Present V Past

[X]

There is also the 'other' boxing fan who believes that modern fighters would always be superior to old timers .... better training, better nutrition, better science etc.

Anthony Joshua MUST be better than Joe Louis because he is bigger and has more defined muscles. He benefits from modern science (steroids) etc

Thats equally as bullshit, of course.

[Memphis]

I’ve only really noticed that recently. The influx of boxing ‘fans’ that think boxing began in 2010. The think the premier league started at the same time too. They generally love AJ, Man City and wouldn’t think twice about sharing their fortune with you via email.

[powerpuncher]

There is a never ending debate about this topic. What I will say is that we tend to focus on the all time greats of the past and then set up a fantasy match up with someone who hasn’t proven themselves yet.

So in your example, Lewis is known as one of the best HWs ever. AJ is potentially #3 HW right now. If we are comparing people to Mayweather or Pacquiao, I think there are a lot better debates. I understand there are still those who refuse to say a modern fighter is better than an older one, but I think matching up two all time greats makes it better. Like your example of Haglar and GGG. I have seen ridiculous ideas on both sides. Most educated fans would understand it wouldn’t be a one sided beating or could at least give real evidence as to why it would be.

Most educated fans are pretty fair I think.

[Spicoli]

Makes me remember a time when I had a guy actually refuse to trade anymore fights with me because I "refused to ask for anything prior to 1990" . Very much stuck on the here and now. We boast the most about what we actually lived live for the most part. Young fans today will get it eventually, literally takes time. Great thing about the sport is it's a treasure trove all for the taking and appreciation once fans open their minds and respect trailblazers. That said I think of a quick combo capped with the left hook Povetkin got off and what the bouncing Shmoo Ruiz could do with the left hook and have to conclude Holyfield sends AJ crashing . In fairness the old lot have all concluded and come full circle. We have that perspective. Guys on top today still have the other side of the mountain to navigate too, stories to be written.

And for all the present day improvements in nutrition, training and availability that may benefit today vs yesteryear in these hypotheticals, there's much to be said for what those generations would also bring. I really do think the mentality and career activity levels were massive pluses. Not to get all rose colored glasses and fawning on faded glory but generationally we were just harder then. Guys went careers without even sniffing a title and the accolades and elevated opinion of self that comes with it today. Devin Haney calls himself a two time champion and I cannot begin to name who he beat for it but rest assured he'll tell you he shats gold.

[TonnnnUK]

I generally steer away from any discussion of past vs present fantasy match up, all time rankings, lbs for lbs debates etc for a number of reasons.
My boxing knowledge only goes back so far. I'm in my early-mid 30s so I remember watching Eubank-Benn, Bruno and Naz as a kid in the 90s, and was aware of the likes of Tyson, Holyfied and Lewis having fights in the states. They were out of reach on Sky ppv, something I never had back then. And it wasn't until I got into uni when I began to actually take a proper interest in things around 2005.

I'm aware of some of the history, the big players from decades past, but actually watching of old classic fights is limited. So there's only so much I could argue a case in these fantasy matches.

One of the big ones in recent years was the belief of many that the Klitschkos were only dominating a very piss poor division and that they wouldn't have stood up to the previous more golden years. My estimation was that they were infact a whole new animal and would have competed wth and maybe even beaten the greats of the past who were pretty small for the division in modern terms.

There has to be some truths to both sides of the arguements though.

Fighters of yesteryear would have many more fights than todays top tier guys, they would fight more dangerous opponents due to more limited number of titles and so less cherry picking.

But todays athletes are ultimately more enhanced in their training, and we have more knowledge these days in science than back then. Advancements in techinques, strategies and game plans etc.
There's a very good arguement for pretty much all sports that the standards of the modern day is better than decades gone by.

[X]

I'm not sure I agree there mate. Take your example then, but go even further back to (say) Larry Holmes in the late 70's and early 80's.

Are you saying that techniques, strategies and game plans would have suddenly and quickly evolved in the 20 years between Holmes and Klitschko ..... when humans had already been boxing for thousands of years?

Average human size has certainly changed, I would agree with you there, but it's a bit arrogant of us to think previous generations were somehow less physically gifted, intelligent or capable than those people we see on HD resolution TV.

You could argue that the same mindset convinced people that dinosaurs were huge, slow, lumbering and very stupid animals that moved in slow motion ... but it seems they were not?

[Memphis]

A few good points in there. There's a cut off point to all of our boxing knowledge isn't there. In these kind of debates, some people want to ignore that an wax lyrical about fighters they've never seen, not at the time at least. OK you can paint a picture, make links to more modern fighters. But your opinion is largely given to you rather than formed yourself over time. Some people are happy to steer clear as you said. I cant really say because I wasn't around, didn't follow boxing etc.. Some people, and these will be the ones that want to sound knowledgeable, dive in and rubbish the contemporary fighters chances because, well everyone else does.

The Klitschko's is a good shout. Was their era great? The consensus would be no. But again, give or take a couple of names it was every bit as good as Lewis's for me. People will talk about the loses for each of them, Wlad more so because of their nature and the general thinking that he was the less sturdy of the brothers, fair comment on that. People will happily rubbish Wlad because of a few dodgy heavy losses, yet laud Lewis who has equally embarrassing heavy defeats against opposition that was no better. Again, give Wlad or Vitali Lewis's career, I don't see it panning out much differently.

The modern boxer and how he trains, prepares is an interesting one to me. Obviously people now are far more savvy about what they eat, what they supplement that with, what physical activity to do. What's the end product? Are boxers now all super fit machines that can go full tilt for 36 minutes every fight with a perfectly evolved technique? I think the answer to that one lies somewhere in the middle. Both past and present would benefit from what the other does, or rather had to do. Modern day fighters would benefit from being in the ring more. To a point, past fighters probably from being in the ring a bit less.

A jab, right cross, left hook have remained unchanged for a long time. OK there might be minor nuances to it from certain individuals. But the mechanics have remained largely untouched, some might say technical coaching has gone backwards. So the benefits of modern science are possibly bottlenecked to a degree in comparison to something like tennis, where the thing they use has come on leaps and bounds over years. Bigger, stronger faster tennis players can impart all that science into and through a (what are they made of now?) modern racket and play shots with greater force and accuracy that the older players of not a million years ago simply couldn't with the wooden racket. A glove is a glove. Yes they've changed, but not as an extension of the fighter in the way that a racket or bat has. To that end I'd probably lean towards the older fighters in terms of how they did things. The technical elements have remained the same, they just did it more. The modern boxer isn't being taught anything alien to the boxer of the past when it comes to how to box.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Memphis, people have changed. Not fighters but people in general.

Food quality has decreased. Couch potatoes have increased.

Marvin Hagler REEMS GGG 7 days to Sunday.

[TonnnnUK]

I'm not sure I agree there mate. Take your example then, but go even further back to (say) Larry Holmes in the late 70's and early 80's.

Are you saying that techniques, strategies and game plans would have suddenly and quickly evolved in the 20 years between Holmes and Klitschko ..... when humans had already been boxing for thousands of years?

The modern boxer and how he trains, prepares is an interesting one to me. Obviously people now are far more savvy about what they eat, what they supplement that with, what physical activity to do. What's the end product? Are boxers now all super fit machines that can go full tilt for 36 minutes every fight with a perfectly evolved technique? I think the answer to that one lies somewhere in the middle. Both past and present would benefit from what the other does, or rather had to do. Modern day fighters would benefit from being in the ring more. To a point, past fighters probably from being in the ring a bit less.

A jab, right cross, left hook have remained unchanged for a long time. OK there might be minor nuances to it from certain individuals. But the mechanics have remained largely untouched, some might say technical coaching has gone backwards. So the benefits of modern science are possibly bottlenecked to a degree in comparison to something like tennis, where the thing they use has come on leaps and bounds over years. Bigger, stronger faster tennis players can impart all that science into and through a (what are they made of now?) modern racket and play shots with greater force and accuracy that the older players of not a million years ago simply couldn't with the wooden racket. A glove is a glove. Yes they've changed, but not as an extension of the fighter in the way that a racket or bat has. To that end I'd probably lean towards the older fighters in terms of how they did things. The technical elements have remained the same, they just did it more. The modern boxer isn't being taught anything alien to the boxer of the past when it comes to how to box.

You fellas are probably about right. Boxing is something of a primitive art, whereas other sports such as the example of tennis could look to the advancement of equipment as a major factor for modern athletes being superior.

Alghough take modern football, which is hard to gauge since its a team sport but it also a pretty primative sport. The debate on who is the greatest footballer is GENERALLY between two current/active players (Ronaldo and Messi). Players of today are generally considered better than their counterparts of yesteryear as the game is now played at a faster pace etc etc.
Records in athletics for the most part don't hold for more than a couple of decades. Some of the longer ones going back around 30 years. But they are reflective that athletes perform better over time.

It's a very hard debate!