Are modern fighters better?

[McGoorty]

The example of the 40s as the high point is a strange one though in some respects because of course the sport was affected quite significantly, especially in Europe, by the war for half the decade.



Well any comparison of post 1959 welterweight divisions should include the junior welterweight division too if comparing with the welterweight division pre 1959.



Surely that is counter-balanced by the increased influence of amateur boxing? If you are a talented young fighter, in the US and many other places, then you are going to be kept very busy training and fighting during your younger years in the amateur system.

I don't know where the high point was, the 40's were great and I like the 20's too but the older trainers and writers from then seem to pinpoint the 1910 -1920 decade as being the time where they thought the very greatest fighters resided. It's hard for us to know if this is true, our film quality of the 40's is so much better than from the first 2 decades obviously and that can influence our opinion. There are some films though like the Gans V Nelson, Wolgast v Nelson. McFarland films, Darcy's films and some others where the action is gobsmacking and the durability and toughness of these guys is there for all to see, especially Wolgast v Nelson of which the film we have left is of the later period of the fight yet here they are going throwing so many punches and at a great pace it's hard to think of any other fight that matches up to that..... maybe that fight was an exception. I agree with your bit about including junior welters from 59 on... often the Jr WW division has been more exciting than the WW. The amateur comment has some validity but also shows what's wrong with boxing now, it is purely about points, real fighters have to leave the amateurs prematurely to go pro because they can't get anywhere by fighting to KO their opponent by swarming (Fenech was the best example of that).... No I see the depth of the old days..... also the poverty making that era FULL of guys so hungry for money most of the fights the fighters had so much desperation they refused to lie down and they also knew that they had to give the crowds their moneys worth.

[McGoorty]

Yes of course, They know better than in the olden days. even mental toughness, nutrition,training etc.etc.

Amazinger : Yes of course, They know better than in the olden days. even mental toughness, nutrition,training etc.etc.

Mental toughness better now than in the old days ???? is this even worth wasting my time on... no...... the above statement is a joke obviously

[McGoorty]

I ****ing hate this argument with a passion.

Boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster etc.

There's weight classes, so if you're bigger, you just go up in weight.

Anyway, how does an easier, longer weight cut and getting to weigh in a day earlier compared to before the fight equal a better fighter? Todays and yesterdays fighters all still struggle with weight. It simply means one weighs in a day earlier and thus gets to add more weight. That would happen at any time, in any era though. It doesn't change the fighter. It changes the weight divisions and their meaning.

Or do you think that today's middleweight at 180 pounds vs yesterdays middleweight at 160, when we're talking P4P fantasy fights, is the same thing?

No. All it means is that guys fighting in fantasy match ups that will never happen, they don't get the fake weight advantage. They wouldn't be in the same classes today. For ****s sake!

But, the big thing is that in every other sport, whilst doing your thing, it doesn't involve you getting punched in the face. You don't run, being bigger, stronger and faster against a clock, while someone punches you in the face. Do you?

What happened to bigger, stronger, faster athlete than nearly every olden day heavyweight Seth Mitchell, when he got punched in the face hard once? He collapsed. Because boxing doesn't rely on being bigger, stronger, faster. It has a different set of criteria, along with those, that get you to the top that aren't in any other non-fighting sport.

He was bigger, stronger, and faster than the fat, ridiculous excuse of an athlete that easily knocked him the **** out. Easily. Hardly even had to try. Why?

If they played every other sport that you say has evolved Seth Mitchell would make The Nipple look like a complete chump. He would embarrass him. In every single way.

In boxing? He gets his ass absolutely whipped because it's a primitive sport that doesn't rely on the stuff you think it does, and won't evolve in the same way and the history of the sport shows this over and over and over and over. History has repeated itself a thousand fold with boxing. The bigger, stronger, faster guy does not equal the better guy. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.

The bigger thing doesn't even come into play. They would just be in different weight divisions or you compensate for P4Pness.

Floyd. Usually faster, not always, but in today's world nearly always smaller and arguably less strong in a statistical, measured way. He makes every bigger, stronger guy he fights look like ****ing idiots.

Did you see Joe Frazier in that wacky challenge back in the 70's or whatever? He went up against other athletes in an 'athletic super challenge!' of sorts and got embarrassed. He got out lifted by a pole vaulter or something, out coordinated by some other dude...cant remember exactly. I just remember he lost all his challenges.

Question: Would he have beaten those superior athletes in a boxing fight?

There is so much to like about this post, the only bit that made me squirm, was the very mention of Mayweather even though the comment is valid I just hate Floyd, he stands for nearly everything I hate about the game today. The rest of the post is just true, I like it. The toughness thing is beyond question as far as I am concerned. Now just look at these names as I go backwards in time..... then digest the list..... then think seriously about what I mean about the guys being tougher and tougher and meaner as we go backwards. .................................................. .................. .................................................. .................................................. ................. ........................... Floyd Mayweather - Hagler - Tiger - La Motta - Greb - Battling Nelson - Bob Fitzsimmons - Bendigo or Dutch Sam - Mendoza - Broughton - James Figg .................................................. .................................................. ...... ............................ Now who is the guy on that list to be feared the MOST... remember you have to fight under their rules now. Hagler is scary, Nelson even scarier....... Bendigo ? forget about it, he is simply ferocious at a level we simply cannot comprehend, it's a bare knuckle monster who will fight on even with broken bones, no skin left on his face and he still wants to beat you silly..... now to Broughton... those guys he fought and himself fought fights even more brutal than Bendigo's day and then finally we reach the scariest monster in boxing history since the days of roman pancration and the gladiators.......... To fight a bout with Figg first you are given swords and you have to fight with sharp naked steel and you don't get armour all you have is your pants and bare chest...... and he was the best swordsman in Europe... next after he has cut you somewhere you have to fight with bare knuckles in a TOTALLY NO HOLDS BARRED FIGHT... he can gouge your eyes out or tear your balls out if he FEELS LIKE IT... then last but not least if you are still living you get to fight with either cudgels or a quarterstaff and here he will break your kneecaps....... Figg was so tough and so skillful under these conditions that at most he may have lost twice in 270 bouts....... This guy is THE BEAST of BEASTS..... 6 feet tall, extremely well muscled, apparently he had very big biceps, no doubt because swords and cudgels are quite heavy

[McGoorty]

The only records in sports that are definitive are track, swimming & weight lifting. The rest are made up categories. A passing record does not tell us someone was a better or stronger passer. It is the same in all ball sports, from golf to football.

With the shoes Louis and Dempsey had to wear, how could they beat anyone today? Vladver Klinchko would float around them in his air soles. If he gets to wear his new Kevlar-infused mouthpiece and they have to chew rags as usual, the old boys would have no chance. Now let's get to the boxing trunks. Have you seen the old trunks? Guys in those trunks aren't winning too many fights today.

Diet? The old boys didn't even know what an energy bar was, so 'nuff said about that.

The oldsters had none of our outstanding media tools. Can you imagine Dempsey with a huge reel to reel in his room at training camp to view his opponents' fights in grainy, awful balck& white? Yes, no Youtube makes a victory for the old boys even more remote. They may as well be blindfolded.

Our modern huskies have sports psychologists and counselors to pule to, Dempsey only had the one-eyed janitor to shake a response out of.

Those old idiots never heard of trainer-in-a-bottle, now did they? You couldn't hurt those modern, muscled bellies with a pitching machine, as they guzzle some more trainer.

Let's get to the stools. That's a big one, so I am goona save it for next time.

With the shoes Louis and Dempsey had to wear, how could they beat anyone today? Vladver Klinchko would float around them in his air soles. If he gets to wear his new Kevlar-infused mouthpiece and they have to chew rags as usual, the old boys would have no chance. Now let's get to the boxing trunks. Have you seen the old trunks? Guys in those trunks aren't winning too many fights today.

WTF ??? this above quote is incredibly silly and I am done with this thread because of it, you are wasting my time dude.... shorts ? shoes ?..... almost meaningless...... the shorts ????? I thought you maybe a reasonably smart dude but now I know otherwise mate.

Our modern huskies have Our modern huskies have sports psychologists and counselors to pule to, Dempsey only had the one-eyed janitor to shake a response out of.

Those old idiots never heard of trainer-in-a-bottle, now did they? You couldn't hurt those modern, muscled bellies with a pitching machine, as they guzzle some and counselors to pule to, Dempsey only had the one-eyed janitor to shake a response out of.

Those old idiots never heard of trainer-in-a-bottle, now did they? You couldn't hurt those modern, muscled bellies with a pitching machine, as they guzzle some more trainer.

More silly stuff, The old timers were not sooks and wusses, the fact they didn't need counselors and sports psychologists is proof that they are mentally tougher. Those modern muscled bellies ? oh so old timers were jelly bellies were they ?.... ffs just go look at Basilio or Gavilan and come back and repeat that please... Basilio was harder than a rock....... I feel like giving you a Good Old Left Hook mate, you bloody well need it so you can wake up.

[Suckmedry]

I don't know where the high point was, the 40's were great and I like the 20's too but the older trainers and writers from then seem to pinpoint the 1910 -1920 decade as being the time where they thought the very greatest fighters resided. It's hard for us to know if this is true, our film quality of the 40's is so much better than from the first 2 decades obviously and that can influence our opinion. There are some films though like the Gans V Nelson, Wolgast v Nelson. McFarland films, Darcy's films and some others where the action is gobsmacking and the durability and toughness of these guys is there for all to see, especially Wolgast v Nelson of which the film we have left is of the later period of the fight yet here they are going throwing so many punches and at a great pace it's hard to think of any other fight that matches up to that..... maybe that fight was an exception. I agree with your bit about including junior welters from 59 on... often the Jr WW division has been more exciting than the WW. The amateur comment has some validity but also shows what's wrong with boxing now, it is purely about points, real fighters have to leave the amateurs prematurely to go pro because they can't get anywhere by fighting to KO their opponent by swarming (Fenech was the best example of that).... No I see the depth of the old days..... also the poverty making that era FULL of guys so hungry for money most of the fights the fighters had so much desperation they refused to lie down and they also knew that they had to give the crowds their moneys worth.

you are insane if you think the best boxers fought in the 1910-20s

[McGoorty]

you are insane if you think the best boxers fought in the 1910-20s

So where did I actually say that Einstein ???? I said this is what a lot of old timers said.. Jack Doc Kearns is one. They said that era was stronger than the 20's and 30's. I know one thing son, if you think today's fighters are better than those from that era then you are the one who is insane.

[onetwopunch]

Tough question. I say the boxers of old were better just do to the sheer will to win and the hunger. Championship fights were 15rds..With the older era the gloves were also smaller. Even with all the great fighters of the current time I cant see any of them beating SRR, or a prime Ali. The old fighters didnt have all the fancy fitness machines or nutriotionist. It was rougher back then.

[billeau2]

I ****ing hate this argument with a passion.

Boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster etc.

There's weight classes, so if you're bigger, you just go up in weight.

Anyway, how does an easier, longer weight cut and getting to weigh in a day earlier compared to before the fight equal a better fighter? Todays and yesterdays fighters all still struggle with weight. It simply means one weighs in a day earlier and thus gets to add more weight. That would happen at any time, in any era though. It doesn't change the fighter. It changes the weight divisions and their meaning.

Or do you think that today's middleweight at 180 pounds vs yesterdays middleweight at 160, when we're talking P4P fantasy fights, is the same thing?

No. All it means is that guys fighting in fantasy match ups that will never happen, they don't get the fake weight advantage. They wouldn't be in the same classes today. For ****s sake!

But, the big thing is that in every other sport, whilst doing your thing, it doesn't involve you getting punched in the face. You don't run, being bigger, stronger and faster against a clock, while someone punches you in the face. Do you?

What happened to bigger, stronger, faster athlete than nearly every olden day heavyweight Seth Mitchell, when he got punched in the face hard once? He collapsed. Because boxing doesn't rely on being bigger, stronger, faster. It has a different set of criteria, along with those, that get you to the top that aren't in any other non-fighting sport.

He was bigger, stronger, and faster than the fat, ridiculous excuse of an athlete that easily knocked him the **** out. Easily. Hardly even had to try. Why?

If they played every other sport that you say has evolved Seth Mitchell would make The Nipple look like a complete chump. He would embarrass him. In every single way.

In boxing? He gets his ass absolutely whipped because it's a primitive sport that doesn't rely on the stuff you think it does, and won't evolve in the same way and the history of the sport shows this over and over and over and over. History has repeated itself a thousand fold with boxing. The bigger, stronger, faster guy does not equal the better guy. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.

The bigger thing doesn't even come into play. They would just be in different weight divisions or you compensate for P4Pness.

Floyd. Usually faster, not always, but in today's world nearly always smaller and arguably less strong in a statistical, measured way. He makes every bigger, stronger guy he fights look like ****ing idiots.

Did you see Joe Frazier in that wacky challenge back in the 70's or whatever? He went up against other athletes in an 'athletic super challenge!' of sorts and got embarrassed. He got out lifted by a pole vaulter or something, out coordinated by some other dude...cant remember exactly. I just remember he lost all his challenges.

Question: Would he have beaten those superior athletes in a boxing fight?

Like a lot of things it actually does make sense when we consider the performance histoty of boxing:

For many athletic endevours we have a curve that deals with smaller amounts of time.

if we look at the act of punching each other in the face and make a similar graph as we might for baseball, the entire time that baseball has existed would look like a speck next to the entire time we have been trading blows. Getting better at fighting is an ancient process that evolves over a great amount of time.

The advantage that the old timers had was that, because older forms of boxing were less restrictive, they could do more with the underlying body dynamics to improve. This is why the older fighters spent large amounts of time on body dynamics, techniques and developing a form. They knew the advantages of technical excellence....why else would a loud mouth (said affectionately) like Jack Johnson...a strong man, get knocked out and become a student of Choyinsky?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Well, there are always strong fighters out there who will be remembered and many who won't. Weak era, strong era, doesn't matter. However, when it comes to the modern era, I do not tend to favor it.

Modern fighters live in easier times. Technology is great for convenience but makes many people softer. Not in all cases, but often times, they become lazier and less reliant on their bodies and this effects athletes, too. Not to say modern fighters don't train hard. That is always up to the fighter themselves. Still, I think it makes a difference when a fighter must be more physical as far as his every day life like walking instead of driving and performing manual labor at his other job.

I also think the amateurs have ruined many fighters into leaning in with their heads, causing more headbutts and getting them beaten up a lot more. There are many techniques like shifting that have disappeared. Most of them bounce around and use too much movement which is not necessary. Many fighters care nothing about entertaining the fans or giving them a show. They will run and hold and cheat in every way to win. But the fans get the shaft. Not right and hurts the sport. Watch Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe and you will see how the crowds used to be more demanding of seeing a real fight and how the promoters would stop a fight and hold the pay. So the guys in the old days had to get in there and go at each other. Not as much today.

There are some fine modern fighters, but most of the ones I like do fight in an old school, aggressive manner. They entertain and keep people watching. That's what it's all about and many of the modern fighters fall short...on purpose.

[The Old LefHook]

WTF ??? this above quote is incredibly silly and I am done with this thread because of it, you are wasting my time dude.... shorts ? shoes ?..... almost meaningless...... the shorts ????? I thought you maybe a reasonably smart dude but now I know otherwise mate.


More silly stuff, The old timers were not sooks and wusses, the fact they didn't need counselors and sports psychologists is proof that they are mentally tougher. Those modern muscled bellies ? oh so old timers were jelly bellies were they ?.... ffs just go look at Basilio or Gavilan and come back and repeat that please... Basilio was harder than a rock....... I feel like giving you a Good Old Left Hook mate, you bloody well need it so you can wake up.

Sorry you do not know parody from reality.