Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Bundana]

Still doesn't mean today's era is better overall.

No, we can't actually PROVE that, one way of the other.

But what du you think? Do you honestly feel, this era is inferior to, for example, the 50's, where boxing was still very much an American "thing"... as opposed to now, where it's spread out to all corners of the world?

Don't you think the fact, that almost all the former communist countries have now embraced pro boxing, has added significantly to the talent pool?

[ShoulderRoll]

But what du you think? Do you honestly feel, this era is inferior to, for example, the 50's, where boxing was still very much an American "thing"... as opposed to now, where it's spread out to all corners of the world?

By the 1950's the American boxing scene had developed several boxing styles with well thought out nuances and contingency plans, styles that you rarely see anymore today.

For example, Floyd's shoulder roll defense that he learned from his father who learned it from an old time trainer. Floyd used that relic from the past to completely dominate the current era.

To me that indicates that the level of boxing IQ and skill was much higher back then. Much of that knowledge has gradually been lost which makes the present time period inferior.

[BattlingNelson]

So what you are saying is, that boxing as a science peaked in the 50's with a low amount of fighters and fights and has since degressed even though there is now more fighters and fights than ever before?

I cannot think of any other cases in mankind where this phenomenon should exist. What can I say? Think of warfare or military conflicts. I mean if two nations go to war that would lead to them inventing 'better' weapons than if 50 nations went to war. That's not very likely.

If anybody has some case study that could back up shoulderrolls claim, then please share.

[GhostofDempsey]

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?

[Anthony342]

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.

[JAB5239]

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?

[ruedboy]

"The best heavyweight on the planet is playing in the NFL." I like that quote because it brings out the fact that good athletes, who might have boxed in earlier times, have more opportunities to go into other sports to earn a living.
Boxing has always been seen as a way out of poverty but now good athletes see opportunity in baseball, football and basketball.
Also life in the US is just physically easier, making kids more likely to choose less demanding sports than boxing.
Of course it's impossible to prove one era is superior to another but for me boxing in the US doesn't attract as many good athletes as it once did.
It's different in other countries but the US is still the big dog when it comes to boxing.

[Anthony342]

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 would say so. Plus ones that were more willing to more often fight the best possible opponents out there, rather than ones who just offer the most money or allow them to protect their record. Even ones still willing to fight the best are ducked or given low ball offers, like GGG or Kovalev.

[ShoulderRoll]

So what you are saying is, that boxing as a science peaked in the 50's with a low amount of fighters and fights and has since degressed even though there is now more fighters and fights than ever before?

Why is the shoulder roll defense practically a lost art? Most current fighters who attempt it fail miserably because they have no idea what that they're doing.

Or how about the peekaboo? Since there are now more fighters than ever before we should see a lot of improvements and evolution of Cus D'Amato's methods, right? So where are all the advanced, state of the art, new era peekaboo masters?

Or how about keeping the head off center in the fighting stance and using that as a false target to gain distance and time? That was common in the '40s and '50s but is all but extinct now. Did it suddenly become ineffective or has this generation of boxers simply lost the knowledge?

[The Old LefHook]

So what you are saying is, that boxing as a science peaked in the 50's with a low amount of fighters and fights and has since degressed even though there is now more fighters and fights than ever before?

I cannot think of any other cases in mankind where this phenomenon should exist. What can I say? Think of warfare or military conflicts. I mean if two nations go to war that would lead to them inventing 'better' weapons than if 50 nations went to war. That's not very likely.

If anybody has some case study that could back up shoulderrolls claim, then please share.

I understand your desperation as posts decline.

Medical knowledge would barely increase because more people decided they wanted to play doctor. They have to be serious practitioners and then go into research (become trainers). More general practitioners do not increase medical knowledge, they increase availablity of people playing doctor. If we have more fighters now I still maintain we do not have better fighters.

What these mysterious inventions are which have propelled moderns right on by the oldtimers, you have neglected to say. Are you talking about more vitamins in bread, son? Speak up! What are these newfangled techniques that are so superior? A squared up stance? Hardly superior.

I would just like for you to say, that is all. Finally, someone must come out and say what it is they think makes modern fighters so damned superior. If you say combination punching then you deserve a well placed combination yourself, as far as I am concerned.

On the other hand, only a blind churl would insist that moderns know as much about infighting as oldtimers. Only a foolish churl would insist that moderns are in as good a shape as oldtimers who had to go 15 rounds instead of a puny 12.

What a laugh! Weights and supplements have made them superior boxers to boys who were eating just fine. Modern trainers would do a much better job with Marciano, is that right?

Moderns have better shoes, don't they? The shoes must make all the difference.

But seriously. Yes, I want to know what they are doing so much better. Be specific, for flaccid generalities have become sickening.

I claim Ali and his generation for the oldtimers. You will not convince me that guys from 50+ years ago were moderns.

There is no modern doing things that an oldtimer would have never seen. Even Mayweather as the most advanced boxer in the world today uses no techniques Willie Pep did not show his opponents. That shoulder roll technique, as already pointed out, is an old technique, not something invented by moderns. The peekaboo technique, invented over 60 years ago, is another technique you cannot claim for the moderns.

Just point out to me how special the moderns are comparitively, and why. Do not waste time on heavyweights. The moderns are twice the size of the oldtimers. To be worthwile an analysis should concern boxers who weigh the same. Nothing can be gained by saying modrern heavyweigts beat oldtimers. That would be precisely equivalent to insisting modern middleweights beat old time featherweights.

Ready to receive your analysis.