Present V Past

[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.

[Memphis]

Based on what? You’re doing the exact thing I’m talking about Brock. I would have expected you to go that way to be fair but it’s nonsense.

[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!

[Memphis]

Reminds me of the old sketch. I forget who did it. “You can’t expect a man who plays football full time to achieve the same level of fitness as a man who works in a chip shop six days a week and plays on Sunday”.

I think on the whole we can agree that footballers are technically better and fitter than those past. Footballers past. Tougher for sure.

Athletics is a straight forward one too based on how it’s measured. Time and distance. Science has made running faster and jumping/throwing further easier, but it’s observable over time. Again you’ve got that levelling the playing field aspect but I think it’s fair to say that on the whole people can run faster, jump higher etc.

[Fenster]

Every sport in history has progressed apart from boxing which has drastically regressed. It's a silly/lazy argument, for obvious reasons (like scoring, it's all in the eye of the beholder, no concrete facts and figures).

I fully get the rose tinted glasses lark, i'm just as guilty, forever thinking so-and-so from the 90s would have murdered this or that "champ." But it's not the truth. The truth is, in all likelihood, the best fighters in any era would hold their own with each other.

I think Lennox irons out Joshua but he lost to fighters who Joshua irons (obviously not McCall, impossible, but you get the drift).

[X]

Well, why arent cricket bowlers the fastest and best there has ever been? Same ball, same grass, same distance .... but (following previous arguments), bigger guys, better training, better science etc etc

There are some good ones around, but nobody of the calibre of Holding, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Lille's, Thompson, Larwood, Akhtar, Khan, Dev, Donald etc?

[X]

More importantly, why has nobody surpassed the penis size of the legendary King Dong?