Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[The Old LefHook]

Is there some good reason I should believe that record keeping in the old days was as efficient as it is now? I know what the inventions were that improved record keeping so dramtically. I am still waiting for the answer to what improved boxers to a comparable extent.

[Anthony342]

So if today's era is better, then one would want us to believe that Wilder, Fury and Wlad are better than Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson or better than Ali, Frazier, Norton? If that's what you guys are trying to sell me, I'm not buying.

[BattlingNelson]

Fighters of past eras were up against better competition and fought way more often. They employed all of the nuances of boxing that we don't see as much of today. The current era of fighters just don't fight often enough to measure them against the ATGs of past generations. Today champions fight twice per year. Robinson and LaMotta fought one another twice in one month. How do you compare Robinson and Moore's 200 fights to 40 or 50 fights of today's boxers?

Fighters have natural gifts. But to make the most of those skills (as in any vocation) you need repetition to become better. Wouldn't it stand to reason that fighters who fought more often were better at their craft?

I dont jniw if they where up against better opposition, but without having a real statistic, I would agree that fighters on the average fought more often than they do now.

So basically that is saying that real combat is better than training. Yep. That sounds fair to me. But does that mean that fighters who fought often are better? If so we have to go way back to find the best era. Way further than the 50s I would think.

[BattlingNelson]

Exactly. These guys explained it better than I probably could. All I could add is if today is better, then how come most people say the 70s and 90s where the strongest decades for the heavyweights? It's basically a quality over quantity thing here. More boxers today, but ones that don't use the great old techniques, as they mostly stopped being passed down.

Oh but I recall a thread in here dissecting the game of the old master Joe Gans. He had some techniques that isnt used today and to my knowledge wasnt used in the 70s either.

[BattlingNelson]

So if today's era is better, then one would want us to believe that Wilder, Fury and Wlad are better than Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson or better than Ali, Frazier, Norton? If that's what you guys are trying to sell me, I'm not buying.

It is not what is being sold at all. Of course you can have special crops from time to time. Its all meant in a general sense. The argument is that the more competition you have, the greater you perform. As in real business life.

[BattlingNelson]

Is there some good reason I should believe that record keeping in the old days was as efficient as it is now? I know what the inventions were that improved record keeping so dramtically. I am still waiting for the answer to what improved boxers to a comparable extent.

I have made that argument as well. Surely boxrec isnt complete. However the gap is still so huge.

[JAB5239]

I dont jniw if they where up against better opposition, but without having a real statistic, I would agree that fighters on the average fought more often than they do now.

So basically that is saying that real combat is better than training. Yep. That sounds fair to me. But does that mean that fighters who fought often are better? If so we have to go way back to find the best era. Way further than the 50s I would think.

I think there is great talent in every era. To me though it's how you master that talent. I'm of the opinion fighting more often is the best way to succeed at this. Boxing is pretty basic. If you do things over and over, against solid fighters you are going to be a better fighter than if you only do it two or three times a year. There are always exceptions though in any era.

[The Old LefHook]

So if today's era is better, then one would want us to believe that Wilder, Fury and Wlad are better than Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson or better than Ali, Frazier, Norton? If that's what you guys are trying to sell me, I'm not buying.

Remember, Tony, the argument is impure concerning heavyweights. The discussion is specifically not about heavyweights IMO, for 187 lbs. men do not compare well to 246 lbs. men at all, we know in general.

[The Old LefHook]

I have made that argument as well. Surely boxrec isnt complete. However the gap is still so huge.

I would expect very poor record keeping during the Great Depression, for instance. At the highest levels, meticulous records were surely kept. But I can see them being almost non-existent for the club levels, and there were boxing clubs in every American town of any size up until the early 1960's.

Many a youngster lied about his age and was allowed to fight. Everyone was desperate for a buck, the promoters could overlook about anything if it made a buck. Many an underage farm swain lied to his upright parents and had some fights in the ring for the cash.

Another idea to consider is this: all who register to fight do not have a meaningful number of fights. But this, to me, would seem equally likely in either era.

Besides the more frequent combat schedule, I favor the oldtimers for the depth of trainers working during the 1930's through the 1950's and into the 60's.

[StarshipTrooper]

Sigh......