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

[jmrf4435]

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

There were no Manny pacmans, GGG's, and lomachenkos.

[Sheldon312]

There were no Manny pacmans, GGG's, and lomachenkos.

Duran beats Loma and Pac at 130 to 140. Hagler and Monzon beat GGG. Lomemchencko is a toss up.

[jmrf4435]

Duran beats Loma and Pac at 130 to 140. Hagler and Monzon beat GGG. Lomemchencko is a toss up.

The point is that guys like those were not in the equation, monzon and hagler didn't even have to think about guys like that.

[Sheldon312]

The point is that guys like those were not in the equation, monzon and hagler didn't even have to think about guys like that.

Duran faced fighter who could compete with Loma and Manny. Monzon and Hagler dominated in some of the greatest eras of boxing

[Sheldon312]

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.

That was a great fight

[M Bison]

It depends on how far back you go, If you're going back to the very very start when the sport was growing then I'd have to say yes, today's standard Is better and I'm aware some will disagree, but there is just so much science behind boxing now, so much technique, and whatever else.
The training the old guys did back then sure a lot of it remains in use today, but I just personally believe on a global stage boxing has so many countries competing so we have a larger pool of talent and so many different types of styles of unique fighters.

I can't give an exact year which I think the current era is definitely better than but If I was to fathom a guess I'd probably say from 1940's going further back, I think from 60's onwards those guys would all give current guys of now hell, there is rare examples of one or two guys from way back that are an exception to the rule so don't misinterpret what I'm saying.

[-Antonio-]

There are still special fighters today. Ward and Kovalev are special. Crawford is special. Canelo is probably special too, but at 154 moreso than 160. Lomachenko is one of the best I've ever seen skill wise.

I don't think GGG is special. He's a really good fighter, not all time though. Hopkins would have embarrassed him. I think Pavlik would have even beat him.

[Sheldon312]

There are still special fighters today. Ward and Kovalev are special. Crawford is special. Canelo is probably special too, but at 154 moreso than 160. Lomachenko is one of the best I've ever seen skill wise.

I don't think GGG is special. He's a really good fighter, not all time though. Hopkins would have embarrassed him. I think Pavlik would have even beat him.

Yes, but would Crawford beat a prime Delahoya, Pacquiao, Mosley, Floyd, Kostya, Duran, Wilfred? Would Canelo beat Hopkins, Tito, Wright, Mcclean, Roy Jones? I don't think so Loma is the only one I could see beating some of these legends.