Are Today’s Fighters Better Than The Great Fighters Of The Past?

[New England]

it depends how far back you go.

it's my opinion that boxing peaked between the 30's and the 70's, with a few outlying divisions staying stronger, later [WW, HW, LHW come to mind.]



the talent in boxing used to be several levels above what it is today. more kids boxed when they were young. that's what talent is.

a top 50 contender in the 50's could make good money fighting locally, and several times a year.

obviously there are great fighters today who could hang in any era.


would bernard hopkins in his prime lose to carmen basilio, bob fitzsimmons? of course not. he'd make them, especially fitzsimmons, look like amateurs.

[Mugwump]

Perhaps today's fighters enjoy greater benefits from scientific advances in nutrition, fitness, conditioning etc.

But judged purely in terms of skill set the last two fighting generations have been the worst I've seen in decades.

The best example I can offer is head movement. Now, I'm not claiming there was ever some Alice-in-Wonderland time when every fighter could dodge a punch like an expert. But there simply MUST be something wrong when I can watch an entire fight card and pick out several people who make Carl Froch look like Floyd Mayweather.

[Bundana]

I don't think boxing has made the same progress over the years, that we see in other sports. And here I'm talking about the last 70-80 years or so! I believe it took gloved boxing about half a century to develop into the sport we know today... and by the late 30's and early 40's, we had great boxers (Louis, Robinson, Pep), who were every bit as skillful as the best of today's boxers. I really don't see any major improvement in technique/skill since then.

If we go WAY back (pre-WW1).. yes, then today's boxers are better. MUCH better!

[greeh]

Today's welterweight division has way more strength in depth

Compared to what?

Champion - VACANT

1 - Floyd Mayweather
2 - Manny Pacquiao
3 - Timothy Bradley
4 - Juan Manuel Marquez
5 - Marcos Maidana
6 - Kell Brook
7 - Keith Thurman
8 - Shawn Porter
9 - Devon Alexander
10 - Amir Khan

That’s TBRB’s ranking. I guess there is a few more outside the Top 10 like Rios, Guerrero, Chaves and Alvarado, but they aren’t exactly top-class in my opinion, and after those it’s pretty thin. Some like to point out that Mayweather, Pacquiao and Marquez is in the division, but none of them is overly impressive at 147lbs and after them it's just a bit too much… meh.

Just my two cents though.

It is of course no contest...todays heavyweights are big...and I mean BIG. They are so big and strong that they are almost as big and strong as ButterBean! Nobody here is silly enough to believe anybody could beat the bean are they?

Ok Ok sept maybe that Chinese big big guy...whats his name? if he fought Butterbean it would be billed as the chop suey battle: The Chinese Long Bean versus the Michigan ButterBean. But chinese long beans are in fact vegetables while butter beans are legumes....oh dear....

Honestly, at first I thought “what the **** is he jabbering about”, but soon realized you might be onto something…

Clever, very clever indeed, b2.

Boxers get better and better through the years but most people have some national/ethnic/religious/blahblah agenda and of course, it's easier to worship a historical era when that group dominated than it is to kick a can on the modern sidelines.

What are they better at today than they were 40-50 years ago?

It's easier to take you seriously if you actually can put up some arguments for your thoughts.

I think the style of fighting today is more varied in the sense that footwork can make a BIG difference.

Firstly, how long is the time span you classify as “today”? Is it from the 80’s and forward, or simply just today, i.e. 2014?

Secondly, do you really think footwork played no major part in the past? If that’s the case, get a grip.

There also seems to be stronger guys nowadays. But that may be down to differences in technique.

Or maybe it’s because of the fact that there has never been as many weight-cutting cheats as it is today.

There are a lot of fighters that's almost twenty pounds over the weight-limit when the fight takes place for Christ sake!

Footwork has a huge place in that because fighters need to use footwork to get into the specific place to land a shot on the button.

So this wasn’t necessary before?

Did they crawl into the optimum position to land a punch pre-1980?

The best example for me is nunn vs kalamby. He quickly gets his foot outside the opponents front foot which let's him throw an accurate straight left to the chin.

So the best example available of this ”footwork evolution" is perhaps the most basic knowledge there is in how you’re supposed to fight an opponent with opposite stance?

I doubt the trainers of yesteryear weren’t aware of this.

But I would say that fighters in the 80s and 90s were some of the strongest around technically not just physically. A lot of them could box from the outside or fight on the inside.

The 80’s were a “Golden Era”, I agree. But honestly, wasn’t a large amount of fighters also capable of doing this in previous decades?

The one big difference in fighters nowadays is that they aren't as well conditioned. Even when they had just introduced 12 rounders fighters were better conditioned than fighters today.

I don't think there has ever been so many fighters with stamina issues that there is today - so I agree with you on that - but at the same time it's incredibly ironic that you say this.

You have all these people that proclaims how a strength & conditioning coach and modern nutrition has raised boxing to a level never been seen before, and is often used by the newer audience as the tie-breaker in why "modern" fighters are superior.

Hilarious!

All in all I'd say fighters are stronger and in some cases more technically proficient than fighters of day the 50s but they aren't as well conditioned.

In SOME cases - yes, I agree.

If I would make a general comparison I would say whilst today’s fighters tends to be very athletic, they usually don’t have much depth in their style or possess much - if any - ring-craft and isn’t as well-schooled as their predecessors.

That’s just my opinion though.

[billeau2]

The epiteme of all boxing was reached in Greece and later developed in Rome whereupon two opponents were shackled, left hand to left, the right hand of each fitted with a ****ed glove. The ring was cut off due to the shackles, the rounds cut down condsiderably due to an often inevitable fatality, and no ref could interfere.

We have since that time done our own modifications including cutting down the rounds, giving fighters bigger gloves, soon we will shackle them together gauranteeing a KO every fight!

[jas]

Compared to what?

Champion - VACANT

1 - Floyd Mayweather
2 - Manny Pacquiao
3 - Timothy Bradley
4 - Juan Manuel Marquez
5 - Marcos Maidana
6 - Kell Brook
7 - Keith Thurman
8 - Shawn Porter
9 - Devon Alexander
10 - Amir Khan

That***8217;s TBRB***8217;s ranking. I guess there is a few more outside the Top 10 like Rios, Guerrero, Chaves and Alvarado, but they aren***8217;t exactly top-class in my opinion, and after those it***8217;s pretty thin. Some like to point out that Mayweather, Pacquiao and Marquez is in the division, but none of them is overly impressive at 147lbs and after them it's just a bit too much***8230; meh.

Just my two cents though.

compare it to the past eras and you will find this era of welters has more strength in depth

[young_robbed]

in short, no. Aside from Mayweather nobody impresses me like, for example, prime Benitez does.

[Anthony342]

If conditioning continues to decrease, does that mean the maximum amount of rounds will someday be cut down again, maybe to 10 rounds?

[Juof]

The way I see it is this if I was a top fighter I'd have a better chance of winning a world title today than I would of in the past. But then again I could see some top fighters today who imo would destroy certain fighters of the past. Styles make fights!
Plus if there was same day weighins guys like maidana would be fighting at 164lbs and most likely be light heavyweights if there were 8 divisions. And tbh that wouldn't go well for those fighters who rely on a weight advantage to gain the upper hand.

[RubenSonny]

compare it to the past eras and you will find this era of welters has more strength in depth

Compared to what eras exactly? This certainly isn't one of the best welterweight eras, hell the 90's had a better welterweight division.