Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[MikeyMike100]

They have

[mrbig1]

SRR had an iron chin, and an iron will. That's very hard to overcome. Being a skillful fighter doesn't hurt either.

[The D3vil]

You're right - the time where some top boxers retired with 200 pro bouts under their belt is long gone, and will never be back.

Personally, I don't really care how many fights a boxer has! Two of today's top P4P boxers, Usyk and Inoue, have so far had 20 and 23 pro fights, respectively. Would they be even better, if they had doubled those numbers, by taking a lot of meaningless "stay busy" fights in between the important ones? I doubt it!

I disagree.

Doing everything more will make you better . . . .up to a point.

There's just no way that LeBron James would be as good of a player if the NBA only played 10 or 20 games a year as he is in playing 82 per year.

So, yes, Usyk & Loma & Inoue are the best of TODAY, an era where nobody after Canelo will probably get to 50 fights.

Would they have been 50-60 years ago in their weight classes?

I'm not so sure.

I don't necessarily think that Inoue beats Eder Jofre in a 15 round fight

I don't think that the Usyk who strugged with Derek Chisora & Chazz Witherspoon would just run through Muhammad Ali or Joe Frazier who were honed with 15 round wars.

[Willow The Wisp]

Might have stuck my opinions into this long winded tread already a time or two. This time I'll ANSWER the question that was originally posed, though I doubt that the right answer will put it out of it's misery:

Q:
Why with modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment etc. have modern/today's fighters not evolved to be greater fighters/boxer than Sugar Ray Robinson?

A:
For the EXACT same reason that modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment etc have failed to produce greater Marble Sculptors in the past 70 years than those that lived prior:

1. Because it is an ancient art that 70 years does nothing to.

2. Because there aren't more people doing it or more schools teaching it today than there were 70 years ago.

3. Because modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment do absolutely nothing to improve it in a way that has ever been clinicaly demonstrated. Nothing.




Will the correct answer having now been supplied stop people from having their own thoughts about this, or anything else? No. ...And that is the reason that the firm rule of law is a nessisary component to a sustainable society. (Wisdom bonus).

[Bundana]

Might have stuck my opinions into this long winded tread already a time or two. This time I'll ANSWER the question that was originally posed, though I doubt that the right answer will put it out of it's misery:

Q:
Why with modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment etc. have modern/today's fighters not evolved to be greater fighters/boxer than Sugar Ray Robinson?

A:
For the EXACT same reason that modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment etc have failed to produce greater Marble Sculptors in the past 70 years than those that lived prior:

1. Because it is an ancient art that 70 years does nothing to.

2. Because there aren't more people doing it or more schools teaching it today than there were 70 years ago.

3. Because modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment do absolutely nothing to improve it in a way that has ever been clinicaly demonstrated. Nothing.




Will the correct answer having now been supplied stop people from having their own thoughts about this, or anything else? No. ...And that is the reason that the firm rule of law is a nessisary component to a sustainable society. (Wisdom bonus).

I fully agree with 1. and 3.

I also agree, that in the last 70 years no one has surpassed Robinson - for the simple reason, that he was probably a once in a lifetime, or once in a century, talent!

[them_apples]

I'm not sure, what you mean by this?

For the umpteenh time: There's no proof of any correlation between "tougher times" and harder fights. In your never-ending quest to put down modern boxing, I can understand, why you would say this - but just because you wish it to be so, doesn't mean it is!

Have you ever studied boxing records from back in the "Golden Age"? If you have... haven't you wondered, why there are so many fights, where the boxers refuse to engage, resulting in both men being booted by the referee? Doesn't really sound like tough boxers, molded by hard times, willing to give their all. It sounds more like men, who tried to get through their fights with as little effort as possible. And as I'm sure you must have noticed - there were hundreds and hundreds of fights like that during the ND era!


Another thing: What about today's boxers who grew up in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Central- and South America... many of whom could very possibly have experienced hard times, comparable to the Americans during the depression years? Is there any evidence to suggest, that these modern boxers are softer and less courageous than the oldtimers?

well to answer this, Pacquiao would be one of those people plucked from hard times. It doesn’t happen as much though, even Tijuana is not the same Tijuana from the 60s. Its still dangerous, but in a different way. I used Tijuana as an example because it was a breeding ground for tough mexican fighters years back.

this still won’t replace an old boxing model that was created and accepted within “hard timesâ€ÂÂ�. Like others have said, we used to boo men who quit, shame those unwilling to fight on and even lead them to death through immense beatings. Dangerous sure, but the game was different back then and it bred gladiators.

you also mention fighters being broken up back in the say and scolded for not fighting, but this once again actually proves my point; they are being told they better fight or the event will be cancelled. That would. Never happen today. It would require absolute boredom for the commentating to even communicate any type of boredom whatsoever. Its always “masterpiece⠀ÂÂÂ�, “domination†ÂÂÂ� big buzz words to describe what more than not is a glorified sparring match.

this doesn’t account for everyone, and that should be around the board. Its just a generalization and perhaps a subtle one overall, as when 2 humans get in the ring and duke it out, its still just that; 2 humans duking it out along a neverending timeline

[Bundana]

well to answer this, Pacquiao would be one of those people plucked from hard times. It doesnÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt happen as much though, even Tijuana is not the same Tijuana from the 60s. Its still dangerous, but in a different way. I used Tijuana as an example because it was a breeding ground for tough mexican fighters years back.

this still wonÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt replace an old boxing model that was created and accepted within ÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂhard timesÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ. Like others have said, we used to boo men who quit, shame those unwilling to fight on and even lead them to death through immense beatings. Dangerous sure, but the game was different back then and it bred gladiators.

you also mention fighters being broken up back in the say and scolded for not fighting, but this once again actually proves my point; they are being told they better fight or the event will be cancelled. That would. Never happen today. It would require absolute boredom for the commentating to even communicate any type of boredom whatsoever. Its always ÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂmasterpieceÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ, ÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂdominationÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂàbig buzz words to describe what more than not is a glorified sparring match.

this doesnÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt account for everyone, and that should be around the board. Its just a generalization and perhaps a subtle one overall, as when 2 humans get in the ring and duke it out, its still just that; 2 humans duking it out along a neverending timeline

Your post looks very strange (is it only me?)... but I think, I'm able to make out, that you believe the many fighters who were thrown out for not making an effort in the old days, actually backs up your contention, that the game back then bred gladitators. Sure, why not!

How about the oldtimers meeting the same opponents over and over again... was that also instrumental in generating gladiators? Or could it be seen as an indication, that not all fights back in the day were super-serious... and that some may have been friendly matches between boxers, who were simply helping each other to make some money? What do you think?

[QueensburyRules]

Your post looks very strange (is it only me?)... but I think, I'm able to make out, that you believe the many fighters who were thrown out for not making an effort in the old days, actually backs up your contention, that the game back then bred gladitators. Sure, why not!

How about the oldtimers meeting the same opponents over and over again... was that also instrumental in generating gladiators? Or could it be seen as an indication, that not all fights back in the day were super-serious... and that some may have been friendly matches between boxers, who were simply helping each other to make some money? What do you think?

- - Depending on the stakes, ie Sam vs Joe for JJ French stripped hvy title, they could be serious, or Sam and Harry just put on an orchestration for the rubes in their 20+ fights.

Dunno what BS done to their software, but #1, we starting to get a lot of )(*)(&%&^*(_(.

[Willow The Wisp]

Your post looks very strange (is it only me?)... but I think, I'm able to make out, that you believe the many fighters who were thrown out for not making an effort in the old days, actually backs up your contention, that the game back then bred gladitators. Sure, why not!

How about the oldtimers meeting the same opponents over and over again... was that also instrumental in generating gladiators? Or could it be seen as an indication, that not all fights back in the day were super-serious... and that some may have been friendly matches between boxers, who were simply helping each other to make some money? What do you think?

His post looks redacted by the political correctness agency. There is some truth about a blood and guts performance being a choice for the right moment/opponent. But this was true both now and then in equal measure I contend. Non-fighters easily loose track of the fact that the majority of pro level fights under MOQ rules at full throttle against an evenly matched opponent is equivalent to a car wreck. The aggregate career damage takes 10-20 years off your life no matter how rugged you are. Its NOT a soccer game.

[them_apples]

His post looks redacted by the political correctness agency. There is some truth about a blood and guts performance being a choice for the right moment/opponent. But this was true both now and then in equal measure I contend. Non-fighters easily loose track of the fact that the majority of pro level fights under MOQ rules at full throttle against an evenly matched opponent is equivalent to a car wreck. The aggregate career damage takes 10-20 years off your life no matter how rugged you are. Its NOT a soccer game.

I'll admit you seem to know your boxing.

I totally agree though, made a similar post about it earlier, it was key fights in ones career that caused all the damage. In fact every seasoned pro fighter could tell you all the times they got really hurt, and would be recovering for weeks sometimes. or forever.