Are fighters stronger and fitter now or weaker?

[Controversial]

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.

Williams, Folley, Machen etc weren’t the best guys in the division in the same way as Louis, Walcott etc were seen as being and most had declined before they retired. Normally post WW2 most fighters are past their best after 40 or so fights. Marciano was fighting Walcott etc when they had numerous fights, Charles was on around 100, Moore around 180, Walcott around 70 etc. Then move onto the 1970s, the golden era for the HW division and the top guys were all pretty much retired, or past their best, after 40-50 fights.

[Ambling Alp II]

And Larry Holmes and George Foreman had more fights than Joe Louis.
Yes Williams, Machen, and Folley decline before they retired. How rare.
And Joe Louis had been declining for a long time before he finally retired.

There are all sorts of reasons why some fighters from way back fought more often. When there is only one champion, you usually had to fight a lot more fights to establish yourself as a top contender to get a title fight. When there is four champions, you can bide your time and eventually get a shot at one of the four.

When the economy was bad, fighters often had to fight more because they weren't making as much money per fight. After WWII, of course the economy got better. There were still lots of guy who fought a lot after that.

It not like in the !960s, all of a sudden everyone stopped fighting as often. To actually think that fighters must not have punched as hard because most modern fighters fight less often is beyond stupid.

[HomicideHenry]

Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

[p4p1]

Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

[HomicideHenry]

Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

[Controversial]

It not like in the !960s, all of a sudden everyone stopped fighting as often. To actually think that fighters must not have punched as hard because most modern fighters fight less often is beyond stupid.

I didn’t say it was the only reason but I don’t believe older fighters were inherently more capable of taking more damage. And of course the motivation to fight changed over time. Lots of things at play thats been mentioned but for HWs I think fighters facing big punchers like Lyle, Foreman, Shavers, Tyson, Lewis etc will feel the effects more than they would fighting smaller guys.

[Controversial]

Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

Yes I agree, lots of very padded records out there. As you say there a journeymen recently who have had hundreds of fights so it can be done but of course they rarely are in wars or taking much punishment, if they were they couldn’t do it

[HomicideHenry]

I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

Yes I agree, lots of very padded records out there. As you say there a journeymen recently who have had hundreds of fights so it can be done but of course they rarely are in wars or taking much punishment, if they were they couldn’t do it

I will say this, for further clarity on the journeyman issue anyways... a lot of guys who used to exist having triple digit losses... were essentially runners, or constantly on defense. They rarely ever opened up. Not because they couldn't but because at some point in their careers they decided it was more financially lucrative to just drop decisions because they'd get a call a week later or two weeks later and they'd drop another decision.

Now, some guys were far better than their records showed. Reggie Strickland purposely would lose 10 or 20 matches, only to bet on himself against some 10-0 or 20-0 prospect and give the upstart a boxing lesson, collect his money and then get out of town asap.

As far as standard run of the mill journeymen who were like 10-10-0, 5-4-2, 25-15-3, etc they often got blew out early so even though they were stopped they actually took far less punishment than guys like Holyfield. So that's why you had guys like Danny Wofford or Frankie Hines or Donnie Pendleton having over 100 matches but still sharp as a tack mentally.

Even today you can mutually agree to a no-contest. Every once in a great while you will come across a fight that the result was a no-contest, and when you look at the reasons why it will say, "Both parties agreed to a no-contest prior to the bout." Like it never even happened, though everybody is getting paid.

[oogiebe]

Fighters are certinainly stronger and athletically fitter than yesteryear, but not nearly as 'hard,'

[Controversial]

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

Yes I agree, lots of very padded records out there. As you say there a journeymen recently who have had hundreds of fights so it can be done but of course they rarely are in wars or taking much punishment, if they were they couldn’t do it

I will say this, for further clarity on the journeyman issue anyways... a lot of guys who used to exist having triple digit losses... were essentially runners, or constantly on defense. They rarely ever opened up. Not because they couldn't but because at some point in their careers they decided it was more financially lucrative to just drop decisions because they'd get a call a week later or two weeks later and they'd drop another decision.

Now, some guys were far better than their records showed. Reggie Strickland purposely would lose 10 or 20 matches, only to bet on himself against some 10-0 or 20-0 prospect and give the upstart a boxing lesson, collect his money and then get out of town asap.

As far as standard run of the mill journeymen who were like 10-10-0, 5-4-2, 25-15-3, etc they often got blew out early so even though they were stopped they actually took far less punishment than guys like Holyfield. So that's why you had guys like Danny Wofford or Frankie Hines or Donnie Pendleton having over 100 matches but still sharp as a tack mentally.

Even today you can mutually agree to a no-contest. Every once in a great while you will come across a fight that the result was a no-contest, and when you look at the reasons why it will say, "Both parties agreed to a no-contest prior to the bout." Like it never even happened, though everybody is getting paid.

Yea that’s what I meant, effectively taking the least amount of damage/risk so they can fight more. Which kinda goes back to my thoughts on some if the top fighters from decades ago and how they were still at a world level after numerous fights, there must be an element of walkovers, glorified sparring sessions or arrangements made.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well yes, not every fight that a fighter had (whenever he fought) was against tough competition. Often, you just took who was available. Sometimes that guy was no where near your level. You may also fight a fighter better than you when you are inexperienced.

You also have to consider that they didn't start their careers against no-hope opponents like they have been the last few decades. There are guys now who have been pros for years, had a pretty win/loss record, and have yet to be tested.

As your career progressed through the years, if you are fighting a lot year after, of course not all of you opponents are going to be great.
Archie Moore had over 200 fights. Not all of them were against top competition. However, he had over 60 fights against contenders or champions.
As for being fitter, you have take things into consideration. Of course, we have more modern ways to get fit that are more efficient and less time consuming. On the other hand, sit-ups still worked. The medicine ball still worked. Proof is in the pudding when you look at all of those 15 round fights (not just tile fights. Many were fast paced.

[Ezzard]

Are today's fighters fitter and stronger at fighting 12 rounds 2-3 times per year - yes.

Were old-timers fitter and stronger at fighting 6, 8, 10,, 15 or even 45 rounds multiple times per year - yes.

[HomicideHenry]

This makes me think of Ingemar Johansson. As a pro he never fought any one with a losing record. And his career was awfully short in comparison to many title holders or contenders past or present. It makes me wonder if bypassing the journeymen, etc made his career wind down faster than you'd expect.

[Steveh583]

stronger and fitter, probably not tougher

[Controversial]

This makes me think of Ingemar Johansson. As a pro he never fought any one with a losing record. And his career was awfully short in comparison to many title holders or contenders past or present. It makes me wonder if bypassing the journeymen, etc made his career wind down faster than you'd expect.

This is kind of what I meant by the thread. Fighters have a life span, be that 30-50 fights on average, of course it will change but generally speaking most fighters are on the slide at 50. If you’ve filled your career with a lot of easy fights then maybe you can fight longer. But if you fight at a top level most fighters can’t keep then level up before injuries cut you short or you just start slowing down. De La Hoya had a ridiculously tough career, very few easy opponents.

[pound per pound]

Archie Moore would not compete in today's heavyweight division. He would be road kill.

Canelo has the judges and the PED's. And the marketing. He is not what he seems.

But having said that, yes boxing is stronger at light heavyweight cruiser weight and heavyweight in comparison to the past. The fighters are stronger.

Middle weights fight on fight night as light heavies do to shenanigans on the scales. I'd say they are bigger too in comparison to the past.

Light weight fight as welter weights. And the little guys, don't get me started.

[Ambling Alp II]

Are today's fighters fitter and stronger at fighting 12 rounds 2-3 times per year - yes.

Were old-timers fitter and stronger at fighting 6, 8, 10,, 15 or even 45 rounds multiple times per year - yes.

Are they fitter? Do we get a higher percentage of fights that go 10 or more rounds with a lot of action? Certainly not at heavyweight. The division has sucked for what seems like forever. It's not like we have had a golden era at light heavyweight the last 20 years either.

[gyocomgd]

Ali fought Oscar Bonavena in December, 1970 and beat Oscar in the 15th round. Three months later he fought Frazier in the Fight of the Century. It was 30 grueling rounds for Ali in three months, against two notoriously aggressive, rough and dangerous heavyweights. Ali was still rounding into form from his long layoff when these fights occurred.
I don’t think of Ali as an old-timer per se, but he certainly preserved his energy in an old-school way. He moved economically, took parts of rounds off to conserve energy, and generally fought as though each fight would go the 15-round distance.
The generation preceding Ali were really the masters. They fought far more often and lived the fighting life, with greater commitment. They trained smarter, I think, and probably in a more disciplined way. Many of them were very serious about nutrition and it was common for fighters to abstain from sex amd alcohol in the lead up to fights. Their trainers were wise and always watching and motivating them. There’s less of that among today—less knowledge, less authority, fewer bed checks and less demanding that the fighters be up at 5:30 am to do roadwork.
Modern fighters amaze me in how chiseled they look, how well they throw punches in bunches and how generally athletic they are. But many of them seem to be missing something.

[cfang]

I kind of want to believe the old guys were better but if that’s the case it certainly goes against the grain when compared to any other sport. I know tech has improved but the records in say athletics can’t be ignored either.

My guess is that overall the old guys were tougher and more experienced and skilled but it’s likely todays guys are stronger and hit a lot harder.

Peds can’t be ignored either. They’ve always been around but from the 60s onwards athletes got much more powerful which can’t be a coincidence.

[Ambling Alp II]

They now hit a lot harder? Come on.

[cfang]

You have to at least entertain the idea that all athletes are more powerful than they were 70 years ago and actually hit harder? Possibly due to diet, science and Peds? There are always exceptions but in almost all other sports it’s very noticeable. Why not boxing?

[Ambling Alp II]

Diet, science and Peds? No I don't. Punching power is largely natural ability and technique. To a lesser degree hand speed. Nothing has changed that in 120 years. If anything, poorer stamina had made punching power weaker in later rounds.

[Caractacus]

I think before television came around circa 1950,
the fights may have been fought at a slower pace during the rounds.
what would have been the rush to get a fight over so soon back then ?
people use to bring their picnic bags.

[Ambling Alp II]

Too bad there is no footage available before 1950.

[Caractacus]

it was because all of the commercials they had to fit in a one hour TV slot.
viewers could switch the channel to watch something else,if a fight was too slow and boring.