Are fighters stronger and fitter now or weaker?

[Controversial]

This kinda interests me about the old time fighters that fought sometimes hundreds of fights (over many years in some cases) and why a lot of fighters in more recent decades are pretty much done after 50 fights or so. Was it because the old timers were so much stronger and fitter or was it they got stronger and fitter over the decades meaning their bodies aren't capable of having multiple fights? Fighters like Zivic, Saddler, SRR, Langford, Moore and Pep had tons of fights so was the vast majority of their opponents not so good that it made it easier to fight so often? People often argue the quality has dropped, the numbers of participants in pro boxing certainly has but are guys today actually stronger and therefore their bodies are broken quicker?

Of course like any debate there will be exceptions. We have Canelo today who is 32 years old and has had 63 fights but the general consensus is he isn't the fighter he used be. When you consider he probably has the best training team and facilities any fighter could wish for, the fact is it would be unlikely his body could cope with having numerous fights a year, even if if wanted to. So if Canelo with advantages he often has over opponents in terms of contracts, weights and the team around him is on the slide how were so many old timers able to be at the top so long? FMM another one who could prepare in the best ways possible, a fighter who never ballooned in weight, rarely took many heavy shots but was still done at 50 fights.

Can you imagine someone like Archie Moore today getting a HW title shot after almost 180 fights at around 40 years of age and then going on to have another 40 fights up to the age of 50? His body must’ve been smashed to pieces after so many fights yet still managed to box at a top level. So how did he do it?



.

[margaret thatcher]

modern weight cutting and exploitation of day before weigh ins aint great for longevity

[Controversial]

modern weight cutting and exploitation of day before weigh ins aint great for longevity

Yes that would certainly be a factor, I’m not sure when that became common practice but it doesn't really apply to HWs

[Controversial]

Archie Moore was a pro for 28 years, had 220 fights and fought up to the age of 50, thats crazy when you think about it and still a world champ and competing at the top level near the end of his career.

I guess in more recent times we can look at Holmes who was a pro for 29 years but had 75 fights up to the age 52 but had nowhere the amount of fights of Moore and wasn't in the greatest shape near the end unlike Moore who was yo-yo'ing between LHW and HW

[HomicideHenry]

I'm of the opinion the more you do something the better you are at it. The guys in the 80s and prior fought so much that they were sharp and battle ready at any given time. Look at their schedules, they were doing 2-4 week training camps for the most part. 6 weeks tops.

Because of this constant activity, it forced them to become better and better defensively as well as offensively. Which is why you could have a guy like Archie Moore have such a long career on top.

Guys today? They have long careers because they do less, and most of their careers are arguments over contracts. Spending 3 months negotiating, then spending another three months training basically. Businessmen who put on the gloves occasionally.

Far as fitness is concerned, I might be biased but I think the guys back in the day especially the farther back you go were more fit than guys today. What we have today is guys who are good for ten rounds, and they are lazy in many of those rounds. They throw away the first round almost every time doing nothing, and usually have a breather round catching their breaths. So 12 rounders are really 10 rounders at best.

Kind of hard to compare anyone today to say the first Ali-Frazier fight where both men were so conditioned and going full tilt the entire 15 rounds throwing an insane level of punches per round. And that's 200 pounders going at basically a middleweight pace.

Or to consider once upon a time there was 20, 45, 100 round title bouts and unlimited "fights to the finish" contests where even if you figure ten rounds might've been throw aways where people were catching their breaths they were still banging away for an extraordinary amount of time that no boxer today could do (in my opinion).

People might look more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, looking more like fitness models or bodybuilders, but they're not necessarily in genuine fighting shape. Not by historical standards anyways.

[Controversial]

I'm of the opinion the more you do something the better you are at it. The guys in the 80s and prior fought so much that they were sharp and battle ready at any given time. Look at their schedules, they were doing 2-4 week training camps for the most part. 6 weeks tops.

Because of this constant activity, it forced them to become better and better defensively as well as offensively. Which is why you could have a guy like Archie Moore have such a long career on top.

Guys today? They have long careers because they do less, and most of their careers are arguments over contracts. Spending 3 months negotiating, then spending another three months training basically. Businessmen who put on the gloves occasionally.

Far as fitness is concerned, I might be biased but I think the guys back in the day especially the farther back you go were more fit than guys today. What we have today is guys who are good for ten rounds, and they are lazy in many of those rounds. They throw away the first round almost every time doing nothing, and usually have a breather round catching their breaths. So 12 rounders are really 10 rounders at best.

Kind of hard to compare anyone today to say the first Ali-Frazier fight where both men were so conditioned and going full tilt the entire 15 rounds throwing an insane level of punches per round. And that's 200 pounders going at basically a middleweight pace.

Or to consider once upon a time there was 20, 45, 100 round title bouts and unlimited "fights to the finish" contests where even if you figure ten rounds might've been throw aways where people were catching their breaths they were still banging away for an extraordinary amount of time that no boxer today could do (in my opinion).

People might look more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, looking more like fitness models or bodybuilders, but they're not necessarily in genuine fighting shape. Not by historical standards anyways.

I hear you but the human body can only take so much punishment, getting punched in the head doesn't get better the more it happens. In most physically hard sports there is a limit how long people can stay at the top as injuries normally occur, footballers knees or ankle problems normally force their retirement. Guys like Hagler couldn't manage to have extended careers like a lot of guys back in history did. Hagler was as tough and fit as they come, he crammed 67 fights into a 14 year career but arguably he wasn't the same force near the end and I couldn't see him reaching a 100 fights, let alone 200-300

[HomicideHenry]

I'm of the opinion the more you do something the better you are at it. The guys in the 80s and prior fought so much that they were sharp and battle ready at any given time. Look at their schedules, they were doing 2-4 week training camps for the most part. 6 weeks tops.

Because of this constant activity, it forced them to become better and better defensively as well as offensively. Which is why you could have a guy like Archie Moore have such a long career on top.

Guys today? They have long careers because they do less, and most of their careers are arguments over contracts. Spending 3 months negotiating, then spending another three months training basically. Businessmen who put on the gloves occasionally.

Far as fitness is concerned, I might be biased but I think the guys back in the day especially the farther back you go were more fit than guys today. What we have today is guys who are good for ten rounds, and they are lazy in many of those rounds. They throw away the first round almost every time doing nothing, and usually have a breather round catching their breaths. So 12 rounders are really 10 rounders at best.

Kind of hard to compare anyone today to say the first Ali-Frazier fight where both men were so conditioned and going full tilt the entire 15 rounds throwing an insane level of punches per round. And that's 200 pounders going at basically a middleweight pace.

Or to consider once upon a time there was 20, 45, 100 round title bouts and unlimited "fights to the finish" contests where even if you figure ten rounds might've been throw aways where people were catching their breaths they were still banging away for an extraordinary amount of time that no boxer today could do (in my opinion).

People might look more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, looking more like fitness models or bodybuilders, but they're not necessarily in genuine fighting shape. Not by historical standards anyways.

I hear you but the human body can only take so much punishment, getting punched in the head doesn't get better the more it happens. Guys like Hagler couldn't manage to have extended careers like a lot of guys back in history did. Hagler was as tough and fit as they come, he crammed 67 fights into a 14 year career but arguably wasn't the same force he once was and I can't see him managing to have over 100 fights, let alone 200-300

Hagler was an offensive fighter though. He wasn't like Archie because Archie set up traps, etc. So Archie was able to have an extended career because he took far less punishment than people would assume. The more defensive you were the longer your career generally was.

Then again, you would be surprised how much abuse the human body can take because of being well conditioned and being tempered by combat. Tex Cobb, George Chuvalo, etc were largely tough men because they were in really great shape and able to absorb punishment better because of it.

Most of those guys never were hit with a flush shot all that much either. They rode the punches. You would think that they got hit with something really hard when in reality they barely got tapped.

[Controversial]

I'm of the opinion the more you do something the better you are at it. The guys in the 80s and prior fought so much that they were sharp and battle ready at any given time. Look at their schedules, they were doing 2-4 week training camps for the most part. 6 weeks tops.

Because of this constant activity, it forced them to become better and better defensively as well as offensively. Which is why you could have a guy like Archie Moore have such a long career on top.

Guys today? They have long careers because they do less, and most of their careers are arguments over contracts. Spending 3 months negotiating, then spending another three months training basically. Businessmen who put on the gloves occasionally.

Far as fitness is concerned, I might be biased but I think the guys back in the day especially the farther back you go were more fit than guys today. What we have today is guys who are good for ten rounds, and they are lazy in many of those rounds. They throw away the first round almost every time doing nothing, and usually have a breather round catching their breaths. So 12 rounders are really 10 rounders at best.

Kind of hard to compare anyone today to say the first Ali-Frazier fight where both men were so conditioned and going full tilt the entire 15 rounds throwing an insane level of punches per round. And that's 200 pounders going at basically a middleweight pace.

Or to consider once upon a time there was 20, 45, 100 round title bouts and unlimited "fights to the finish" contests where even if you figure ten rounds might've been throw aways where people were catching their breaths they were still banging away for an extraordinary amount of time that no boxer today could do (in my opinion).

People might look more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, looking more like fitness models or bodybuilders, but they're not necessarily in genuine fighting shape. Not by historical standards anyways.

I hear you but the human body can only take so much punishment, getting punched in the head doesn't get better the more it happens. Guys like Hagler couldn't manage to have extended careers like a lot of guys back in history did. Hagler was as tough and fit as they come, he crammed 67 fights into a 14 year career but arguably wasn't the same force he once was and I can't see him managing to have over 100 fights, let alone 200-300

Hagler was an offensive fighter though. He wasn't like Archie because Archie set up traps, etc. So Archie was able to have an extended career because he took far less punishment than people would assume. The more defensive you were the longer your career generally was.

Then again, you would be surprised how much abuse the human body can take because of being well conditioned and being tempered by combat. Tex Cobb, George Chuvalo, etc were largely tough men because they were in really great shape and able to absorb punishment better because of it.

Most of those guys never were hit with a flush shot all that much either. They rode the punches. You would think that they got hit with something really hard when in reality they barely got tapped.

Moore was still getting hit though, he was stopped or knocked down several times in his career and boxed over a 1000 rounds more than Hagler and that excludes sparring. Any accumulation of punches that rattle your brain takes a physical toll regardless how fit you are. I just can't see how someone with that many fights and age wouldn't be broken.

[HomicideHenry]

I hear you but the human body can only take so much punishment, getting punched in the head doesn't get better the more it happens. Guys like Hagler couldn't manage to have extended careers like a lot of guys back in history did. Hagler was as tough and fit as they come, he crammed 67 fights into a 14 year career but arguably wasn't the same force he once was and I can't see him managing to have over 100 fights, let alone 200-300

Hagler was an offensive fighter though. He wasn't like Archie because Archie set up traps, etc. So Archie was able to have an extended career because he took far less punishment than people would assume. The more defensive you were the longer your career generally was.

Then again, you would be surprised how much abuse the human body can take because of being well conditioned and being tempered by combat. Tex Cobb, George Chuvalo, etc were largely tough men because they were in really great shape and able to absorb punishment better because of it.

Most of those guys never were hit with a flush shot all that much either. They rode the punches. You would think that they got hit with something really hard when in reality they barely got tapped.

Moore was still getting hit though, he was stopped or knocked down several times in his career and boxed over a 1000 rounds more than Hagler and that excludes sparring. Any accumulation of punches that rattle your brain takes a physical toll regardless how fit you are. I just can't see how someone with that many fights and age wouldn't be broken.

I think it's because we are so far removed from when men actually were fighters and demonstrated just how good or great boxers could be. Since the late mid to late 90s and onwards the sport has become so diluted, watered down, that we've spent 30 years seeing men who have tricked people into believing they're the pinnacle when in reality once upon a time they would have been seen as the bare minimum.

[Controversial]

Hagler was an offensive fighter though. He wasn't like Archie because Archie set up traps, etc. So Archie was able to have an extended career because he took far less punishment than people would assume. The more defensive you were the longer your career generally was.

Then again, you would be surprised how much abuse the human body can take because of being well conditioned and being tempered by combat. Tex Cobb, George Chuvalo, etc were largely tough men because they were in really great shape and able to absorb punishment better because of it.

Most of those guys never were hit with a flush shot all that much either. They rode the punches. You would think that they got hit with something really hard when in reality they barely got tapped.

Moore was still getting hit though, he was stopped or knocked down several times in his career and boxed over a 1000 rounds more than Hagler and that excludes sparring. Any accumulation of punches that rattle your brain takes a physical toll regardless how fit you are. I just can't see how someone with that many fights and age wouldn't be broken.

I think it's because we are so far removed from when men actually were fighters and demonstrated just how good or great boxers could be. Since the late mid to late 90s and onwards the sport has become so diluted, watered down, that we've spent 30 years seeing men who have tricked people into believing they're the pinnacle when in reality once upon a time they would have been seen as the bare minimum.

I’m not necessarily talking about guys today, I mean more in the last 50 years or so when it wasn’t as common for boxers to have 100-300 fights and still be considered good. Of course there’s been a few exceptions, JCC had many fights, quite a few easy ones added in too. Most fighters when you listen to them are pretty much forced to quit due to injuries or just being on the slide. I don’t necessarily agree as a breed pro fighters are any less physically tough than they used to be, other factors come into play now though like bigger purses, routes to title shots etc but some of the guys today are just as tough and fit as the old timers.


.

[HomicideHenry]

Moore was still getting hit though, he was stopped or knocked down several times in his career and boxed over a 1000 rounds more than Hagler and that excludes sparring. Any accumulation of punches that rattle your brain takes a physical toll regardless how fit you are. I just can't see how someone with that many fights and age wouldn't be broken.

I think it's because we are so far removed from when men actually were fighters and demonstrated just how good or great boxers could be. Since the late mid to late 90s and onwards the sport has become so diluted, watered down, that we've spent 30 years seeing men who have tricked people into believing they're the pinnacle when in reality once upon a time they would have been seen as the bare minimum.

I’m not necessarily talking about guys today, I mean more in the last 50 years or so when it wasn’t as common for boxers to have 100-300 fights and still be considered good. Of course there’s been a few exceptions, JCC had many fights, quite a few easy ones added in too.

Most fighters when you listen to them are pretty much forced to quit due to injuries or just being on the slide. I don’t necessarily agree as a breed pro fighters are any less physically tough than they used to be, other factors come into play now though like bigger purses, routes to title shots etc but some of the guys today as just as tough and fit as the old timers.

Yeah but even 50 years ago you had guys with 50-70 fights quite regularly. Today you're having guys with 20-40 matches and calling it a career. As for the last sentence in your post, I tend to disagree because quite frankly they don't bother proving it.

How can you ever remotely claim to be just as good or as tough or as fit as the old timers if you don't demonstrate it? It's all hyperbole. You might argue they POTENTIALLY (keyword) could've been or could've beaten this guy or that based on their limited careers, but it's still an enormous leap to make.

I mean think Floyd Mayweather. 50-0-0, but I don't think anyone would argue Floyd actually fought men in the same caliber that Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, etc did.

In Ray Robinson's day if someone had 30-50 fights and was talking about wanting a title shot they might've been laughed out of the room saying they hadn't proved anything yet.

[Controversial]

I think it's because we are so far removed from when men actually were fighters and demonstrated just how good or great boxers could be. Since the late mid to late 90s and onwards the sport has become so diluted, watered down, that we've spent 30 years seeing men who have tricked people into believing they're the pinnacle when in reality once upon a time they would have been seen as the bare minimum.

I’m not necessarily talking about guys today, I mean more in the last 50 years or so when it wasn’t as common for boxers to have 100-300 fights and still be considered good. Of course there’s been a few exceptions, JCC had many fights, quite a few easy ones added in too.

Most fighters when you listen to them are pretty much forced to quit due to injuries or just being on the slide. I don’t necessarily agree as a breed pro fighters are any less physically tough than they used to be, other factors come into play now though like bigger purses, routes to title shots etc but some of the guys today as just as tough and fit as the old timers.

Yeah but even 50 years ago you had guys with 50-70 fights quite regularly. Today you're having guys with 20-40 matches and calling it a career. As for the last sentence in your post, I tend to disagree because quite frankly they don't bother proving it.

How can you ever remotely claim to be just as good or as tough or as fit as the old timers if you don't demonstrate it? It's all hyperbole. You might argue they POTENTIALLY (keyword) could've been or could've beaten this guy or that based on their limited careers, but it's still an enormous leap to make.

I mean think Floyd Mayweather. 50-0-0, but I don't think anyone would argue Floyd actually fought men in the same caliber that Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, etc did.

In Ray Robinson's day if someone had 30-50 fights and was talking about wanting a title shot they might've been laughed out of the room saying they hadn't proved anything yet.

De La Hoya had a career as tough as anyone’s in terms of quality throughout, he only managed 45 fights

[Jaywheel]

They are in better shape now, but not in better fighting shape. The meaning of being a prizefighter also evolved for the stars of the sport as the purses grew.

[Ezzard]

They are finely tuned nowadays. The science of performance is at a whole other level.

The weight cuts and PEDs will shorten careers. But today's fighters are trained to be at a peak maybe 2 or 3 times a year only.

[goose 5]

Great thread ! Years ago, Carlos Ortiz told me a fighter should NEVER do more than 4 miles of roadwork per day; a friend of mine actually knew Archie Moore and he said Moore told him the same exact thing. Many fighters in more recent years are on record as saying they run 6-10 miles. Also, I believe weight training-when done properly- is beneficial for fighters; years ago, weights were discouraged though some fighters did use them, such as Willie Pastrano-however, he made sure Angelo Dundee never found out.

In the early 90's Ike Williams said it best: "today's fighters are at least as good as those of my day, but the art of boxing is gone." Technique and finesse have been largely replaced by an emphasis on speed and power. For those who haven't read Mike Silver's book "The Arc of boxing: The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science", this thread's topic is discussed at length in it.

[Controversial]

In the early 90's Ike Williams said it best: "today's fighters are at least as good as those of my day, but the art of boxing is gone." Technique and finesse have been largely replaced by an emphasis on speed and power.

This is kind of what I think. I can only assume older fighters could have such long careers because they weren’t getting hit as hard as they do today. Lots of the fighters of old weren’t great physical specimens, they were in great shape obviously but not necessarily muscle bound and ripped like some of the guys today. The emphasis now seems to be more speed and power over boxing finesse and fighting fitness.

[Ambling Alp II]

They weren't getting as hard as they do today? Yeah, that must be it.

Couldn't be that some fighters years ago were just better? Might be better stamina. Might simply be that some were just tougher.
They also often gained valuable experience on their way up. They didn't automatically start 20-0 against tomato cans as modern prospects do. They often were fighting tough veterans or other prospects on their way up.
Since there was usually only one "champion" contenders were forced to fight each other.
Fighting better competition makes you smarter and tougher.

[franciscojavier]

modern weight cutting and exploitation of day before weigh ins aint great for longevity

Another big factor is training nowadays is planned around the fact that top fighters typically only fight 2-3 times a year max. So instead of being in the gym constantly but a relatively consistent pace to fight 5-10 times a year, fighters who have big layoffs in between fights will have super-camps that can last for months, and with all the heavy weight lifting and hard sparring that occurs you’re basically asking to get injuries and fights postponed/cancelled. See Josh Taylor’s planned rematch with Catterall getting delayed two or three times and then ultimately cancelled because of injuries from training.

[Controversial]

They weren't getting as hard as they do today? Yeah, that must be it.

Couldn't be that some fighters years ago were just better? Might be better stamina. Might simply be that some were just tougher.
They also often gained valuable experience on their way up. They didn't automatically start 20-0 against tomato cans as modern prospects do. They often were fighting tough veterans or other prospects on their way up.
Since there was usually only one "champion" contenders were forced to fight each other.
Fighting better competition makes you smarter and tougher.

I think older fighters were more experienced and fighting fit in a way that has been lost over time but that doesn’t explain how someone was capable of taking far more damage and having multiple fights and it seemingly not affecting them. Their brains were not tougher so something else must be at play because guys just can’t keep up that level anymore. I’m sure weight cutting comes into it along with the fact most want to stay unbeaten so take less risks but even doing that most world class fighters are physically on the decline far quicker than fighters used to be. You can argue they aren’t as tough but that doesn’t really explain it but if you are getting damaged
quicker today with having less fights against lesser opponents then the damage they are taking must be a factor too, which points to it being more powerful punches.

[giacomino]

Last ranked guy I remember who fought like the old-times was Jorge Castro, the Argentine who held a middleweight belt for a while in the 1990s, fought 144 (130 wins) times and retired in 2007. Wasn’t the fastest guy around, could be outboxed but had a phenomenal chin and great power. He never looked ripped (often looked pudgy) but the dude could have fought 20-25 rounds and had regular bouts to stay in shape and sharp. He averaged seven fights a year in his career.

[Controversial]

Last ranked guy I remember who fought like the old-times was Jorge Castro, the Argentine who held a middleweight belt for a while in the 1990s, fought 144 (130 wins) times and retired in 2007. Wasn’t the fastest guy around, could be outboxed but had a phenomenal chin and great power. He never looked ripped (often looked pudgy) but the dude could have fought 20-25 rounds and had regular bouts to stay in shape and sharp. He averaged seven fights a year in his career.

Yeah real tough guy, fought up to CW and first man to take RJJ the distance

[franciscojavier]

He only won 1 world title technically but he was a top 10 ranked guy in at least 4 divisions(154, 160, 168, Cruiser), in modern boxing he probably would be a 4 or 5 division beltholder.

[Ambling Alp II]

They weren't getting as hard as they do today? Yeah, that must be it.

Couldn't be that some fighters years ago were just better? Might be better stamina. Might simply be that some were just tougher.
They also often gained valuable experience on their way up. They didn't automatically start 20-0 against tomato cans as modern prospects do. They often were fighting tough veterans or other prospects on their way up.
Since there was usually only one "champion" contenders were forced to fight each other.
Fighting better competition makes you smarter and tougher.

I think older fighters were more experienced and fighting fit in a way that has been lost over time but that doesn’t explain how someone was capable of taking far more damage and having multiple fights and it seemingly not affecting them. Their brains were not tougher so something else must be at play because guys just can’t keep up that level anymore. I’m sure weight cutting comes into it along with the fact most want to stay unbeaten so take less risks but even doing that most world class fighters are physically on the decline far quicker than fighters used to be. You can argue they aren’t as tough but that doesn’t really explain it but if you are getting damaged
quicker today with having less fights against lesser opponents then the damage they are taking must be a factor too, which points to it being more powerful punches.

Guys did get hurt back then. Of course, it affected them. Have you never heard of the term "punch drunk"? It goes way back. If anything, it happened to fighters from far back more often than now.
If guys today to fight more often, most would.

Some guys are lucky and don't get long term damage. So aren't. Often the long-term damage wasn't obvious until a fighter's career was over or late in his career.

If guys didn't punch as hard, there would not have been many knockouts way back. Despite the fact that fights were not stopped as easily, there were still a lot of kos.

You are picking a silly, simple solution, based on nothing.
It just happens to favor modern fighters. What a surprise.

[Controversial]

They weren't getting as hard as they do today? Yeah, that must be it.

Couldn't be that some fighters years ago were just better? Might be better stamina. Might simply be that some were just tougher.
They also often gained valuable experience on their way up. They didn't automatically start 20-0 against tomato cans as modern prospects do. They often were fighting tough veterans or other prospects on their way up.
Since there was usually only one "champion" contenders were forced to fight each other.
Fighting better competition makes you smarter and tougher.

I think older fighters were more experienced and fighting fit in a way that has been lost over time but that doesn’t explain how someone was capable of taking far more damage and having multiple fights and it seemingly not affecting them. Their brains were not tougher so something else must be at play because guys just can’t keep up that level anymore. I’m sure weight cutting comes into it along with the fact most want to stay unbeaten so take less risks but even doing that most world class fighters are physically on the decline far quicker than fighters used to be. You can argue they aren’t as tough but that doesn’t really explain it but if you are getting damaged
quicker today with having less fights against lesser opponents then the damage they are taking must be a factor too, which points to it being more powerful punches.

Guys did get hurt back then. Of course, it affected them. Have you never heard of the term "punch drunk"? It goes way back. If anything, it happened to fighters from far back more often than now.
If guys today to fight more often, most would.

Some guys are lucky and don't get long term damage. So aren't. Often the long-term damage wasn't obvious until a fighter's career was over or late in his career.

If guys didn't punch as hard, there would not have been many knockouts way back. Despite the fact that fights were not stopped as easily, there were still a lot of kos.

You are picking a silly, simple solution, based on nothing.
It just happens to favor modern fighters. What a surprise.

So the way to keep your body and brain fit is to fight more often? Old time fighters weren’t made out of steel, they would’ve had the same injuries as any other era, more in fact as they were more active. But somehow they were still at the top of their game after 100+ fights. And it’s not about modern fighters, you can look at the 60s onwards and there is a drop in fighters being that active and still at the top of their game. Is that a coincidence? Marcianos best opponents had hundreds of fights between them yet jump a few years to the 60s and the best HWs were past their best around 30-50 fights. So were the 60s HWs suddenly not as good or the 50s HWs or were they just in harder fights and burnt out quicker?

[Ambling Alp II]

You also have to look at their ages. Many of these guys had a 100 plus fights, but were not that old.
Only two of Marciano's opponents had 100 plus fights. Moore of course had a ton. Charles has 122. However, he was a great defensive fighter. He had serious health problems that may have had something to do with boxing. Walcott had 72. Louis has 71. Layne had 70. La Starza had 66. Marciano himself had 49.

Cleveland Williams had 97 fights. Zora Folley had 96. Chuvalo had 93. Eddie Machen 64. Patterson had 64.
So no, there wasn't a sudden movement of guys having less fights in the 1960s. No sure where you getting these bizarre conclusions.