..TRUE/FALSE: Fighters From The Passed Are Better Than Todays Fighters...

[THe TRiNiTY]

'Fighters from the passed were better trained, fought longer fights and had to prove a lot more. They had less titles to win, so the true cream rose to the top. They weren't pampered so they were always hungrier. They were, overall, better fighters.'

True or false?

Vote. Discuss.

[Dan...]

My view on the old vs modern debate is that on average modern fighters are of a higher standard but the greats of past era would still hang with the top guys of recent years and in many cases would still have crushed divisions today. I do think that people get a little carried away with the old guys though. It is also important to account for natural progression.

[{}MATADOR{}]

Today's fighters are faster,stronger, more durable and overall better conditioned than fighters of the past. Better nutrition,training, workouts and boxing knowledge allow today's fighters to perform better. It's like comparing Hank Aaron to Barry Bonds.

[THe TRiNiTY]

What I will add is that there are more weight classes, so the top ten of some divisions is pretty damn week. Also, fighters from other time periods, could travel, get ripped off and have no proof of it, without film.

Furthermore, with more jammed divisions, the competition was a lot more stiff.

Just adding to the coversation.

[Silencers]

In some ways fighters from the past are better than those of today but today's fighters have some advantages over fighters from the past.

[abadger]

I would say that its not so much that fighters from the past are better, just that there's a lot more past than there is present, so there are a lot more good boxers to pick from. In decades and decades of boxing history you're always going to be able to find someone who was probably better than the current best in any weight class.

[THe TRiNiTY]

I would say that its not so much that fighters from the past are better, just that there's a lot more past than there is present, so there are a lot more good boxers to pick from. In decades and decades of boxing history you're always going to be able to find someone who was probably better than the current best in any weight class.

veyry valid point. A point that is often overlooked. It's like comparing acertain current basketball team against the allstars from the NBA-passed.

Sometimes, it's unfair.

[Johnny Rebel]

Fighters of the past were better since most were better conditioned and fought better competition and much more often than todays fighters do because they had to since there wasn't as much money involved and fighting so often meant they were never out of shape like todays fighters get between fights. The old timers also had no problems going 15 rounds while todays "better conditioned" fighters struggle to go 10 and are gassed in five in most cases.

[deanrw]

It is hard to say. I will say that the early-mid 90's had amazing talent that any era would have a tough time competing in.

[Mr. Ryan]

In some ways fighters from the past are better than those of today but today's fighters have some advantages over fighters from the past.

The professional style of boxing today is influenced by the increased significance of a substantial amateur background.