Only idiots think fighters 60 years on back would be competitive today

[Hous]

Is like comparing the 1st Ford invented against a Super Snake. But that doesn't take the value of the old car because without that 1st Ford It wouldnt' be a Super Snake Mustang today.
The comparason is out of content.

The point is they are hyped to the extent people say so and so sucks and the guys from the olden days would embarass him. Its simply irrational.

[TheGreatA]

So a 147 lb man from 60 years ago is smaller than a 147 lb man from today?
5'6-5'7 Pacquiao and Mayweather are bigger than the 6 feet tall welterweights of the past eras?
Every fighter today is faster and stronger than the fighters of the past?
There are some slow top fighters today who get by with their strength and toughness, and some fast fighters who lack the physical strength and toughness, as always has been.

I would say that 5'11 bantamweight Panama Al Brown towers over any bantamweight of today, and he's probably faster and more durable than the lot of them too. Boxing is a curious sport because it has actually been in a decline of interest for a while now, and the rules have been changed to accommodate less tough but more athletic fighters. Many fighters today can hardly go 12 rounds let alone 15. Boxers don't really have the option to fight hundreds of times in the PPV era nor are they willing to, and the opposition is carefully selected by matchmakers. I think all this makes it easier for a boxer to be successful in these times.

There are so many misconceptions and myths in this thread that it would take a long time to correct them all. I'll just settle for saying that it's better to stay silent when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[Hous]

the thing is though basketball players , swimmers , etc. compete almost the same way as before.

about the same amount of games/matches/competitions.

not so for boxing.

fighters from before would fight 200-300 times. today's fighters fight 50 times or so.

so the old fighters have tons more experience plus it helps compensate for the more archaic training when they're fighting all the time even if their training is not as modern.

one could argue a guy that is always in shape because he fights twice a month is not that handicapped against a guy who only fights 2-3 times a year and not in training all the time even with all his trainers and modern training.

And science tells us that your body needs time to heal between fights. So logic tells us fighting as often as they did back then was infact a handicap.

[STREET CLEANER]

So a 147 lb man from 60 years ago is smaller than a 147 lb man from today?
5'6-5'7 Pacquiao and Mayweather are bigger than the 6 feet tall welterweights of the past eras?
Every fighter today is faster and stronger than the fighters of the past?
There are some slow top fighters today who get by with their strength and toughness, and some fast fighters who lack the physical strength and toughness, as always has been.

I would say that 5'11 bantamweight Panama Al Brown towers over any bantamweight of today, and he's probably faster and more durable than the lot of them too. Boxing is a curious sport because it has actually been in a decline of interest for a while now, and the rules have been changed to accommodate less tough but more athletic fighters. Many fighters today can hardly go 12 rounds let alone 15. Boxers don't really have the option to fight hundreds of times in the PPV era nor are they willing to, and the opposition is carefully selected by matchmakers. I think all this makes it easier for a boxer to be successful in these times.

There are so many misconceptions and myths in this thread that it would take a long time to correct them all. I'll just settle for saying that it's better to stay silent when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Great post man

[Hous]

it's also pretty convenient for a fighter nowadays to fight once or twice a year. Back then, these dudes were fighting every couple of months.

Some would even fight weeks apart.

There may not be a comparison scientifically, but based on pure fighting heart, there is no comparison...and yes i do believe many fighters of old would beat the dog **** out of some of today's fighters. Science or no science, based on talent alone.

Your one of those guys mentioned in the thread title.

[Hous]

I agree.

Roberto Duran, George Foreman, Alexis Arguello, Marvin Hagler, etc. today would be another brick thrower, they just arent as good boxers as they are today.

I do think though that some guys, like Leonard, Locche, Benitez, Ali, or anyone that could really box and move, would win today too.

This is wrong, those guys I consider modern fighters and in my opinion would be competitve. Would they be as great, probably not. Would they be known? I'd say

Every generation gets better, but I think theres a huge difference from 60 years ago apart from 40.

[Grimmer]

Boxers in the old days had better fitness than those today!

20+ round fights weren't uncommon and boxers fought a lot more frequently than they do today.

[Hous]

Look at sports Evolution or buy a book about the subject. All Sports Evolve by taking the good and making it better and getting rid of the bad. Before in Swimming and Running the diffirence would be seconds, now its judged in miliseconds.

ALL sports evolve, look at boxing 70 years ago and look at it now. The Training is better, the technology is better, the technique is scientificly calculated. You have dieting experts who tell the fighters when to eat and when to stop so they come in Prime and full strenght. You have training camps that are calculated to the minute so the fighter gets maximum output.

The rules are better, there is less corruption and cheating. More testing for illegal substances.

80 Years ago someone couldve been high on coke while pumping his body full of Testostarone or some other drugs.

Its a night and day diffirence.

I hate when people say oh if SRR or Marciano were here they would clean the place up thats just not true. They were ATG of their era and thats what made them good. Its like the K2 Brothers being the dominant of their era. In 30 Years there will be even better fighters than todays because they will take the current technology and technique and make it better.

If we didn't change everything we touch for the better, we wouldn't be humans. Its in our nature to imporve everything and thats how its always been.

[Hous]

so if you took those boxers from the past and allowed them to reap the benefits of modern advancements you dont think they could compete?


i think they would be just as good



reverse that and throw someone like Paul Williams back to the past...withOUT today's advancements and make him fight 100 times...you guys think he'd be able to hang?

This is a thought provoking topic. I've thought about it and this is what I have to say:

It would be to easy to assume a boxer from 60 years ago would be even interested in boxing in modern society. I think, and so does the scientifi world that the environment changes a person into who they are. The environment was too different then to make any predictions as to if the old time boxers would even pursue boxing.

However, the talent and genes were there to make for a greater champion. How do I know? Because its here now, duh. We pass our genes down, we didn't evolves as humans into better fighters (bigger HWs is corresponded with nutrition, not evolution). So of course the possibility was there.

You also have to realize that there are a some people out there who could have been better then the greatest boxer. If that person was interested in boxing or if they got into it earlier, better trainers... Just because some is known as the greatest, doesn't mean they are naturally the greatest it took effort and environmental conditioning. If Ali grew up elsewhere or was more into Basketball, noone would know his name. Hell he probably would still go by Clasius Clay.

[Hous]

There's nothing more annoying than old-timers in the gym talking about how Joe Louis would KO all the bums out there these days.

That said, I also don't think you can say that athletes back then couldn't compete today. Really? You don't think an average 40's heavyweight could probably KO most of the top ten heavyweights right now? Hell, a 40's light heavyweight could probably move up and clean out most of the division with the exception of the Klitschko's.

People back then were athletic too. It's not like we've undergone a whole new stage of human evolution.

I couldn't disagree more with the above. The bottom part is irrelevant to the top tier athletes. We aren't talking about means.