Todays athletes aren't always better

[Cardinal Buck]

^^^^^^This is what it's all about.

Where is the evidence that Lacy ever was a better athlete? Definitely a better body builder, but very little to conclude that he was a better athlete. Calzaghe was an exceptional athlete with exceptional speed, coordination, and cardio. Calzaghe's style of fighting was athletic. I think he plays soccer well too. Am I going too far when I say the Lacy/Calzaghe comparison might be based on racial preconceptions?

[New England]

Where is the evidence that Lacy ever was a better athlete? Definitely a better body builder, but very little to conclude that he was a better athlete. Calzaghe was an exceptional athlete with exceptional speed, coordination, and cardio. Calzaghe's style of fighting was athletic. I think he plays soccer well too. Am I going too far when I say the Lacy/Calzaghe comparison might be based on racial preconceptions?

lacy definitely wasn't a terrific all around athlete. he looked the part, but that's really where it ended. he had a hard left hook, but a big left hook does not a great athlete make. they're not bodybuilders, after all.


i don't think it's going over the line to attribute the perception of lacy's athletic quality to his race. people associate black americans in boxing with slickness, athleticism, and movement. it's not entirely inappropriate / off base that they might think that way, as most of the great american athletes and boxers are black, but the one (blackness,) certainly doesn't cause the other (athleticism / slickness.)


i also think calzaghe's athleticism goes overrated. he was fast, but what other gifts did he bring? power is a gift that you don't teach, and he just didn't have it. his bones and muscles were evidently not suited for power punching. little baby hands, small shoulders. he had a very good chin, and he was a southpaw. those are huge gifts in boxing, but they're not really "athletic" gifts in the conventional sense. your gas tank is somewhat inherited, as the character of your muscles are something with which you are born, but it's mostly a product of how you train, and how you pace yourself.

i'd characterize calzaghe as more of an "unconventional / unorthodox athlete." he threw a ton of awkward punches with speed from the southpaw, with a highly unconventional rhythm. it was a unique style, and a tough nut to crack. i think that's what afforded him success, not simply his speed.

[Cardinal Buck]

he also had great reflexes and footspeed. His cardio was pretty much unheard of though.

[RubenSonny]

lacy definitely wasn't a terrific all around athlete. he looked the part, but that's really where it ended. he had a hard left hook, but a big left hook does not a great athlete make. they're not bodybuilders, after all.


i don't think it's going over the line to attribute the perception of lacy's athletic quality to his race. people associate black americans in boxing with slickness, athleticism, and movement. it's not entirely inappropriate / off base that they might think that way, as most of the great american athletes and boxers are black, but the one (blackness,) certainly doesn't cause the other (athleticism / slickness.)


i also think calzaghe's athleticism goes overrated. he was fast, but what other gifts did he bring? power is a gift that you don't teach, and he just didn't have it. his bones and muscles were evidently not suited for power punching. little baby hands, small shoulders. he had a very good chin, and he was a southpaw. those are huge gifts in boxing, but they're not really "athletic" gifts in the conventional sense. your gas tank is somewhat inherited, as the character of your muscles are something with which you are born, but it's mostly a product of how you train, and how you pace yourself.

i'd characterize calzaghe as more of an "unconventional / unorthodox athlete." he threw a ton of awkward punches with speed from the southpaw, with a highly unconventional rhythm. it was a unique style, and a tough nut to crack. i think that's what afforded him success, not simply his speed.

This is one of his most overrated 'assets' actually, he got dropped by Salem, Mitchell, Hopkins and Jones. He didn't have a weak chin but certainly not 'very good', it was passable against his so so competition.

[Suckmedry]

If the world population grows then surely it is highly probably that the average (median) person going into boxing is likely to be of a higher standard than the average (median) boxer in a previous era where the world population was smaller. In light of that a decrease in the total number of athletes/boxers at any given time need not produce less quality.

It is even questionable whether the total numbers of boxers in the world has decreased since say the 1930s or 40s, it might have but nobody seems to have any actual data to show that this is actually the case. It is plausible that it might be the case, it is likely that it is the case for the US but with the growth of boxing in other countries around the world since the 1950s it is not clear that the total number of boxers actually has decreased.

The argument that the higher numbers in the sport increases the quality is very dubious anyway. The majority of boxers today, just like yesterday, and the day before, etc were what you might kindly refer to as journeymen. For sure elite boxers have their development improved somewhat from fighting journeymen but not greatly. Willie Pep fought 241 fights, a kind estimate would suggest that about 160-170 of them were against journeymen of various poor quality, the idea that it was fighting all these guys that made Pep very good stretches credibility.

In developing skills in the ring you do not want the adrenaline and the intensity of a real fight the majority of the time and i'd conjecture, despite common claims to the contrary, that good sparring, of either the intense or non-intense variety, against good quality opponents is of far greater value than fighting journeymen every week or two under professional conditions. Not to mention the damage fighting so often can do to the brains of boxers, few have been able to survive that for any great length of time without CTE setting in fairly early into their careers and thus diminishing their boxing abilities. If you have an extensive amateur background you can have every bit of the composure that fighters with many professional fights have. Indeed amateur boxing seems to me to be better than having all these professional fights because the damage sustained is reduced by only have very short fights plus the emphasise upon skilfully scoring points rather than going out there to beat each other to a pulp.

Lacy the better athlete than Calzaghe? Highly dubious, Calzaghe had great levels of stamina for a 168 pounder, in fact he had very high levels of stamina in general. Calzaghe seemed stronger than Lacy in the clinches although that may have been because of Calzaghe's superior balance, which in itself is an important element of athleticism. Calzaghe also seemed to punch faster and move faster. Definitely far from clear that Lacy was the better athlete than Calzaghe. You picked a poor example to make your case.

Bro, havw you ever boxed? maybe thats why you dont get it. I got to the part where you made assumptions (maybe not incorrect, i dont know enough about his record to say for sure) about Willie Pep having the majority of his bouts against journeyman, and not being better for it.

NOTHING beats fighting in the ring in boxing. absolutely nothing. sure talent can beat experience sometimes, but when the talented fighters get that kind of experience thats when they become truly great.

The ins and outs of boxing that cant be properly explained can only be learned by fighting in the ring. No other way. A guy like Pep or SRR with 100-200 fights is going to be so relaxed and poised in there, they see things even other good experienced fighters dont/ wont.

edit: laughed my ass off reading the bold. you dont know **** about boxing man. how the fck else are you gonna develop those skills for use in high pressure situations without the adrenaline there? You learn the most in the ring dude, training in the gym, sparring, praticing skills there is important but at the end of the day your learning curve is up there on the big stage, thats where you work on stuff and develop your craft.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

This is one of his most overrated 'assets' actually, he got dropped by Salem, Mitchell, Hopkins and Jones. He didn't have a weak chin but certainly not 'very good', it was passable against his so so competition.

Joe's chin was pretty good,,, he was just one of those guys that got knocked down early in fights, usually with the first hard shot. Other great fighter had this same tendency like tito trinidad for example.

You dont go like 46-0 and have 20 title defenses, unify a division, and are a 2 division lineal champ at 168 and 175, without having a decent chin.

[A_Jeffrey]

A common arguement for those who believe that the boxing greats of the past would be enable to compete with their counterparts of today is that athletes have evolved beyond comparison due to modern nutrition and sports science and the like. I don't believe this is quite true though.

Yes in events that reward pure strength or pure speed, such as weightlifting and sprinting the records of the past bear no comparison to the records of today. Today's athletes are stronger and faster. But if you look at athletic events that rely on technique as well as power or speed the records do not fall as quickly, there is not such a chasm between todays records and previous records.

Jesse Owens was an all-time great Olympian. His times in the 100 metres sprint, an event based on pure speed, are laughable when compared to the top sprinters today. His world record from 1936 of 10.2 would not have seen him anywhere near qualifying for the Olympic final this year in London. But in the long jump, a technical event which rewards speed only when applied with good technique the world record Jesse Owens set in 1935 of 8.13 would actually have enabled Owens to have medalled in London. This years Olympic bronze medallist Will Claye of USA jumped 8.12 metres. Britains gold medal winner Greg Rutherford jumped 8.31, a distance that could have been bettered by long jumpers of the 1960's. In fact the long jump world record has not progressed since Mike Powell jumped 8.95 in 1991 and the Olympic record has not progressed since Bob Beamon jumped 8.90 metres in 1968. That jump from Beamon was a world record for 23 years.

It's not just the long jump. In other technical disciplines world records often go many years without being broken. In the triple jump Jonathan Edwards world record has stood for 12 years. Only 9 men have been able to better the distance of 17.89 that was first set by Brazilian Joao Carlos Oliveria 37 years ago. The high jump record has not been broken since 1993. The height jumped to win this years Olympics could have been bettered by high jumpers from the 1970's.

Boxing is a technical discipline. It is not always the quickest or the strongest that wins. It is about how you use your speed and how you use strength. If 1930's Jesse Owens is capable of beating most of todays long jumpers then I don't see why Benny Leonard would be incapable of beating todays lightweights. Or why Joe Louis would be unable to beat todays heavyweights.

Modern boxers are better in most cases then older Generation boxers.

First of all, there are a lot more boxers these days then in the beginning of 20th century. Back in a day there was a limited number of countries like America or Britain who were competing, and now the whole world participates. Sweden, Philipines, Russia, Germany, Ukraine, China and even countries like Uzbekistan have pro fighters. There are even Cubans in pro ranks. So talent pool is larger by far. Boxing is not just an American and British sport, it's global sport now. There's a boxer from small village in Siberia in the ranks) this person would never be able to go pro 100 years ago. Even 30 years ago.

Lennox Lewis would go through Dempseys, Marcianos, Jack Johnsons in a couple of rounds without breaking a sweat. There is a reason why there are weigh-classes in boxing and modern 6 foot 5 + boxers are just larger and stronger and have a pretty good skill set as well.

Second, vintage soccer players look good on tape, but nobody argues that 1970s team would beat modern Barcelona or Real Madrid. Modern players are way more physical. They would rip old teams apart and same would be with boxing.

Third, steroids. They all take them. They didn't even have them before 1950s, and had crappy ones shortly after. Don't deny this, go to any gym and there are even guys who train once or twice a week and openly shot roids in locker rooms.

Forth, way better nutrition. Multi vitamins, supplements etc..

Fifth, training techniques improved, boxing is way more competitive these days and there's more money in it. Even Dana White is trying to get into boxing now believe it or not.

Six, people are generally bigger and stronger, in the begging of 20th century average person lived for only 45 years. Now, you're still young at that age. There's a champion who is 49(?)

Seventh, most old time boxers do look like crap on tape. Not all of them but lot's of them. They just don't look that physical. Hard to believe that Marciano would have a chance vs Tyson or Luis vs Lewis.

[Ben Bolt]

Modern boxers are better in most cases then older Generation boxers.

First of all, there are a lot more boxers these days then in the beginning of 20th century. Back in a day there was a limited number of countries like America or Britain who were competing, and now the whole world participates. Sweden, Philipines, Russia, Germany, Ukraine, China and even countries like Uzbekistan have pro fighters. There are even Cubans in pro ranks. So talent pool is larger by far. Boxing is not just an American and British sport, it's global sport now. There's a boxer from small village in Siberia in the ranks) this person would never be able to go pro 100 years ago. Even 30 years ago.

Lennox Lewis would go through Dempseys, Marcianos, Jack Johnsons in a couple of rounds without breaking a sweat. There is a reason why there are weigh-classes in boxing and modern 6 foot 5 + boxers are just larger and stronger and have a pretty good skill set as well.

Second, vintage soccer players look good on tape, but nobody argues that 1970s team would beat modern Barcelona or Real Madrid. Modern players are way more physical. They would rip old teams apart and same would be with boxing.

Third, steroids. They all take them. They didn't even have them before 1950s, and had crappy ones shortly after. Don't deny this, go to any gym and there are even guys who train once or twice a week and openly shot roids in locker rooms.

Forth, way better nutrition. Multi vitamins, supplements etc..

Fifth, training techniques improved, boxing is way more competitive these days and there's more money in it. Even Dana White is trying to get into boxing now believe it or not.

Six, people are generally bigger and stronger, in the begging of 20th century average person lived for only 45 years. Now, you're still young at that age. There's a champion who is 49(?)

Seventh, most old time boxers do look like crap on tape. Not all of them but lot's of them. They just don't look that physical. Hard to believe that Marciano would have a chance vs Tyson or Luis vs Lewis.

I agree with most of this. But also, we are born with natural gifts. What if, for ex., a natural gifted one as Sam Langford had had the opportunity to benefit from today's knowledge of nutrition or training standards.
Would he have coped in this century too? Well, I'm pretty sure he would.

[Ben Bolt]

most old time boxers do look like crap on tape.

However, disagree. They don't!

[Bundana]

I agree with most of this. But also, we are born with natural gifts. What if, for ex., a natural gifted one as Sam Langford had had the opportunity to benefit from today's knowledge of nutrition or training standards.
Would he have coped in this century too? Well, I'm pretty sure he would.

I'm pretty sure he would too. As I'm sure all the old-timers would. I mean, if those same men who boxed in the beginning of the 20th century had been born 100 years later, thus benefitting from the knowledge, training and nutrition we have now... I would expect them, on the average, to do just as well as the fighters of today. No better and no worse - unless you believe, boxers from 100 years ago were genetically different. Which I don't think they were.