Are modern fighters better?

[VG_Addict]

What are your thoughts on the age-old question of whether modern fighters are really better than older fighters? Where do you stand?

[BKM-2010]

I stand by the fact that Boxing is the least evolved sport after a certain time period(the sport peaked around the 30s and 40s. People from that point on got pretty much everything out of boxing techniques, the only real significant changes are the some of the training methods and the nutrition) because of how important the mental aspect is. In every sport this is extremely important, but Boxers have to deal with something that is very unnatural for a human being to deal with: getting punched in the brain.

[Humean]

Modern fighters are definitely better, they have a lot of advantages that fighters in the first half of the 20th century didn't have in order to reach their potential and boxing, like all other sports, lures in the talent a lot better than in the past, in short it is far more professional.

[PAC-BOY]

No .

[VG_Addict]

I mean, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster today than they were in the past.

Track and field runners are faster today than past runners. Basketball and football players are bigger, faster, and stronger than past players. Weightlifters today are stronger than past weightlifters.

Athletes are better today in just about every sport. Do you really think the same doesn't apply to boxing?

[joeandthebums]

I mean, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster today than they were in the past.

Track and field runners are faster today than past runners. Basketball and football players are bigger, faster, and stronger than past players. Weightlifters today are stronger than past weightlifters.

Athletes are better today in just about every sport. Do you really think the same doesn't apply to boxing?

[PAC-BOY]

I mean, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster today than they were in the past.

Track and field runners are faster today than past runners. Basketball and football players are bigger, faster, and stronger than past players. Weightlifters today are stronger than past weightlifters.

Athletes are better today in just about every sport. Do you really think the same doesn't apply to boxing?

You may want to ask New England this question. As he is concerned nobody knows shlt about athleticism but him and he is a god when it come to knowing all their is about athleticism. Also that he is the .1% and that 99.9% 0f everyone on here including BG are stupid and know nothing!

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...=685917&page=8
post 77

[joeandthebums]

I think the quality overall has remained constant, each generation usually produces a few boxers who can be considered great, regardless to what period they are compared to.

Personally I just happen to think that the wealth of talent in the 40's has created some distortion that since then there has been a decline in skill sets.

[BKM-2010]

I mean, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster today than they were in the past.

Track and field runners are faster today than past runners. Basketball and football players are bigger, faster, and stronger than past players. Weightlifters today are stronger than past weightlifters.

Athletes are better today in just about every sport. Do you really think the same doesn't apply to boxing?

Those athletes do not get punched in the face while they are doing whatever sport they're doing. They don't get their brains smashed so they lose the ability to use their legs and move around etc. You are either born a great boxer or you're not. You have to have this instinct that enables you take punches to the brain and not get scared or shocked in order to continue.

The boxers from the past dealt with this better than today's boxers, their mental toughness is what still keeps them at a level that has not been surpassed.

Combat sports are in a league of their own, they can't be compared to something like track and field or ball-based sports.

[Humean]

His book is very good.

I think the quality overall has remained constant, each generation usually produces a few boxers who can be considered great, regardless to what period they are compared to.

Personally I just happen to think that the wealth of talent in the 40's has created some distortion that since then there has been a decline in skill sets.

I don't think there has been a decline in skill from the 40s at all. There were certainly some talented fighters then but each decade since has produced a lot more talent for me (maybe not the 50s). If you look at the lighter weight classes in particular, the top flyweights and bantamweights from the 40s are no where near the level of the top guys from subsequent decades.