Todays athletes aren't always better

[A_Jeffrey]

I agree with most of this. But also, we are born with natural gifts. What if, for ex., a natural gifted one as Sam Langford had had the opportunity to benefit from today's knowledge of nutrition or training standards.
Would he have coped in this century too? Well, I'm pretty sure he would.

yeah, genetic freaks with natural gifts would be successful.
Also, if Marciano or Dempsey would be given modern nutrition and steroids they would be totally different fighters. Or if Tyson was born in 1910 he wouldn't look like a bodybuilder and wouldn't have 30 percent of his physical gifts.
However, if you transfer older generation boxers in a time machine into modern time they would be at disadvantage cause they would have to fight roided up monsters.

[Humean]

Bro, havw you ever boxed? maybe thats why you dont get it. I got to the part where you made assumptions (maybe not incorrect, i dont know enough about his record to say for sure) about Willie Pep having the majority of his bouts against journeyman, and not being better for it.

NOTHING beats fighting in the ring in boxing. absolutely nothing. sure talent can beat experience sometimes, but when the talented fighters get that kind of experience thats when they become truly great.

The ins and outs of boxing that cant be properly explained can only be learned by fighting in the ring. No other way. A guy like Pep or SRR with 100-200 fights is going to be so relaxed and poised in there, they see things even other good experienced fighters dont/ wont.

edit: laughed my ass off reading the bold. you dont know **** about boxing man. how the fck else are you gonna develop those skills for use in high pressure situations without the adrenaline there? You learn the most in the ring dude, training in the gym, sparring, praticing skills there is important but at the end of the day your learning curve is up there on the big stage, thats where you work on stuff and develop your craft.

Maybe you should read more closely before criticizing my post, I don't know **** about boxing and you obviously can't read properly. I never said you don't learn best under proper fight conditions but there is a massive trade off by doing so, namely the trade off of suffering brain damage (although sparring can be just as dangerous). Also fighting endless strings of journeymen even under proper fight conditions is unlikely to be better than fighting high quality fighters in sparring. Surely that is obvious?

[Daddy T]

Maybe you should read more closely before criticizing my post, I don't know **** about boxing and you obviously can't read properly. I never said you don't learn best under proper fight conditions but there is a massive trade off by doing so, namely the trade off of suffering brain damage (although sparring can be just as dangerous). Also fighting endless strings of journeymen even under proper fight conditions is unlikely to be better than fighting high quality fighters in sparring. Surely that is obvious?

you seem to get into an argument whenever you say anything, u never move an inch from your original stance and anybody who doesn't agree with you apparently 'can't read properly' u must be popular at parties...

[billeau2]

There really is something very wrong with you.


Technological advances in terms of the equipment certainly contribute some of the advance in sporting competence over time in, at the very least, most sports. However they do not even begin to cover anywhere near the whole of the time difference between Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt. If Bolt ran a 100 metres sprint in 1930s running shoes, 1930s sprinting clothing and on 1930s running track then he'd run slower for sure but he'd still run a hell of a lot faster than Owens. Of course none of this means that Jesse Owens was not a great athlete, just that compared to the best sprinters of today he wouldn't be in the elite, although he'd still beat me in a race hopping on one leg.

How could anyone know the degree of "difference" advances in materials make especially considering that we are dealing with fractions of seconds and considering that the record for a mile has been greatly enhanced? By what proto-scientific method can one isolate material improvements? and what sceptical analysis has tried to falsify a conclusion regarding materials by running in older materials?

[billeau2]

Modern boxers are better in most cases then older Generation boxers.

First of all, there are a lot more boxers these days then in the beginning of 20th century. Back in a day there was a limited number of countries like America or Britain who were competing, and now the whole world participates. Sweden, Philipines, Russia, Germany, Ukraine, China and even countries like Uzbekistan have pro fighters. There are even Cubans in pro ranks. So talent pool is larger by far. Boxing is not just an American and British sport, it's global sport now. There's a boxer from small village in Siberia in the ranks) this person would never be able to go pro 100 years ago. Even 30 years ago.

Lennox Lewis would go through Dempseys, Marcianos, Jack Johnsons in a couple of rounds without breaking a sweat. There is a reason why there are weigh-classes in boxing and modern 6 foot 5 + boxers are just larger and stronger and have a pretty good skill set as well.

Second, vintage soccer players look good on tape, but nobody argues that 1970s team would beat modern Barcelona or Real Madrid. Modern players are way more physical. They would rip old teams apart and same would be with boxing.

Third, steroids. They all take them. They didn't even have them before 1950s, and had crappy ones shortly after. Don't deny this, go to any gym and there are even guys who train once or twice a week and openly shot roids in locker rooms.

Forth, way better nutrition. Multi vitamins, supplements etc..

Fifth, training techniques improved, boxing is way more competitive these days and there's more money in it. Even Dana White is trying to get into boxing now believe it or not.

Six, people are generally bigger and stronger, in the begging of 20th century average person lived for only 45 years. Now, you're still young at that age. There's a champion who is 49(?)

Seventh, most old time boxers do look like crap on tape. Not all of them but lot's of them. They just don't look that physical. Hard to believe that Marciano would have a chance vs Tyson or Luis vs Lewis.

And what does one look for on tape? I doubt you even know because there is stuff to be seen on a technical level that belie "looking good or like crap". This post has all the standard replies that show a lack of specific reasoning. The mistakes regarding the reasons for improvements (they are not evolutionary) the misuse of statistics to prove a point...For example, there have always been people that lived a long time, hence had supperior health and fitness....so to say that a boxer would be less healthy and fit because a lot more people on average lived shorter life spans in ridiculous.

I could go on but alas, like our society and the media show everyday, stupidity shouted loud and long enough becomes noble truth. heres one more doozy though: to say that because the amount of people entering a sport = greater quality is like saying that because Basketball players of African descent jump high and make good ballplayers, every African is a great ballplayer....No dunce!!! it does not work that way!! In Africa there are many types of builds...you just don't see the pygmies on the basketball court...In any population sample there will be a finite number of pygmies, michael Jordons and everything in between....You can increase boxing activity ten fold and there will be a very finite number of guys good enough to fight professionally....the rest will always be the pygmies. You dig?

[Humean]

you seem to get into an argument whenever you say anything, u never move an inch from your original stance and anybody who doesn't agree with you apparently 'can't read properly' u must be popular at parties...

Arguments are good. I do move if people make a good point. People do constantly fail to understand things I write and criticize me based on that ignorance. It won't surprise you that I dislike parties and I don't much care for being popular.

How could anyone know the degree of "difference" advances in materials make especially considering that we are dealing with fractions of seconds and considering that the record for a mile has been greatly enhanced? By what proto-scientific method can one isolate material improvements? and what sceptical analysis has tried to falsify a conclusion regarding materials by running in older materials?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your comments, theoretically it could fairly easily be tested and these fractions of a second are not especially small from a scientific stand point. It wouldn't be able to test the most important technological advances, such as in nutrition and sports science but then it is precisely the point that those particular advances are the more significant part of the improvements of athletes over time rather than advances in 'equipment'. Although some sports vary greatly in that respect, tennis is perhaps an example of the 'equipment' quite considerably improving the sport.