Boxing Has Evolved, Fighters Are Better Today

[Jack Napier]

people don't like to believe past eras were harder in boxing
a talented fighter is a talented fighter
but boxing has changed for the worse as a whole
past greats are on a pedestal for that reason
there's still great fighters now, but more titles, less rds, more money, etc
it was harder to establish yourself in the past
nostalgia runs deep and many current fans just don't like that

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

boxing has changed and evolved greatly.

these older boxing fans are lying through their fake teeth when they keep parroting about how other sports have evolved and change but only boxing has remained pure and untouched when you mention other sports and their rules, regulation, and players evolving and modern players being better than older ones.

-boxing used to have so many rounds. its been reduced to 12.
-boxing used to make the ref be the ref and judge at the same time. they dont do that anymore.
-boxing used to be controlled by the italian mafia (see marciano undefeated record). its not anymore.
-boxing used have fight night weigh ins so that fighters that claim to be fighters from certain divisions fight at that division come fight night. Its not like that anymore with 24hr rehydration.

Golden Age of Boxing = MOST CORRUPT AGE IN BOXING HISTORY.

Dont let any of these biased, diaper wearing, apple sauce sippin, ho****e care chillin geezers tell you otherwise.

People complain about robberies today have no FREAKING IDEA how bad it was during the "Golden Age" of boxing.

[BennyST]

athletes today are better in general compared to athletes from the 60s.

that is pretty basic common knowledge only some people like old people love to over hype past athletes in order to glorify and preserve their history.

time, knowledge, and science have proven it already.

Olympic 100m times are dropping, getting faster, not slower. Athletes are bigger and stronger nowadays compared to back then.

nfl player's measurements by position indicate that compared to the early years of the nfl.

those that still argue that athletes of the early 60s and back are just as good as athletes of today are DISHONEST, IGNORANT, MORONS.

Babe Ruth's fat ass wouldnt crack triple a if he played today.

It's fighting you daft ****. It's not timed, and it's not a team sport. You aren't up against a clock. You're punching someone in the face. Boxing is a primitive sport that doesn't conform to the standards of athletics today. You're not against a clock, or beating a person in a race, or throwing something further than the next guy, or lifting something heavier, or any of the standard athletic stuff you and your idiotic comparison are trying to make.

Two guys get in a ring, and proceed to try and smash the other guy as much as possible while avoiding the same fate.

How did Margarito beat Sergio by KO? He's a worse athlete in every single respect. He would lose to Sergio in any and every timed sport I'd venture, and yet, he could KHTFO in a fight. How did James Toney and Roberto Duran win fights against the many better athletes they faced? What about Mike McCallum?

Actually, an interesting example is Anthony Mundine. He was a brilliant athlete. A true athlete. He came to boxing after doing it most of his life, won a fair bit, through his athleticism, then got KTFO by some dude who would have been embarrassed by Mundine in an athletics competition. Why? Because boxing isn't athletics you ****ing lowly fool.

The only dishonest, ignorant moron here is you. Why are yelling that by the way? Were you screaming at your computer "DISHONEST, IGNORANT, MORONS"! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boxing isn't full of athletes trying to break times. It's mostly full of angry, poverty stricken guys who fight to get out. Some athletes come along, but it's not an athletes sport.

It gets shown time and time and time and time again, because it's not the better athlete that wins. It's the better fighter. How did Maidana win so many fights?

If you want to compare older guys to today too, well, Roberto Duran fought in the 60s. How do you think he would fare against the lightweights of today? Would he be annihilated through the amazing advancements of athletic specimens at 135? Would the super strength, super speed, super size, super abilities and super skills of today's hyper modern, super human athletic boxers disintegrate his flesh and bones into a puddle of old timer, black and white goo?

People always talk about size today. The only reason anyone is bigger today is because of pre fight day weigh ins. The fighters today aren't bigger and stronger, they just fight at what is, in reality, simply the next weight division, or two, up from their older counterparts who had to weigh in and fight at the actual weight limit. If the welterweights of 1960 had an extra day to rehydrate, they too would be coming in as middleweights, and subsequently most would be fighting at a division lower than what they did.

Anyway, you're a ****ing idiot mate.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

It's fighting you daft ****. It's not timed, and it's not a team sport. You aren't up against a clock. You're punching someone in the face. Boxing is a primitive sport that doesn't conform to the standards of athletics today. You're not against a clock, or beating a person in a race, or throwing something further than the next guy, or lifting something heavier, or any of the standard athletic stuff you and your idiotic comparison are trying to make.

Two guys get in a ring, and proceed to try and smash the other guy as much as possible while avoiding the same fate.

How did Margarito beat Sergio by KO? He's a worse athlete in every single respect. He would lose to Sergio in any and every timed sport I'd venture, and yet, he could KHTFO in a fight. How did James Toney and Roberto Duran win fights against the many better athletes they faced? What about Mike McCallum?

Actually, an interesting example is Anthony Mundine. He was a brilliant athlete. A true athlete. He came to boxing after doing it most of his life, won a fair bit, through his athleticism, then got KTFO by some dude who would have been embarrassed by Mundine in an athletics competition. Why? Because boxing isn't athletics you ****ing lowly fool.

The only dishonest, ignorant moron here is you. Why are yelling that by the way? Were you screaming at your computer "DISHONEST, IGNORANT, MORONS"! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boxing isn't full of athletes trying to break times. It's mostly full of angry, poverty stricken guys who fight to get out. Some athletes come along, but it's not an athletes sport.

It gets shown time and time and time and time again, because it's not the better athlete that wins. It's the better fighter. How did Maidana win so many fights?

If you want to compare older guys to today too, well, Roberto Duran fought in the 60s. How do you think he would fare against the lightweights of today? Would he be annihilated through the amazing advancements of athletic specimens at 135? Would the super strength, super speed, super size, super abilities and super skills of today's hyper modern, super human athletic boxers disintegrate his flesh and bones into a puddle of old timer, black and white goo?

People always talk about size today. The only reason anyone is bigger today is because of pre fight day weigh ins. The fighters today aren't bigger and stronger, they just fight at what is, in reality, simply the next weight division, or two, up from their older counterparts who had to weigh in and fight at the actual weight limit. If the welterweights of 1960 had an extra day to rehydrate, they too would be coming in as middleweights, and subsequently most would be fighting at a division lower than what they did.

Anyway, you're a ****ing idiot mate.

boxing has changed and evolved greatly.

these older boxing fans are lying through their fake teeth when they keep parroting about how other sports have evolved and change but only boxing has remained pure and untouched when you mention other sports and their rules, regulation, and players evolving and modern players being better than older ones.

-boxing used to have so many rounds. its been reduced to 12.
-boxing used to make the ref be the ref and judge at the same time. they dont do that anymore.
-boxing used to be controlled by the italian mafia (see marciano undefeated record). its not anymore.
-boxing used have fight night weigh ins so that fighters that claim to be fighters from certain divisions fight at that division come fight night. Its not like that anymore with 24hr rehydration.

Golden Age of Boxing = MOST CORRUPT AGE IN BOXING HISTORY.

Dont let any of these biased, diaper wearing, apple sauce sippin, ho****e care chillin geezers tell you otherwise.

People complain about robberies today have no FREAKING IDEA how bad it was during the "Golden Age" of boxing.

exactly what i was talking about.

perfect example. to a T.

probably with fake teeth and soiled diaper as well.

[BennyST]

It's the people who actually believe the troll threads about this that sadden me, not the original post itself.

And to those people I ask this; if the new school is so much better than the old, than why are the best fighters in the world almost all in their mid to late 30s, with one 50 year old man-let me repeat that, a 50 year old man-still among the top 3 in his division? Shouldn't all these evolved, better fighters have kicked these old farts out of the sport by now?

Yeah, it's reasonably obvious to anyone with a brain, but these guys can't grasp certain points. To them, boxing equals better sprinters, faster times and heavier weights. It's bizarre.

But, as you mentioned, their own arguments starts to fail miserably by just looking at today. A 50 year old man......that's right. An actual 50 year old man is competing at the very highest levels of elite sport today. Now, you chumps of the evolved super athlete as boxer, go find me another sport that has a 50 year old man still at the top beating all the 25 year olds. Do you think it's because he's a better fighter rather than a better athlete than these guys? Because I'm pretty sure they could get a better time running, sprinting, swimming, cycling, lifting etc. I have no doubt in my mind that Jean Pascal is a greater athlete than a 50 year old Hopkins, but he's not a better boxer.

The evolution of sporting knowledge has probably helped Hopkins to stay at the top of his game longer, with excellent diet, nutrition, etc but it hasn't made him a better athlete. He's just a good fighter, and it has nothing to do with times, and being faster, and stronger, and bigger, and all this other bull**** you ****s rave about. He's better at slipping a punch, and then hitting someone back and he would have been great at it 30 years ago or 50 years ago, because he's a fighter.

You only need to go through the division and look at the top fighters to see that clearly it has nothing to do with these superior athletes today, because there is very little that is superior about their athletic capabilities in general.

A 40 year old, flabby, slow footed Thompson just knocked the ****e out of the taller, stronger, younger, fitter Price.

The Nipple, a disgrace to athletes worldwide just KTFO out of a former pro footballer, who was clearly leagues better as an athlete, but couldn't begin to compete as a fighter.

If I showed you dumb ****s a picture of Seth Mitchell, and The Nipple side by side and said The Nipple is from 40 years ago, and I guarantee you that he'd beat the **** out of this super strong, fit, muscular modern athlete Mithcell, you'd laugh and laugh and laugh and rant and rave about how that would be flat out impossible. We saw it happen today though. An infinitely superior athlete in every way, just got annihilated by a guy who would lose out in every single timed race, strength event, explosive power test, and whatever other bull**** you guys think makes boxers better, yet he destroyed the guy in one round easily.

This athletic evolution you guys constantly go on about, as it applies to athletics, doesn't apply in the same way to boxing. They are not similar sports, at all.

[BennyST]

exactly what i was talking about.

perfect example. to a T.

probably with fake teeth and soiled diaper as well.

Exactly what he was talking about.....? He's raving about better times, bigger athletes, and superior strength, then when I reply to that, he comes back with the above post in regards to ****ing boxing robberies in the 40s and 50s as some kind of proof.

Holy Christ on a crapper.

So your actual argument is that boxing is better today and athletes are more advanced because of boxing robberies.

Well done! We have a winner here folks. The NSB dumb **** of 2014! No more entrants necessary.

He's won his argument because no one, but this guy of course, has any idea what boxing robberies were like back then and all the fights were fake as WWE.

This is what we call 'special' thinking people. Praised by mothers alone, it seems to work so well in their minds.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

Exactly what he was talking about.....? He's raving about better times, bigger athletes, and superior strength, then when I reply to that, he comes back with the above post in regards to ****ing boxing robberies in the 40s and 50s as some kind of proof.

Holy Christ on a crapper.

So your actual argument is that boxing is better today and athletes are more advanced because of boxing robberies.

Well done! We have a winner here folks. The NSB dumb **** of 2014! No more entrants necessary.

He's won his argument because no one, but this guy of course, has any idea what boxing robberies were like back then and all the fights were fake as WWE.

This is what we call 'special' thinking people. Praised by mothers alone, it seems to work so well in their minds.

shut up old man before i put you in a home.



get outta here.

[Richard Wadd]

When pseudo-intellectual "sweet science" historians into cavepaintings and damaged 1920s photo reels aren't wearing their fedoras

bert sugar (RIP) was a plagarizer, boxing illustrated went down because of him.

[Larry the boss]

How is this obvious troll not banned?

[Citizen Koba]

Even though it's a joke thread nostalgia always wins out. It's impossible to actually guage the fighters in diff eras. It's all eye tests and those recently rarely pan out. The problem comes in where oh look at these greats, but maybe they were evenly matched and all about the same level. To put them on par with a diff era is hard and just guessing.

Not saying that the new is better just a viewpoint on it. It's like football like this team from the 60s would be the seahawks from 2013....how do you know? You just guess...it's all it is so no one can really be wrong.

Clearly the thread starter is joking, but I tend to agree with you on this, although it seems to be a rather unpopular viewpoint. I can see no real reason to say that the sport has either declined or improved on the whole, and no real way of making an accurate comparison.

My belief - the top guys of each era would likely be fairly competitive with one another and likely be seen as standouts in any era.

We tend to forget the time periods we're talking about here (we compare the top guys in one division this year with the top in many over a period of decades sometimes), and also as you point out, the magnifying effect of nostalgia (both our own and those who brought us to the sport).

As far as I can se there's no good reason to say that the overall standard of the sport has fallen in the last few decades, though it has become more international - relatively having lost popularity in the US whilst simultaneously growing more popular worldwide.