Agree or disagree, as time goes by the fighters become more and more effective?

[AlexKid]

Why do you agree or disagree?

Also by more effective I mean the more recent generation of boxers would whoop the boxers generations back?

I mean it has to be true to a certain extent, because I cant see James J Corbett beating Lennox Lewis if they were to fight.

Discuss

[mickey malone]

Most of todays fighters would be found out, if they went back in time..Be interesting to see how they'd cope with 10+ fights a year..
With regard to heavyweight, the fighters have got bigger, but that's all.

[Ivansmamma]

Boxing was much more popular a few decades back, attracting more athletes which should mean the competition was harder.

[klompton]

Boxing peaked around the 50s and 60s. I dont think the majority of fighters today would be competetive with the majority of fighters between the 1910s and 1960s.

[violaandme]

While it is not true in all weight classes all the time I think the overall talent level has dropped off also the willingness of top fighters to fight other top fighters has declined generally untill one fighter has declined in skills thus Making a lot more one sided fights and thus making the winners seem more effective
I also see less rounded fighters these days and overall less skilled the age of the boxer has all but past for now and those who do have a wide skill set generally dominate but the amount of swingers full force swingers is way up and they often get exposed by the great boxers of today but without good chins the boxer of today are always at risk of the one punch KO
but I think most fighters of today would get picked apart by the great and even the good fighters of yesteryear the greats of today would still fare well were they fighting the olden greats but in general the older fighters would hold their own and even win against all but the very best of today and even the greats of today would be nomore than even with the greats of old the punchers and brawlers of today would not do so well against the fighters of old
I think that some old some new and even some intermediate years (70's&80's) would do well there is no best era they all have their greats who would dominate most

[violaandme]

Boxing peaked around the 50s and 60s. I dont think the majority of fighters today would be competetive with the majority of fighters between the 1910s and 1960s.

I think there was a wide era of great times for boxing and there are times any weight class had been down but for the most part 1940's-early 1990's would be the best years and there has been an overall decline since some weights sooner some later than others

[Tommo1]

There is clear continuity except for a few circumstances where it is broken.

Joe Louis would have smashed Dempsey but I don't think a prime Louis would be beaten by Walcott, Charles or Marciano, not until Liston because war times contributed to exceptionally weak eras. I think Ali and Foreman would beat up a prime Liston but Liston might be able to crack Frazier and Norton because they were weak.

I think Larry Holmes could beat a prime Ali but maybe it would be other way around but even if Ali could beat Holmes I think Holmes would be more competitive against modern opponents.

Tyson smashes up all who came before him including Holmes and Ali with ease. Foreman might pose problems but I think Tyson would be too fast and accurate to be troubled by Foreman.

Enter Holyfield, Bowe and Louis and later on Haye, Vitali and Wladimir. All are recent and closely matched and I have them like this...

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Wladimir Klitschko
3. Vitali Klitschko
4. Rid**** Bowe
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Mike Tyson
7. David Haye

Although I like Lewis there's considerable argument whether hwe could beat Wladimir.

Anyway size, skills, athleticism and power all progress. Each generation takes what was achieved previously and builds upon it.

Boxing is bigger today than ever before. It is a global and professional sport now.

In the past it was mainly an American backyard contest where the athletes were professionals in the sense they got paid to fight but THEY WERE NOT PROFESSIONALS in the sense that we consider sportsmen today!

Pre 1970 I see no fighter who could compete at modern HW and pre 1950 I see no fighter who could compete with any modern boxer. (HW seeing more striking progress because the boxers are not weight limited!)

All of this is backed up completely by converging forms of evidence and is undeniable. There is also not a single shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

It's a tough pill to swallow, especially for Americans who are the ones at most put down by it but it's true...

Across the sea of time, yesterdays champions are tomorrows tomato cans!

[joseph5620]

Most of todays fighters would be found out, if they went back in time..Be interesting to see how they'd cope with 10+ fights a year..
With regard to heavyweight, the fighters have got bigger, but that's all.

Agreed. It would also be interesting to see fighters from today cope with 15 rounds and same day weigh ins.

[violaandme]

I had to come back to see tommo1's post I knew it would be here soon the thing I was wondering if he would bring up was overall weightclasses and we all know his opinion on The heavy weight class and I was wondering if it would spread over to the lower weight classes and it did only to a small extent there is no arguing his view on heavies so I won't go there because he is not budging besides my knowledge and interest wains around 154lbs or 168lbs but below that I have seen a definate decline in skills and even the heavies I have seen from the last 10 years or so the skillset is way down and that is undeniable his arguments of bigger is better I am skeptical but like I said my knowledge of the upper weight classes is limited so I will leave it as skeptical but the lower weights there is no comparison the fighters of yesterday and yesteryear would throttle any and almost all of today
I will stick to welters and 140's but you got Ortiz, JMM, Broner , Tim Bradley, Devon Alexander, Danny Garcia, Chris Van Heerdan,Lamont Peterson Mike Alvarado Rios ,Pac, Madiena, Matthysse Malinaggi and so on
even Mayweather
Hearns Leonard duran Meldrick Taylor Benetez Ike Quartey sweet pea JCC Marlon starling simon brown jose napoles Tito trinidad even down to Buddy Mcgirt Arron prior mark brealand and even Camacho you match them up round robin and there is no comparison and farther back Robinson come on with the exception of Mayweather who beats many of these guys there might be some stylistic mismatches in favor of todays fighters but for the most part its A$$ whoopin after A$$whoopin ***** I am not even going back to the 70's for the most part

[GeneralZod]

I would value the idea depending on the quality of the fighters involved.

I see it with the contenders generally getting better, but the champions and top fighters of the division remain usually debatable.

Like if we took the contenders of the time span of Tyson to Lewis, they would likely beat the contenders of say Johnson-Marciano. But i'd put each generation in different spots. Like Ali-Holmes could likely dominate today or the time span of the 90s to early 2000s.