are old school fighters better than present day fighters??

[BennyST]

Boxing always has it's ups and downs, always will, present day fighters aren't really that different from ''old school'' boxers at all it's just that some era's are stronger then others.

This eras Bantam division is the best it has been in 30 - 40 years.
This eras Heavyweight division isn't as good as the 90s or 70s.
This eras Light Heavy division isn't as good as the early 80s.

Etc, Etc.

It's all swings and round abouts, the great boxers from each era would be great in most eras.

This sums it up perfectly. It has its ups and downs.

However, apart from the odd few, Mayweather, Pac, Ward, Hopkins, Donaire etc etc etc, I truly believe (not believe so much as know) that the general skill level has dropped off across the board.

It's got nothing to do with increased technology and improved scientific training methods ie peds but everything to do with the simple amount of numbers. The depth of fighters has decreased in such incredible numbers as to be utterly incomparable to eras dating from the 80s and before. I also believe that's why we've has a significant drop off in skill overall from the 90's to now as I believe that's the time period that it really started to hit.

Now, talk about science, nutrition and all the other BS you want, you can do it until the cows come home, but the fact is you only need to look at tape to see the overall skill difference. It has nothing to do with one guy making others look ****, because 1) even if one is amazing you can still see the apparent skill of the other despite getting outclassed and 2) no matter how good one fighter, in the best eras the depth of talent provided tests by other great fighters and another great fighter, and I mean great, will never be get outclassed to the point that he looks like a bum. It doesn't work that way.

The only reason some stick out so much more than others today is because of the lack of overall talent and depth of talent. If fighters were better than ever before, training was greater and more scientific etc, the level of competition would closer, not further apart. When one or two guys stick out so much it's because the overall talent is lacking. The drop from best to second best is a big indicator of overall talent and it's a huge drop today. That's significant.

The simple fact still comes down to one thing though: numbers. Boxing just doesn't have the numbers anymore to create greatness, the likes of which we have seen previously. There are lots of factors but this alone is the biggest.

[StarshipTrooper]

This sums it up perfectly. It has its ups and downs.

However, apart from the odd few, Mayweather, Pac, Ward, Hopkins, Donaire etc etc etc, I truly believe (not believe so much as know) that the general skill level has dropped off across the board.

It's got nothing to do with increased technology and improved scientific training methods ie peds but everything to do with the simple amount of numbers. The depth of fighters has decreased in such incredible numbers as to be utterly incomparable to eras dating from the 80s and before. I also believe that's why we've has a significant drop off in skill overall from the 90's to now as I believe that's the time period that it really started to hit.

Now, talk about science, nutrition and all the other BS you want, you can do it until the cows come home, but the fact is you only need to look at tape to see the overall skill difference. It has nothing to do with one guy making others look ****, because 1) even if one is amazing you can still see the apparent skill of the other despite getting outclassed and 2) no matter how good one fighter, in the best eras the depth of talent provided tests by other great fighters and another great fighter, and I mean great, will never be get outclassed to the point that he looks like a bum. It doesn't work that way.

The only reason some stick out so much more than others today is because of the lack of overall talent and depth of talent. If fighters were better than ever before, training was greater and more scientific etc, the level of competition would closer, not further apart. When one or two guys stick out so much it's because the overall talent is lacking. The drop from best to second best is a big indicator of overall talent and it's a huge drop today. That's significant.

The simple fact still comes down to one thing though: numbers. Boxing just doesn't have the numbers anymore to create greatness, the likes of which we have seen previously. There are lots of factors but this alone is the biggest.

"You must spread it around....." Awesome post Benny!

Poet

[BennyST]

Floyd Mayweather is arguably the best conditioned fighter in the world today.

What he does in training is literally nothing different from a fighter in the 1900's. Literally.

It really is funny how some guys go on and on and on and on about modern scientific training methods, supplements, special nutrition, combined knowledge (that in particular is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen) and a host of other ****e, but the fact is that boxing training hasn't changed at all since the middle of last century and even further back.

They do exactly the same today that fighters were doing in 1950. Exactly. They do the same amount, the same type, the same reps and length etc etc etc. A boxers training regime from the 60's is absolutely identical to a fighters from today. It comes down to overall talent through numbers which makes it harder to get to the top.

The combined knowledge one is the worst though. I remember someone bringing up Holyfield's quote of (I'm paraphrasing) "yes, today's fighters are. Today we have the combined knowledge of all the old greats and have learned to take the best parts from the old fighters and combine it into one".
Because Holyfield was a combination of Ali's speed, Moore's power, Charles' skill, Walcott's defense and Marciano's grit.

No matter what you think about training methods and all that ****e, boxing comes down to one thing above all. Heart and determination. Modern training methods, and the combined skill would, according to 'modern era' adherent, make all fighters today a combination of the best of the past. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable. There is no other sport on earth in which you have to compete while getting your face punched in. The best athletes on earth in other sports would rarely last or excel in boxing at all.

The same is true in the opposite way. Many of the greatest boxers ever would not have been great at other sports. Boxing is not run against the clock like most others, nor is it decided by skill alone (ie ping pong), speed alone (sprint), stamina alone (marathon), and a million other reasons.

People will often bring up the increased numbers and records of other sports as some bizarre kind of proof that boxing has also evolved. First, any Olympic tester will sadly tell you an unfortunate truth; that being that the current records are indicative of modern training methods....those methods being the ones that are injected into the muscle and/or bloodstream and have been so for a long, long, long time. Second, boxing, unlike nearly every other sport involves more than one major aspect of skill.

Sprinters will only succeed today if they are born with incredible fast twitch capacity. Marathon runners with slow twitch....it goes on. The diversity in championship boxing alone tells you immediately just how different the sport is and that is probably the single biggest part that these 'modern training technique' guys just can't seem to grasp.

The sport would only be run by the best athletes and it would be full of one type of fighter if that ere the case.

The biggest argument against it is very simple: explain why in sprinting the best is the fastest, in marathon running the best the guy with the most endurance, in ping pong the guy with the best hand-eye coordination....and it only ever goes like this.

In boxing, the best is never just the fastest, never just the strongest, never just the most skillful, never just the guy with great stamina.

If it were, explain how Ray Leonard got beat by a smaller, slower, less skillful, older Duran. Explain why ****rito became a world champion. Explain how Calderon, despite being faster and more skillful, got knocked out twice by a guy that wouldn't even rank on an athletic talent scale.

Explain how in any other sport on earth, you can win despite having a glass jaw through pure athletic talent, but in boxing you will get sparked before you ever even make it pro.

The biggest argument is very, very simple. It's not special training methods that determine the best boxer. That has been proven by simple logic in that time and time again, the slower, less skillful guy has beaten the more athletic, more 'modern trained' fighter, if you will, through determination and grit.



I am nearly 100% certain that in just about any other sport known to man, Harris would have beaten Maussa easily and without any strain. In boxing though, he lost. It has nothing at all to do with modern training methods, special science, modern nutrition, supplements and any other ****e.

Maussa was slower, less skillful, and I guarantee if tested by modern Olympic type methods, would have had worse sprint and mile distance times (ie aerobic and anaerobic capacity), less full body coordination, less upper and lower body strength, slower reflex times and any other host of modern scientific training apparatus tests and times. It wasn't that ****e that got him beat. It was someone slower, less coordinated, less skillful, being able to take getting punched in the face more and come back to punch him in the face back despite all that ****.

That's why boxing is so exciting. It's also why the saying 'Only in boxing'. Because that type of stuff doesn't happen in other sports.

Just think Juanma vs Mtagwa.

[IronDanHamza]

It really is funny how some guys go on and on and on and on about modern scientific training methods, supplements, special nutrition, combined knowledge (that in particular is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen) and a host of other ****e, but the fact is that boxing training hasn't changed at all since the middle of last century and even further back.

They do exactly the same today that fighters were doing in 1950. Exactly. They do the same amount, the same type, the same reps and length etc etc etc. A boxers training regime from the 60's is absolutely identical to a fighters from today. It comes down to overall talent through numbers which makes it harder to get to the top.

The combined knowledge one is the worst though. I remember someone bringing up Holyfield's quote of (I'm paraphrasing) "yes, today's fighters are. Today we have the combined knowledge of all the old greats and have learned to take the best parts from the old fighters and combine it into one".
Because Holyfield was a combination of Ali's speed, Moore's power, Charles' skill, Walcott's defense and Marciano's grit.

No matter what you think about training methods and all that ****e, boxing comes down to one thing above all. Heart and determination. Modern training methods, and the combined skill would, according to 'modern era' adherent, make all fighters today a combination of the best of the past. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable. There is no other sport on earth in which you have to compete while getting your face punched in. The best athletes on earth in other sports would rarely last or excel in boxing at all.

The same is true in the opposite way. Many of the greatest boxers ever would not have been great at other sports. Boxing is not run against the clock like most others, nor is it decided by skill alone (ie ping pong), speed alone (sprint), stamina alone (marathon), and a million other reasons.

People will often bring up the increased numbers and records of other sports as some bizarre kind of proof that boxing has also evolved. First, any Olympic tester will sadly tell you an unfortunate truth; that being that the current records are indicative of modern training methods....those methods being the ones that are injected into the muscle and/or bloodstream and have been so for a long, long, long time. Second, boxing, unlike nearly every other sport involves more than one major aspect of skill.

Sprinters will only succeed today if they are born with incredible fast twitch capacity. Marathon runners with slow twitch....it goes on. The diversity in championship boxing alone tells you immediately just how different the sport is and that is probably the single biggest part that these 'modern training technique' guys just can't seem to grasp.

The sport would only be run by the best athletes and it would be full of one type of fighter if that ere the case.

The biggest argument against it is very simple: explain why in sprinting the best is the fastest, in marathon running the best the guy with the most endurance, in ping pong the guy with the best hand-eye coordination....and it only ever goes like this.

In boxing, the best is never just the fastest, never just the strongest, never just the most skillful, never just the guy with great stamina.

If it were, explain how Ray Leonard got beat by a smaller, slower, less skillful, older Duran. Explain why ****rito became a world champion. Explain how Calderon, despite being faster and more skillful, got knocked out twice by a guy that wouldn't even rank on an athletic talent scale.

Explain how in any other sport on earth, you can win despite having a glass jaw through pure athletic talent, but in boxing you will get sparked before you ever even make it pro.

The biggest argument is very, very simple. It's not special training methods that determine the best boxer. That has been proven by simple logic in that time and time again, the slower, less skillful guy has beaten the more athletic, more 'modern trained' fighter, if you will, through determination and grit.

I've seen that argument used before, "The sport has evolved because they have past great to look on and take parts of their game"

It definitely holds more water than "Diet and training has evolved so as has the fighters". But still.

There is a lot of advanced training methods in recent years compared, but that doesn't make it better of more efficient. I've been in the Fitness industry to over 3 decades now and I've seen different style of training form in front of my very eyes.

But again, it doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

Take a guy like David Haye or Amir Khan who involve themselves in a lot of "advanced" or "modern" style training methods then compare their conditioning to a guy like Floyd Mayweather who trains no different from a guy in the 1950's and before that.

Floyd Mayweather is living proof that "New" training doesn't equal better training or more efficient training.

But this debate has gotten really tiresome to me. I really don't like squabbling over it.

The younger guys who have just finished their first year of University in Sports Science and are newly "Experts" to everything sports seem to have their minds made up No matter what's said, it's simply putting their finger in their ears and saying "Newer=better" over and over and over.

[jabsRstiff]

Benny.....

Your last two posts need to be published somewhere for all to see!

[SBleeder]

Floyd Mayweather is arguably the best conditioned fighter in the world today.

What he does in training is literally nothing different from a fighter in the 1900's. Literally.

LIAR!!! Fighters in the 1900s only had access to the single-balled double-end bag. Mayweather uses a Mexican style double-end bag.

Clearly this advancement in training equipment has caused fighters today to be far superior specimens than the ones of yesteryear.

[jabsRstiff]

What Benny said about diminished "numbers" is so true in the sport of boxing.

We all hope that there soon will be an American heavyweight who will light things back up. It's very unlikely to happen because even if a super talent with all the intangibles comes along he won't get the sparring or competition necessary for his gifts to grow. He may be 6'4" of ready to roll speed, power, and sharpness.....but what good will it do if he has no other quality heavyweights around to push him to a higher place?

[BennyST]

I mean conditioning in like a strength and conditioning sense. James Toney can go 12 rounds all day, doesn't mean he is conditioned he just spars alot. I get away with going long periods with not alot of road work because i spar alot, old timers sparred and fought alot more so they were able to do it, doesn't mean they were as strong and fast as people now a days.

Strength and conditioning, and nutrition have developed leaps and bounds since back then.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. No matter what else, if Toney can outlast a guy that is in what would be termed 'better condition' from a modern science perspective, he is in the better condition. There is absolutely no argument possible with that.

Sparring=boxing conditioning. This is one of the major things that a lot of pro-modern guys just seem to miss. They think of weights, gym, buffness, supplements etc only. It doesn't matter if you're faster and better conditioned in the gym. If you get tired against a guy who sparred more, but happens to be fat and or whatever, he is better conditioned than you....here's the caveat, for boxing.

That is the only thing that matters.

As for the whole size/strength thing. The biggest single factor in that comes down to weight and the weigh in. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are allowed to weigh in the day before a fight and then spend an entire day rehydrating and gaining back lost weight and resting, you are going to be bigger. People will often say "Look at how much bigger today's middleweights are than the old eras middleweights! PWn lamo", without realising that today's welterweights are able to weigh in, at fight time, because of a days delay what a previous eras middleweight had to weigh in at fight time.

It's not because of modern training that someone fighting today at 147 looks like a middleweight. It's because, more often than not, they are actually a middleweight. Previous areas middleweights fought weighing 160, not 170-180. What did Victor Ortiz weigh in unofficially against Mayweather? 164 right? He wouldn't have been able to fight as a middleweight in 1950. He would have had to fight at 175 technically. Victor Ortiz fighting Archie Moore?

I get that the overall methods (quality of gym gear, better shoes etc) have improved, but it hasn't improved the boxing. Sparring more=conditioning. Relaxation in the ring=conditioning. Toney can outlast younger, stronger, more 'conditioned' athletes because he has sparred more and is more relaxed in boxing. That means, for boxing purposes, he is better. That's all that matters. It's why yesteryears fighters were better conditioned overall than today's.

[jabsRstiff]

When Gatti was training to fight Baldomir he got himself some high end strength and conditioning guy who put him through all sorts of drills and routines that were designed to make him stronger, faster, and more explosive.

What happened? Despite all of that Gatti couldn't hurt the natural welter, couldn't muscle him around, and had trouble avoiding and absorbing Baldomir's return punches. I am certain Baldomir trained using long-time boxing training methods.

[jabsRstiff]

Take a marathon runner with no boxing experience and chuck him in with a below average fighter for some light sparring...

What is it that will make him gas before anything else? It won't be the pysical exertion. It won't be the punches he gets hit with. It will be fear, nerves, and tension. Those things will also make each punch he gets tagged with hurt all the more. This all goes back to what Benny pointed out......by boxing all the time fighters learn to relax. Training like the old-timers did is more rooted in actual boxing, and this will have fighters feeling more at home in the ring.