Are past boxers really better than current boxers?

[The_Sandman]

I feel like everyone believes that fighter from the past would DESTROY the fighters of the present. I don't understand why people would find it so far fetched to believe that Manny Pacquiao would win against Roberto Duran or something. I, for one, believe that Roberto Duran would beat Manny Pacquiao. But, if someone were to tell me that Pacquiao would beat Duran, I wouldn't find it all that shocking or far fetched. I mean, isn't it natural that as the sport goes on, fighters evolve? Not just the fighters, but the training as well. If a fighter back then ran 5 miles everyday, wouldn't it be natural for a fighter today to run a little more as the standard for the "best" continues to grow? Or if someone, back then sparred for 15 rounds, today, they have people sparring 40 rounds straight, with fresh opponents every 2 rounds (or something crazy like that). Back then, being champion was everything. Now, being champion doesn't mean anything. They have to create a "Pound for Pound" title now because the word "champion" means nothing in boxing. So as fighters are going for the P4P title instead of being a normal "champion", is it so hard to believe that current fighters are more evolved, better conditioned, and created better and more useful techniques than the fighters in the past?

[SCtrojansbaby]

Past fighters are not better than current fighter.

P.S. Duran would beat Pacquiao

[adamk1304]

There is no objective way of comparing fighters from different eras, yet journalists and fans who have been around a while always claim that fighters were better "back in the day".

[Tamis!]

I would take an opinion from someone with tons of boxing videos from as early as Jack Johnson's era and lots of fighters from the yesteryears and analyze it from there, with a pinch of salt.

Unless they were born from the early 1900's who saw it all unfold and say no Klit could beat Joe Louis, or Floyd nor Pac could beat a Kid Gavilan or SRR, perhaps, maybe they could be credible.

[Rome-By-Ko]

For the most part yes they are,but I believe you can throw some new school guys in the mix that whould have been greats no matter when they fought..But you got to say they wore smaller gloves fought longer rds,and everyone came to win..Nowa days ya got guy's coming in to collect pay checks,fighting bums yr after yr to pad their records..B.S. belts to help them duck good comp in their own weight classes..I think fighters of yesterday are better,but I also think that time period was better for boxing..Just my two cents..

[Sadistic]

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.

[Roy Keane]

I personally dont think they are the greats of modern times are as good. Just because someone fought 5 times a month in 1913 and fought the same guy 7 times in there career doesnt make them better in my eyes.

[Left Hook Tua]

Either Klitschko beats any HW from any era.

they can't even beat all the heavyweights in this era.

you know they're not undefeated right?

[Barry Halls]

I personally dont think they are the greats of modern times are as good. Just because someone fought 5 times a month in 1913 and fought the same guy 7 times in there career doesnt make them better in my eyes.

what if theres a lot more registered pro fighters in one era (and therefore a larger pool of talent) and the sport as a whole is more popular compared to others. Does that make for a high probability of one era having better fighters than the other?

[uoykcuf]

I generally believe most past fighters would lose to the current ones just because of the training, vitamins, and other training regimens. The sport has evolved a bit. And its hard to say if the fighters in the past had the same tools/resources the fighters do now adays they'd beat the current crop.