Tweet
Some of the responses in this thread are mind boggling.
-
-
fighters were hungrier back then, they almost always came from poor background.
Regardless if nutrition is better being a good fighter depends on you're mental make up as well. Why do you think a guy as athletically gifted as Tyson lost to Buster Douglas? Tyson was quicker, hit harder, and by all accounts had a better chin and was probably stronger.
You could say on a large scale boxing has improved though. Like, you can see a big difference between the 60's and up compared to the Jack Johnson era or Dempsey era.
You can't compare sprinting as an example either, thats like one goal everyone is trying to beat, somebody is bound to beat it eventually regardless of nutritional advancements.Comment
-
Humans arent more evolved. That is plain ******. Athletes are what they are today because of better nutrition, better dieting and break through's in training and technology. Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that because it has been discused countless of times.
I think the great Jim Brown was quoted as saying "I can only imagine how good of an athlete I would have been if I had the resources available back then as guys do now".Comment
-
Also another thing to consider is alot of those guys didnt dedicate themselves to the sport like guys do today. Alot of newbies don't know that back then, since boxers weren't getting paid alot of money, had to work full time jobs and box on the side. That alone puts them at a disadvantage as compare to a guy would can live off of boxing and dedicate all of his time to the sport.
While boxer A is working a job to support his family and kids, boxer B is getting enough money to where he is spending the same amount of time doing roadwork, speedbag drills and all types of other training. It doesnt take a rocket sceintist to see fighter B will be more athletic and at a physical advantage.Comment
Comment