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

[Hous]

What makes 60 years ago the cut off line? Did anything significant change boxing so much during that period in time that the fighters suddenly got better from that point onwards? I don't think so.

You wouldn't pick a 100m runner from the 80's to beat Usain Bolt, yet it's very hard to argue that today's line-up would beat the early 80's line-up in boxing. Obviously the "evolution" of sports hasn't affected boxing the same way as other sports, seemingly.

I have a difficult time comparing the old timers of the late 1800's and 1900's to today's fighters, with some exceptions. The 1920's and 30's were somewhat of a transitional period with fighters getting adjusted to the modern boxing rules. Less wrestling involved, more activity, techniques improving, shorter fights. By the 1940's, the art was nearly perfect as evidenced by the likes of Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harold Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson and others who fought around the era.

Who mentioned anything about a cutoff line? I sure didn't, infact I stated the boxers are better every generation. I simply chose two radicals to make a broader point. The difference is easier to over 60 years than it is over 20.

[STREET CLEANER]

You dont think like a research based person. How would being conditioned to fight 15 rounds be benefitial in a 12 round bout? I never said anything about anyone going back in time to fight... If being conditioned for 15 rounds would be benefitial in a 12 round bout, don't you think some of these trainers whose lively hood is um well conditioning with scientifically proven results would train the fighters for 15 rounds.

You have runners that will run 100 m faster cause of better track and footwear/gear. But it don't mean that they are better than the athletes of yore. Now if a lesser athlete can gain advantage and compete on that level I would say yes. But everybody is different and are not affected the same by modern training technics or chemicals. Try again

[Bright-Eyes]

Completely agree.No chance Ray Robinson could have been competitive against someone like Andre Berto.Way too crude and not enough stamina to deal with a truly complete boxer like Berto.


Lamotta? Nah,he wouldn't have stood a chance against someone like Sylvester - easy 1st round ko there.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Yeah, and it makes perfect sense to assume boxers were better fit back then because there was an occasional 20 round fight 100 years ago. Get a grip. Two guys that are equally in bad shape could go 30 rounds. Use your brain.

Boxers today are more efficient. They pace themselves and their bodies are better conditioned because science has improved their workouts.

Its ridiculous t think we improve everything and everyone except for boxers.

Science can only go so far when there are weight classes involved. I understand the point you are trying to make but you are also missing the intangibles. Like the fact that fighters back in the day fought more often, had better competition because there weren't picked opponents all the time and there were less weight classes.

Boxing really hasn't changed in it's training for over 100 years, yes athletes take care of themselves better as far as nutrition is concerned but you can't say they are more dedicated than they once were.

I think a great fighter is a great fighter in any era and true boxing fans can see this.

[Hous]

You have runners that will run 100 m faster cause of better track and footwear/gear. But it don't mean that they are better than the athletes of yore. Now if a lesser athlete can gain advantage and compete on that level I would say yes. But everybody is different and are not affected the same by modern training technics or chemicals. Try again

They are better for the same reasons computers this year are better than last years.

[nathan_nall]

What makes 60 years ago the cut off line? Did anything significant change boxing so much during that period in time that the fighters suddenly got better from that point onwards? I don't think so.

You wouldn't pick a 100m runner from the 80's to beat Usain Bolt, yet it's very hard to argue that today's line-up would beat the early 80's line-up in boxing. Obviously the "evolution" of sports hasn't affected boxing the same way as other sports, seemingly.

I have a difficult time comparing the old timers of the late 1800's and 1900's to today's fighters, with some exceptions. The 1920's and 30's were somewhat of a transitional period with fighters getting adjusted to the modern boxing rules. Less wrestling involved, more activity, techniques improving, shorter fights. By the 1940's, the art was nearly perfect as evidenced by the likes of Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harold Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson and others who fought around the era.

I think too much emphasis has been placed on the topic of nutrition and not on the evolution of total camp preparation and in-ring strategy. As I mentioned earlier, boxing 60 years ago and before was checkers. Boxing today is chess.

You bring up great arguments, and do it in a matter-of-fact (non-offensive) manner, which I applaud. There are fighters today with throwback styles (plod forward, out work you), such as Baldomir, Mayorga, Arreola, and others I've taken note of (but can't recall). I think the top fighters of the first half of the 20th century would have very similar records to those listed above.

Forgive me the time machine scenario, but I would expect a belt holder from 1942 to have a record of 1-8-1 against the top 10 of his division in 2010 (should he be beamed into our time).

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

They are better for the same reasons computers this year are better than last years.

Terrible comparison, humans aren't machines that change that fast over time. Evolution takes millions of years and nutrition and training can only do so much.

Boxing is not a sport where speed or strength play such an important part that it overwhelms the fight. Skill is at utmost important as is heart and toughness.

No science, nutrition or modern training can give that to a fighter.

[Hous]

Science can only go so far when there are weight classes involved. I understand the point you are trying to make but you are also missing the intangibles. Like the fact that fighters back in the day fought more often, had better competition because there weren't picked opponents all the time and there were less weight classes.

Boxing really hasn't changed in it's training for over 100 years, yes athletes take care of themselves better as far as nutrition is concerned but you can't say they are more dedicated than they once were.

I think a great fighter is a great fighter in any era and true boxing fans can see this.

I already debunked the tall tale that fighting more often makes a better fighter.

Its a shocker you would say boxing hasnt changed in the past 100 years. Wow....

[PainKiller]

There comes a point when too big is too big.

At the lower weights, there are plus and minuses.

Could you imagine a fighter today who can last 15 rounds? How many fights where 12 round make someone gas out pretty badly?

Then the other issue, would those fighters be better if they lived today? Would they benefit from better technology such as chambers, better physios and less fights?

In terms of the HW, well Vitali is a big guy, but his footwork is damn slow.

The older guys were in much better condition, just look at the bodies of this era.

Disgustingly fat.

Haye, Klit's and maybe 1 or 2 have decent bodies.

[PainKiller]

Science can only go so far when there are weight classes involved. I understand the point you are trying to make but you are also missing the intangibles. Like the fact that fighters back in the day fought more often, had better competition because there weren't picked opponents all the time and there were less weight classes.

Boxing really hasn't changed in it's training for over 100 years, yes athletes take care of themselves better as far as nutrition is concerned but you can't say they are more dedicated than they once were.

I think a great fighter is a great fighter in any era and true boxing fans can see this.

Boxing training hasn;t changed much, but boxing has.

They fight 3 or 4 times a year, and are really at their best.

The guys from the past fought with injuries and were tough as hell, and fought for less money.

Mentally they are probably tougher.

Physically doing 15 rounds is no joke, especially when they fought in hot conditions.

I mean Ali and Frazier was so hot wasn't it?

Now guys get to fight in air conditioned places. Train with how many people behind them?

Nutrition is damn important too. These guys give you the extra 10%