Are boxers really more skilled compared to boxers from the past.

[Sheldon312]

I was watching some old footage of Dempsey, De La Hoya, Pernell, and many others last night and earlier today. And I've noticed that fighters back in the day were faster, stronger, and a lot more skilled than fighters today. Take Oscar for example, yes, he lost his fair share of fights but he was a tramendously skilled fighter. I honestly think he would be P4 1 in this era and he would rule the 140 and 147 division. Tito had his flaws but based off the eye test he is more skilled than all the welterweight s today. GGG and Canelo are great but I don't think either one of them beats a Prime Hagler, Monzon, Jones, or Toney. I've also noticed tht people like Crawford, Spence, and Thurman receive a lot of praise at 27, 28, and 29. But fighters like Hearns, Hagler, Leonard, Ali, Floyd, Tito, Pernell, Tyson, Lennox, Toney, Roy Jones, Pacman, and many others we're considered legends in their mid 20's. What has happened to boxing? Why do so many people get hyped over 1 big win?
Joshua beat Klitcsko but are we sure that he would've beaten a prime Klits. Crawford is dominating 140 but would he do the same if he had a prime Pac, Floyd, Delahoya, Mosley, Duran, or Kostya Tszu in his division? Would Thurman and Spence be seen as great if they were in the Hearns, Hagler, and Leonard era? I know I post a lot about how great the current crop of talent is today but I just don't think they are great as the previous era of boxers. In every other sport, athletes have got better but in boxing it seems the opposite. Does anybody else agree?

PS: Excuse grammar and punctuation. I'm posting this from my phone.

[yngwie]

Yesterday i was watching Alexis Arguello vs Ray Mancini, the amount of feints, head movement, control of distance, in fighting and overall adaptivity and technique was crazy.
But Arguello wasn't even considered the best boxer of his time and displayed all that crazy inside skills and defense despite being the much taller boxer.
People here seems to underrate greats of the past by watching some boxrec records and thinking that every fighter that gets hit more than Floyd Mayweather has awful defense.
At the end of the day, fighters in the past were more craftier but today they are more phyisical but even with the physical advantage they aren't as fearless, a lot of them wouldn't last 15 rounds.
But i'm not hating on todays boxers, looking at Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao and i love the fact that they became the best of their era without the biggest advantages in cutting weight, they are crafty and that showcase my point overall.
You can be a great fighter at any era, your time can have advantages and disadvanages but if you are great your name will be remembered, That's why Ali, Tyson and Louis are Always apreciated despite being so apart from each other in time.

[SugarRayCurtain]

Youre listing legendary fighters from the past, there have been plenty of fighters in the past inferior to the crop we have today aswell.

[Sheldon312]

Youre listing legendary fighters from the past, there have been plenty of fighters in the past inferior to the crop we have today aswell.

But it seems as though the best of the part are more skilled than the best of today's generation. For instance, compare Oscar to Crawford. Outside of switch-hitting what does he do better? Oscar has better hand speed, defense, footwork, better at creating angles, can cut off the ring, and he had a tremendous boxing IQ. In his prime, he would've beaten Pacman and Floyd to be honest.

[JJRod]

Hopkins in an interview a while ago touched on this, when they asked him why he as an old man (48 at the time I believe) was still able to compete with the young guys to today.
He basically said fighters back then fought more often than today. When you fight 5 to 6 times a year you don't get out of shape between fights, you don't have time to. You're constantly training, constantly perfecting your craft, getting better and better with each sparring, each fight each victory or defeat. Today boxers fight maybe 2 times a year. They spend months between fights getting fat, not training, and many fight camps are spend battling the scale that your opponent.

[Sheldon312]

Hopkins in an interview a while ago touched on this, when they asked him why he as an old man (48 at the time I believe) was still able to compete with the young guys to today.
He basically said fighters back then fought more often than today. When you fight 5 to 6 times a year you don't get out of shape between fights, you don't have time to. You're constantly training, constantly perfecting your craft, getting better and better with each sparring, each fight each victory or defeat. Today boxers fight maybe 2 times a year. They spend months between fights getting fat, not training, and many fight camps are spend battling the scale that your opponent.

That's understandable.

[boliodogs]

Great fighters of the past were just as good. They fought much more often and on average took more risky fights so they might have more losses. The different punches and all the other boxing skills have been known for a very long time. If you go back 100 years boxers might not have been as good because the population of the world was much smaller. Less people means less chance of a great fighter. Also boxing was only practiced in a few counties unlike today. Boxers didn't make much money and sometimes bet on themselves to try and make more money. Big money attracts talent. Ray Robinson and Joe Louis fought in the 40s and 50s and to this day many think Robinson was the best fighter in history. Watch a film of Joe Louis and see the way he punches. Then watch Wilder fight. Joe Louis was a master of correctly throwing every punch. Wilder's punching form is that of a novice at best.

[boliodogs]

I made a mistake on my last post. To go back to the time when boxers didn't make much money you have to go back to about 120 years ago. Jack Dempsey fought almost 100 years ago and made very good money.

[jmrf4435]

I think the real difference is the sport is more international now. It used to be just USA, mexico, UK and germany.

Its more competitive than it's ever been

[Sheldon312]

I think the real difference is the sport is more international now. It used to be just USA, mexico, UK and germany.

Its more competitive than it's ever been

I disagree. In the previous eras you didn't have weight bullying or guys ducking like you do now. Boxers were also more skilled.