The age old Debate.

[The Old LefHook]

I'm not overlooking Conn. I'm not saying he doesn't beat anyone today, just that he would probably lose a few as well.

Of course, he would be fighting men who judiciously eat from the five food groups everyday. Modern trainers mix up the chops, fish, poultry, seafood and beefalo for their boys, along with scientific portions of fruits and vegetables, grains and breads, tubers and fungi.

An old boy like Conn who ate from a mere one or two food groups everyday--can you imagine how fast he might have been if he had included tubers and fungi in his diet?

[robertzimmerman]

How would the Top champs from the past hold up against today's best realistically? With modern training methods/equipment etc and fitness vs the old days.

I don't see many of the old guys realistically beating the modern guys.

And no the old guys get none of the modern benefits.

Again this is not a debate about who is better but rather a debate into the evolution of the sport.

What say you?

I'm 36, and I've been watching boxing since I was about 8 years old.


With regards to your question, I know two things:

1. There's fighters of today who would have beaten some champs of the past.

2. There's champs of the past who would have beaten some fighters of today.


There seems to be a common misconception on here and on other forums, that boxing somehow progresses each decade, where the fighters keep on getting better and better. A lot of people try and claim that, and they try and use swimming and track and field records as some sort of evidence.

Whilst boxing has obviously progressed from the M.O.Q. the fighters don't get better with each decade that goes by. The top fighters today are really no better than the best fighters of the 80's and the 90's. Boxing does not evolve in the same way that other sports have.


Yes, today's fighters have the advantages of nutritionists, sports science, better training equipment and facilities etc. But the fighters of the past fought more often, and they had great trainers of the past to learn from.

You can give a modern fighter a nutritionist, a strength and conditioning coach, a chef, a masseuse, a state of the art gym, today's best training equipment, and hours of old footage to watch. But at the end of the day, a left hook will always be a left hook.

Although a modern fighter has advantages, he still has to master the art of boxing. Just because he runs in $100 shoes and he has a nutritionist etc, it doesn't mean that his balance and coordination etc is going to be better than a fighter who fought 50 years ago. I think far too much emphasis is put on the modern advantages. At the end of the day, it's skills that decide the outcome of the fight.


To answer your question, I think if you had a time machine and you transported some former greats from their era, straight in today's era, they would have great success.

Why wouldn't they?

[DeeMoney]

Depends on how old you mean by "Old Guys". Training methods for the past 50 years havent changed much (they lifted weights and did plyos in the 70s).

I suggest reading a book called "The Sports Gene", one of the more interesting studies showed that if Jesse Owens ran on modern polyurethane tracks his 1936 olympic time would have been just slightly behind Ussain Bolt's (as opposed to last in the race).

FWIW I think 19th century fighters would struggle tremendously, I think some pre WWI fighters could hang (Langford, Johnson, etc.) and by WWII you are looking at modern guys who could compete

[Mr.MojoRisin']

At the end of the day it's a fight. Who's smarter? Tougher? Stronger? Faster? Better puncher?

In the days on WWII and before, fighters were tougher. The living conditions were worse. People learned to go without. Welfare didn't become a thing until 1935 and a lot people were too proud to get on it. Far past the years that it could have benefited the great fighters who are constantly compared to those of today. It's much more motivating when you're fighting for your next meal compared to fighters of today who treat it only as a sport.

[muslimer12]

The old time boxers were better. They could go 15 rounds punching non stop. "new technology" fitness is 99% bs, most fighters now a days gas out by round 6/7 lol boxers back then were not getting paid millions fighting bums, and actually trained like crazy and fought frequently to get paid. They were machines.

[The Old LefHook]

The old time boxers were better. They could go 15 rounds punching non stop. "new technology" fitness is 99% bs, most fighters now a days gas out by round 6/7 lol boxers back then were not getting paid millions fighting bums, and actually trained like crazy and fought frequently to get paid. They were machines.

The modern fighters need their nutritional supplements, moslemer12, merely to compensate for the nutritionally superior vegetables the old boys were eating before big farming depleted the soil.

[DeeMoney]

Here is the issue, a lot of people assume the old timers were better because they fought more often and went more rounds, they assume that newer fighters couldn't do this just because they never did. But thats specious logic.

Thats akin to assuming Jerry West couldn't make a 3 pointer (just because he never did) or I couldn't catch a fish in Florida just because I never have (side note, nor have I ever been fishing in Florida).

The gist of the question is how much impact does modern training have on making athletes better, specifically boxing. I would argue, and I believe studies and rational thinking holds this up; that there is a positive impact from modern training and nutritional improvement. However, that impact is not as great as many people in the general populous seem to think (particularly in regards to athletes over the past 50 years).

Moreover, boxing specifically is the sport least impacted by this due to its use of weight classes. The biggest impact of athletic improvement over the past several decades has been in the field of body type. Example NFL lineman are a lot bigger now than in the past, yet capable of moving at roughly the same speed as those previous to them. Since boxing uses weight classes, this really has no impact except in heavyweights (where we have seen a lot more successful boxers weighing over 230 in recent years).

The argument of the spoiled pampered athlete not being as tough (and thus not as capable as those of the past) seems to hold little water. Modern athletes work hard, to assume that living in a shack and eating a substandard diet, as opposed to living in a mansion, makes you a better fighter is wrong. Having creature comforts may make you less willing to get out of bed, but if that is the case you aren't becoming a champion fighter anyhow. There are such things as diminishing and negative returns in regards to hours spent training; we know this, and strive not to blow past that mark.

[Joe Beamish]

Modern fighters would tend to defeat their predecessors under modern rules, and old timey fighters would tend to win under their rules. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between fighters across different eras. Joe Gans would be great in any era, including today. Floyd Mayweather would be great back in the day.