Are the fighters of the 90s and todasy better than the fighters of the past ?

[JazMerkin]

I'm going to against the majority and say no. I think to be fighting 15 round fights sometimes just a few weeks after each other shows serious levels of physical fitness. However, the definition of the past is the problem here. Are these fighters more physically & technically gifted than the fighters of the 20s & 30s by and large, yes I think they are. More than those of the 50s, 60s & 70s? I think not.

When you look at the modern Heavyweights (and by that I mean the past 20 years) is there anyone more physically fit than those of the 60s & 70s, and anyone truly more technically gifted than the best of those eras? I don't think so. I was watching the Foreman-Norton fight the other night, and I was just thinking, those guys are too well-conditioned to be modern Heavies. I do agree there has been a moderate improvement in the technical aspect, however I feel that the fighters where this has had the greatest impact is those who were on the lower tiers below the elite. There has definitely been a physical & technical improvement among that level of fighter, however I think the elite of any eras would have been able to hang with each other.

I think guys like Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep & Benny Leonard would have been capable of being true greats in any era, because they really were special. I think you give a guy like SRR all the things modern boxers have, like 4-6 months between fights & he could have had a great record. I also think one of the reasons why I think boxing has not felt the impact of improved physical training is because it remains reliant on training regimes that have been around for decades, ie running, skipping, bagwork, sparring etc. Ironically these basic techniques remain considered some of the best physical training techniques in the world. The fact that most of boxing remains away from the world of modern gyms which seem more built towards body-structuring as opposed to physical fitness leads me to believe that there have not been as significant advances in physical fitness as there have been in other sports, which for my money are merely catching up with boxing. However, the one area where there has undoubtedly been dramatic improvement is nutrition, which has obviously helped.

I think we have a tendency to overplay & understate the quality of old-time fighters. People either make out they were unbeatable, and don't give due credit to modern guys, or people make too much of a present fighter's talent & make out he would have beaten all and sundry back in the day. On a brief note to JoeyUK, on the football argument, I really disagree with you, whilst there has been a dramatic improvement in the physical fitness of footballers, this has often been to the detriment of the technical abilities on show in previous decades, most particularly in Britain. I will disagree very strongly with the notion modern footballers are better, although that's a discussion for off-topic or let's get it on.

[Taeth]

The sport has clearly evolved, and thus the quality of fighting has improved, AT THE LOWER WEIGHTS. I think because in the 50's,60's,70's football and other sports weren't as prominent boxing was getting the cream of the crop talent wise. Now we don't see that talent in heavier weight divisions, I mean Roy Jones Jr moved up to LHW, but since him probably Chad Dawson has been the only athletic phenom who has risen to the top of the sport at 175 and above. Most of the athletic talent now lies in guys too small to play other sports like Mayweather, Gamboa, Pacquiao, Rigondeaux, most mexican fighters, etc.

[Taeth]

I'm going to against the majority and say no. I think to be fighting 15 round fights sometimes just a few weeks after each other shows serious levels of physical fitness. However, the definition of the past is the problem here. Are these fighters more physically & technically gifted than the fighters of the 20s & 30s by and large, yes I think they are. More than those of the 50s, 60s & 70s? I think not.

When you look at the modern Heavyweights (and by that I mean the past 20 years) is there anyone more physically fit than those of the 60s & 70s, and anyone truly more technically gifted than the best of those eras? I don't think so. I was watching the Foreman-Norton fight the other night, and I was just thinking, those guys are too well-conditioned to be modern Heavies. I do agree there has been a moderate improvement in the technical aspect, however I feel that the fighters where this has had the greatest impact is those who were on the lower tiers below the elite. There has definitely been a physical & technical improvement among that level of fighter, however I think the elite of any eras would have been able to hang with each other.

I think guys like Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep & Benny Leonard would have been capable of being true greats in any era, because they really were special. I think you give a guy like SRR all the things modern boxers have, like 4-6 months between fights & he could have had a great record. I also think one of the reasons why I think boxing has not felt the impact of improved physical training is because it remains reliant on training regimes that have been around for decades, ie running, skipping, bagwork, sparring etc. Ironically these basic techniques remain considered some of the best physical training techniques in the world. The fact that most of boxing remains away from the world of modern gyms which seem more built towards body-structuring as opposed to physical fitness leads me to believe that there have not been as significant advances in physical fitness as there have been in other sports, which for my money are merely catching up with boxing. However, the one area where there has undoubtedly been dramatic improvement is nutrition, which has obviously helped.

I think we have a tendency to overplay & understate the quality of old-time fighters. People either make out they were unbeatable, and don't give due credit to modern guys, or people make too much of a present fighter's talent & make out he would have beaten all and sundry back in the day. On a brief note to JoeyUK, on the football argument, I really disagree with you, whilst there has been a dramatic improvement in the physical fitness of footballers, this has often been to the detriment of the technical abilities on show in previous decades, most particularly in Britain. I will disagree very strongly with the notion modern footballers are better, although that's a discussion for off-topic or let's get it on.

TO be fair about their records, IMO guys now spend as much time in the ring as the guys of old, but they just aren't always in prize fights. You look at Mayweather or Oscar or most top guys they are sparring 15-20 rounds that can be 5 minute rounds with guys who have held belts. I mean Mayweather was doing 20x5minute rounds with Lovemore N'dou and Carlos Baldomir to get ready for Hatton. Even though Mayweather has had only 39 proffesional fights, I can't think of a person who has had more ring experience than him.

[brocktonblockbust]

NO.

[JazMerkin]

I'm going to against the majority and say no. I think to be fighting 15 round fights sometimes just a few weeks after each other shows serious levels of physical fitness. However, the definition of the past is the problem here. Are these fighters more physically & technically gifted than the fighters of the 20s & 30s by and large, yes I think they are. More than those of the 50s, 60s & 70s? I think not.

When you look at the modern Heavyweights (and by that I mean the past 20 years) is there anyone more physically fit than those of the 60s & 70s, and anyone truly more technically gifted than the best of those eras? I don't think so. I was watching the Foreman-Norton fight the other night, and I was just thinking, those guys are too well-conditioned to be modern Heavies. I do agree there has been a moderate improvement in the technical aspect, however I feel that the fighters where this has had the greatest impact is those who were on the lower tiers below the elite. There has definitely been a physical & technical improvement among that level of fighter, however I think the elite of any eras would have been able to hang with each other.

I think guys like Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep & Benny Leonard would have been capable of being true greats in any era, because they really were special. I think you give a guy like SRR all the things modern boxers have, like 4-6 months between fights & he could have had a great record. I also think one of the reasons why I think boxing has not felt the impact of improved physical training is because it remains reliant on training regimes that have been around for decades, ie running, skipping, bagwork, sparring etc. Ironically these basic techniques remain considered some of the best physical training techniques in the world. The fact that most of boxing remains away from the world of modern gyms which seem more built towards body-structuring as opposed to physical fitness leads me to believe that there have not been as significant advances in physical fitness as there have been in other sports, which for my money are merely catching up with boxing. However, the one area where there has undoubtedly been dramatic improvement is nutrition, which has obviously helped.

I think we have a tendency to overplay & understate the quality of old-time fighters. People either make out they were unbeatable, and don't give due credit to modern guys, or people make too much of a present fighter's talent & make out he would have beaten all and sundry back in the day. On a brief note to JoeyUK, on the football argument, I really disagree with you, whilst there has been a dramatic improvement in the physical fitness of footballers, this has often been to the detriment of the technical abilities on show in previous decades, most particularly in Britain. I will disagree very strongly with the notion modern footballers are better, although that's a discussion for off-topic or let's get it on.

TO be fair about their records, IMO guys now spend as much time in the ring as the guys of old, but they just aren't always in prize fights. You look at Mayweather or Oscar or most top guys they are sparring 15-20 rounds that can be 5 minute rounds with guys who have held belts. I mean Mayweather was doing 20x5minute rounds with Lovemore N'dou and Carlos Baldomir to get ready for Hatton. Even though Mayweather has had only 39 proffesional fights, I can't think of a person who has had more ring experience than him.

I wasn't saying they were necessarily all better back then (although I definitely think the Heavies were) IMO Mayweather could have hung with the best whatever era, I just don't think there have been such significant advances to make modern fighters 'better' than the older fighters.

[Taeth]

Watch Ray Robinson vs Lamotta or whoever, they had virtually no defense back then. Even comparing Leonard to Whitaker or Mayweather or Jones, athletically he could hang with anybody, but the sport has changed considerably, the new style of being a slick boxer went from Ali to Leonard to Whitaker to RJJ to Mayweather, it has definitely evolved. IMO if Robinson were to fight with the exact same style he had, he wouldn't have done that well because he was so easy to hit, and he wouldn't know what to do against a real defense, I think he would have picked it up really quick, but that throwing in a guy from the 40's would be suicide for them against the pros nowadays when directly comparing them. Thats why a great can only be compared in their generation.

MMA has evolved a lot quicker because all the sports involved have had a lot of time to evolve, but look at the difference between the founders of the sport and look at the sport now.

Look at both american and european football, look how they've changed.

All sports evolve, regardless of how simple they may appear. Boxing's evolution right now IMO is the huge amount of southpaws that are pouring into the sport. Based on the amateurs we are likely to see a 50/50 representation between southpaw and orthodox fighters.

Want evidence of this watch Jack Johnson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQtuT...eature=related

look at their stance, technique, etc the sport has definitely evolved a great deal, of course the closer you get to nowadays the smaller the change will be.

IMO if Ali-Frazier took place nowadays Ali wouldn't have been hit at all by that left hook, he would have had his right hand up the whole time.

[Chris24-7]

Wow yea from that video boxing has evolved massively...they seem to move about with their gloves down for a bit then lay into eachother. SRR wouldnt have got 128-1 today but as posted above all sports evolve and sportsmen are only going to get better

[Kirkland Laing]

Jesse Owens woulodn't even get on the US Olympic team today.

[JazMerkin]

Jesse Owens woulodn't even get on the US Olympic team today.

Look at his physique or that of the US '68 Olympic team, and their times, then look at modern guys and their build & times, and you will see that most of it is down to training. Most of the guys back then weren't full time athletes, they were college athletes at the same time. I'll continue to go against the rest and say it hasn't evolved as dramatically in the last 50 years as some might say. Boxing that is. I still think the truly great boxers of the past would have found a way to win in the modern era, as would the best of modern times in the past.

[holmcall]

Since weight divisions stay constant by definition, I say the fighters that go all the way back to the 50's are pretty competetive. However, at the higher weight of heavy, that may not hold given the unlimited size a heavy can fight at today. Howevere, the 90's produced some good heavies whom I think could compete witht he dreadful bunch in there today except maybe for Wlad.

Weight and size are variables in other sports like football and basketball, and I believe the argument for them does not necessarily apply to boxing.

Great question, however, and I realize progressive skills is the real question.