the biggest problem i have with the argument is that its such a huge myth that techniques now are better than they used to be. boxing is a finesse sport. you cant just think you are the biggest, baddest person in the room and then beat everyone at boxing. it doesnt work that way. joe louis proved that size doesnt matter by beating multiple people way bigger than him. i guess that i understand what strength is and isnt. read about jim jeffries in the late 1800s and eatly 1900s. he would work as a boiler maker all day then train after that. his daily routine would have definitely been too hard to handle for these fat and lazy HWs today. even stories of his strength are amazing. there have always been strong people in the world. modern techniques dont change that fact.

did you know that shorter arms can give more leverage on a punch? that is why guys like marciano, frazier, and tyson could hit so hard. punching power is a technique that has been around forever. there isnt any greater advancement on that than there has been for decades. i just dont understand why these fighters now would hit so much harder than the fighters in the past. there is absolutely no evidence to prove it.

holyfield came up from cruiserweight and could KO some of his opponents and could take their punches. yet, all of the fighters older than the 90's that were the size of holyfield couldnt do the same? it just doesnt make any sense. holyfield could not have been that much more advanced than a larry holmes. i mean, what is the difference between spinks beating holmes and holyfield beating all the HWs he beat? for holyfield, you would say that he was just good. for spinks, you say that it was because holmes was a bum compared to fighters now and lost to a cruiserweight.

i would be willing to change my mind if there was hard evidence. for example, if you could compare punching power or speed or strength. i just dont think that its possible though. and without that hard evidence, i cant believe that fighters today are just all around better.