson to Muhammed Ali, and then you can see the same thing in boxing.

I'm not convinced by your example

you're talking about what, athleticism, skills, or both ?

Jack Johnson had actually a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better defense then Ali. Most people rank Johnson in the top 3 AT, with many Golden age fighters BEHIND him. Please develop as I don't see how your point is valid as displayed here

[BennyST]

Really, people should think of it this way.

70s-presently: All comparisons head to head are completely fair. Athletes then compared to now are not that far off.

50s-60s: There are some fighters you can compare to present day fighters, but you are reaching a point where modern fighters will mostly have too much an athletic edge.

20s-40s: Comparisons reach a point where they aren't that fair. We're talking 60-80 years of human evolution here, people are just naturally bigger, faster and stronger.

Pre-20s: Just stop it. Completely unfair.

This doesn't mean fighters from then are worse than now, though. It's just that you should not be comparing them to fighters now as far as head to head matchups, you can only justifiably compare them as far as what they accomplished.

This is a view I just find strange and it's the big one when it comes to this debate usually. It's become all about athleticism today. Fighters back then couldn't compete with the athleticism of today's champions.

The champs of today like the Klitschko's and Haye at HW, Marco Huck, Steve Cunningham, Wlodarcyk at CW, Shumenov, Pascal, Cloud at LHW, Ward, Stieglitz, Bute, Froch, Abraham at SMW, Martinez, Pavlik, Pirog, Williams at MW, Cotto, Margarito, Santos, Foreman at JMW, Pac, Mayweather, Berto, Senchenko, javeck at WW, Bradley, Maidana, Kotelnik, Khan at JWW, Marquez, Soto, Katsidis at LW, Uchiyama, Solis, Fana at JLW, Lopez, Marquez, Gamboa, Rojas, John, at Fw, Caballero, Nishioka at JFW, Montiel, Perez at BW, Segura at FW etc etc, are just way too athletic compared to the champs of the 60's like Floyd Patterson, Liston and Ali at HW, Moore, Johnson, Charles at LHW, Griffith, Benvenuti, Robinson, Giardello at MW, Gavilan, Basilio, Cokes, Rodriguez, Griffith at WW, Carlos Hernandez, Nicolino Loche at 140, Joe Brown, Ismael Laguna, Carlos Ortiz at LW, Flash Elorde, Yoshiaki Numata and Hiroshi Kobayashi at JLW, Davey Moore, Vincente Saldivar and Johnny Famechon at FW, Eder Jofre, Fighting Harada and Lionel Rose at BW, Pascual Perez, Fighting Harada, Pone Kingpetch,Hiroyuki Ebihara at FW.

I don't know about you, but I don't see the slightest difference in athleticism and would in fact say the opposite nearly apart from the few like Mayweather, Pac, Jones...there is absolutely no difference whatsoever or if anything, those earlier were quicker, sharper, more stamina, more elusive overall. They were also just better fighters. Putting them all up head to head I would bet nearly every time on the guys from the 60's.

[GJC]

I'm of the opinion that great now would be great back in the day and vice versa.
There do seem to be a fair few myths about the current HW division that we have bred a group of Eastern European supermen who are re-inventing the wheel and have changed the face of HW boxing. Some of the myths are as follows:

1) They are too big for older HWs to handle.

Big HWs are not unique we've always had them and at times when the division has been weak they have come to the fore e.g. Willard and Carnera. The old adage also follows a bad big un will beat a bad little un. The fact that a Toney who has eat his way out of 3 divisions was competitive at heavy until recently must tell us something.

2) Boxing is more global

There are more different nations competing at the top of the HW divisions but again I put this down to a dearth of talent in America than any discovery of a hidden pool of talent. Olympic boxing isn't reflecting this wave of new eastern european talent but it is reflecting the dearth of talent coming from America.

3) Further to point 2 is that the worlds population is bigger so more people are boxing so America isn't getting all their own way.

This is a beauty of misinterpretation of facts. To look at a snapshot of the worlds population yes it has doubled since 1960. It was a little over 3 billion back then and it is now nearly 7 billion but the increase has been in 3rd world countries, in Eastern Europe their population has gone up less than in the U.S.A. In those boxing power houses like China (up from 650 million to 1.35 billion) India (430 million to 1.2 billion) and africa (up from 277b million to a billion) have accounted for the bulk of this population increase.

But what is a fact is that in America less people are boxing, I read recently that 20 years ago there was over 150 boxing clubs in New York now there are less than 10. That is twenty years ago I would love to hear how many boxing clubs there were in the 50s or 20s.

Anyhow a few jumbled thoughts hopefully exploding a few myths.

[StarshipTrooper]

I'm of the opinion that great now would be great back in the day and vice versa.
There do seem to be a fair few myths about the current HW division that we have bred a group of Eastern European supermen who are re-inventing the wheel and have changed the face of HW boxing. Some of the myths are as follows:

1) They are too big for older HWs to handle.

Big HWs are not unique we've always had them and at times when the division has been weak they have come to the fore e.g. Willard and Carnera. The old adage also follows a bad big un will beat a bad little un. The fact that a Toney who has eat his way out of 3 divisions was competitive at heavy until recently must tell us something.

2) Boxing is more global

There are more different nations competing at the top of the HW divisions but again I put this down to a dearth of talent in America than any discovery of a hidden pool of talent. Olympic boxing isn't reflecting this wave of new eastern european talent but it is reflecting the dearth of talent coming from America.

3) Further to point 2 is that the worlds population is bigger so more people are boxing so America isn't getting all their own way.

This is a beauty of misinterpretation of facts. To look at a snapshot of the worlds population yes it has doubled since 1960. It was a little over 3 billion back then and it is now nearly 7 billion but the increase has been in 3rd world countries, in Eastern Europe their population has gone up less than in the U.S.A. In those boxing power houses like China (up from 650 million to 1.35 billion) India (430 million to 1.2 billion) and africa (up from 277b million to a billion) have accounted for the bulk of this population increase.

But what is a fact is that in America less people are boxing, I read recently that 20 years ago there was over 150 boxing clubs in New York now there are less than 10. That is twenty years ago I would love to hear how many boxing clubs there were in the 50s or 20s.

Anyhow a few jumbled thoughts hopefully exploding a few myths.

Grade-A post GJC! :allhail9:

Poet