Yesterday's boxers (pre-1980) would not be competitive today

[Sweet Jesus]

Pre-1960's still includes the 50's and the 40's.

Sugar Ray Robinson?
Archie Moore?
Joe Louis?
Ezzard Charles?
Harold Johnson?

I wouldn't be surprised if a Lloyd Marshall did a job on most of today's middles:

There's exceptions to every rule. Obviously SRR. Louis? Who knows. Would he stand a chance vs. the big guys? Lewis? Klits?

[TheGreatA]

There's exceptions to every rule. Obviously SRR. Louis? Who knows. Would he stand a chance vs. the big guys? Lewis? Klits?

How about men of his own size?

There are so many expections to this supposed "rule" to prove that such a rule doesn't exist.

Floyd Patterson at 168-175?

[CreamMRS]

While I do agree with the blanket statement that training, nutrition, etc. has improved over decades of time, boxing has not always been a part of that evolution. You have to understand also that all these "superior athletes" that are a result of these improvements are playing in other sports: Football, Bball especially. The talent pool of athletes that boxing draws from has gotten much smaller since the 70's and 80's because of the growth of other sports combined with the fact that you can make so much more money and take less damage on your body shooting 3 jumpers than you can getting ktfo. Therefore the "better, faster, stronger" argument holds far less weight in regards to boxing.

Boxing technique and strategy has not changed much either. A strong jab was just as important 50 years ago as it was today.

[BennyST]

There's exceptions to every rule. Obviously SRR. Louis? Who knows. Would he stand a chance vs. the big guys? Lewis? Klits?

But then, there are very, very obvious exceptions to the rule of fighters today being bigger (the only reason fighters today are bigger is because of weigh ins today; the couple of fighters who have weighed in recently as a WW on the day of fight; that being Pac and Mayweather are considered small for that class and yet they are quite obviously smaller than Robinson, Leonard etc), faster (who today is faster than Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Napoles, Robinson, Charles, Ali etc) better conditioned (this is just simply laughable) and more skilled.......Margarito, Mayorga, Shumenov, Froch, Stiglitz, etc etc etc etc.

In every era throughout boxing history there have been exceptions to every rule. Boxing is all about the exceptions. It's what makes boxing boxing and what makes it unlike every other sport on earth which is why the usual sporting rules don't apply to it. If you go over the majority of champions from each other though, I think you'll find the '40s onward to be of an incredibly high standard that is simply missing today (I say 40's onward because it is much easier to find good tape of fights from then onward). Boxing's heyday of talent, depth, skill, numbers and great champions was, in my opinion, the 60/70s. The skill across the board from the lowest weights to the highest honestly shames 90% of fighters today and makes the depth of talent look like what it is. Very, very shallow.

we talk about the champs like Louis, Robinson etc because they were the big names. Just the same though, we talk about Mayweather, Pac, Jones, Hopkins, Marquez, Hamed, etc from today because they are the big names. What about the rest of the champs though from today and previous eras? The champs from that era that aren't even thought about today, like FW champ Johnny Famechon (60's) was a greater 'slick' fighter (that term that everyone so loves to use now) than anyone today not named Mayweather and Hopkins etc. He is like Calderon is today, but he never got knocked out and he faced quite a few legends of the game. Incredible fighter with a beautiful jab, slick shoulder roll (What? B..B..But, but, but Mayweather invented that!) and his ability to slide off and use the ropes is unmatched by anyone today and yet I can't see ten people on NSB knowing the name or ever having seen him fight.

If this ridiculous theory that because records are broken and that makes boxing better today holds true and that all knowledge of past fighters is gained by new fighters and thus new fighters know everything old fighters do plus have new modern training techniques, why does Margarito (the longest reigning 147 champion of the last decade or two) not have fast hands and use the head movement of Ezzard Charles and Moore? Why did Pac not have the two fisted skills of southpaw Vincente Saldivar from the start of his career and why doesn't he have the stiff, hard jab and counter punching skills of Marvin Hagler and the defensive wizardry of Whitaker?

Why does Mayweather not combine his defensive prowess with the offensive prowess of Ray Robinson?

Man.....NSB. New ****** Boxingfans.

A simple thing to do is just go look at some of the champs of early eras that aren't talked about as much as the usual ones. Lightweight champs from the 50's like Duilio Loi, Ike Williams, Jimmy Carter, Joe Brown and Carlos Ortiz.

There's a good one. Carlos Ortiz. A guy that most should at least the know the name of here. He was a champ in the 50's at 140 and the unified LW champ in the early 60's. Great underrated champ. Easy to find lots of video of. Kenny Buchanan is another great fighter along with Ismael Laguna. All incredible HOFers of the 60's.

At WW, you had guys like Curtis Cokes and Jose Napoles fighting for the 147 Undisputed title. Check out this vid of their fight from the '60's. The combination punching, slipping shots and countering, the boxing skill, the fighting skill. Both of these guys beat everyone today at 147. Just look at how beautifully slick and well tested they are in every department. Offense, defense, boxing, brawling, leading, countering......

[BennyST]

Two of the great smaller division fighters, bantamweight, that were in their primes during the 60's. A fight between two perfectly contrasting styles of the offensive swarmer and the patient boxer/puncher. The skill of both fighters in each of their styles is easily as good as anything you'll see today and a hell of a lot better for the large part in terms of everything; action, conditioning, skill, styles, power, toughness, heart. Fifteen rounds fought at the same pace throughout. Conditioning of these guys just doesn't cut it like today's athletes and they look so amateurish in comparison too.

[BennyST]

Pfft Benny, Rios makes Duran look completely foolish with his post 1980 super silky smooth skills, you just can't see it because you are delusional, Duran is pathetic compared to Rios.

Duran soul crumbles after he breaks his weak pre 1980s hands on Rios titanium chin, Rios by KO round 3 or Duran quits after finding all of his attempts to hit Rios and all of his tactics are failing.

Alright, fine. I give in. I admit that the modern conditioning, training techniques and nutrition would give Rios such an advantage of greater skill, strength, stamina, power, defense etc that Duran would simply have no chance. You're right I guess.

What does he have that could keep Rios from beating him. Obviously Rios has all the skill of Duran, being a modern post 1980s fighter and also has the added benefit of nutrition, special highly scientific training techniques that would allow him to go fifteen full rounds and wear Duran down easily because Duran, being a pre 1980's fighter didn't have any conditioning to go fifteen rounds.

The only reason him and Leonard fought the championship rounds of their 15 round title fight like they were the first rounds was because it had just become 1980 and they had suddenly gained the post 1980's modern training techniques, nutrition and conditioning that was lacking when he was a BW, FW and LW in the 60s and 70s.

[madsweeney]

The one thing I;m not sure about is the yesteryear's having to come in sober. It sounds like (not confirmed) many previous champions used stimulants, drugs (coke, alcohol) sniffing salts, etc. which obviously wouldn't be acceptable today.

[Anti~Jalandoni]

This thread will prove that Pacquiao is better than Roberto Duran at welterweight

[Toe Injury]

people who have watched the HWs of the 60s/70s on a career level, not just the "legendary fights" shown on ESPN classic, know they werent that good, and that basically that the exceptional top tier foreman aging well has been a dead horse used to show "just how superior they were" and somehow represents every fighter of those decades - not exactly scientific.

A lot of it basically comes from the fact that they were 180-220 pound fighters who are always going to look smoother and faster than 250+ pound fighters, but the casual fan just sees the word "heavyweight" and leaves it at that.

It's why I've suggested calling today's heavyweight division super heavyweight and renaming light heavyweight or cruiserweight heavyweight. The same dummies would notice a new era of "amazing heavyweights" without noticing that they weigh below 200 lbs again.

but doesnt it really matter? let people be nostalgic, a betting man knows they would be embarrassing to watch today, its really just a trivial quest to convince people of the irrelevant truth

[Toe Injury]

youll also notice the guys who believe in a vastly superior golden age always disagree on the exact years (it will usually coincide with their nationality and/or ethnicity and the golden age will be the decade their nationality and/or ethnicity was dominant)

very predictable