BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Bundana wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Some certainly are - but most advances are due to better knowledge of how to train, coupled with building/improving on what previous generations achieved.

There are many sports where improving results can't just be put down to better equipment.
In gymnastics, for example, if you could go back 60 years in time, and bring with you film of what the sport looks today... the trainers back then wouldn't believe their own eyes. The sport has changed that much!
Same with swimming! If people 60 years ago had been told, that the best women in 2017 would out-swim every male swimmer back then by a considerable margin - would they have believed it?
In weightlifting, not a single Olympic record set before 2000 is still standing. This certainly can't be put down to better equipment.

Just like with everything else, in sports we build on the knowledge of those that came before us, and try to better ourselves all the time.
Not that I believe, we have as much success with this in boxing, as can be seen in most other sports! Sure, if you go WAY back (pre-WW1), we can see a huge difference. But over the past 60-70 years, not so much... if at all!

Swimming is a perfect example in fact, modern pool design, and the swimsuits they wear have had a dramatic effect on times.

I suppose the question you would have to ask, and presumably could be answered, would be if you put Michael Phelps in the gear that swimmers wore in the past, and Usain Bolt in 1920's running gear, would they be better than the best of those days?

I think the answer is yes.

dirk2686 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Bundana wrote:
Some certainly are - but most advances are due to better knowledge of how to train, coupled with building/improving on what previous generations achieved.

There are many sports where improving results can't just be put down to better equipment.
In gymnastics, for example, if you could go back 60 years in time, and bring with you film of what the sport looks today... the trainers back then wouldn't believe their own eyes. The sport has changed that much!
Same with swimming! If people 60 years ago had been told, that the best women in 2017 would out-swim every male swimmer back then by a considerable margin - would they have believed it?
In weightlifting, not a single Olympic record set before 2000 is still standing. This certainly can't be put down to better equipment.

Just like with everything else, in sports we build on the knowledge of those that came before us, and try to better ourselves all the time.
Not that I believe, we have as much success with this in boxing, as can be seen in most other sports! Sure, if you go WAY back (pre-WW1), we can see a huge difference. But over the past 60-70 years, not so much... if at all!

Swimming is a perfect example in fact, modern pool design, and the swimsuits they wear have had a dramatic effect on times.

I suppose the question you would have to ask, and presumably could be answered, would be if you put Michael Phelps in the gear that swimmers wore in the past, and Usain Bolt in 1920's running gear, would they be better than the best of those days?

I think the answer is yes.

Yes, more than likely, but not by much at all.

The biggest reason for that would be that the talent pool in his era for those sports is MUCH deeper. The growth of professional sports has meant that the number of participants in the major world sports is now vastly bigger.

Human's will improve on targets set over time, but that is not because humans are evolving to be physically better, it is because of the specialisations that sporting endeavour brings.

Heavyweights definitely were.

I'm sure glad that the inevitable onward march of physical evolution has given us so many tremendous fast-paced bouts between heavyweights in the last two decades.

James makes a good point , in pretty much all sports participation levels have increased, leading to improved performance, but I think in boxing it's the reverse.

Numbers have fallen as people have got richer and more comfortable thus decreasing the talent pool ?

knockout wrote:James makes a good point , in pretty much all sports participation levels have increased, leading to improved performance, but I think in boxing it's the reverse.

Numbers have fallen as people have got richer and more comfortable thus decreasing the talent pool ?

What numbers (that have fallen) are you talking about?

Bundana wrote:

knockout wrote:James makes a good point , in pretty much all sports participation levels have increased, leading to improved performance, but I think in boxing it's the reverse.

Numbers have fallen as people have got richer and more comfortable thus decreasing the talent pool ?

What numbers (that have fallen) are you talking about?

The number of active boxers.

Tanzio wrote:Tougher? Yes.

Fitter? No.

Agree with this. Tougher and more durable but I don't think they would be 'fitter'. A different sport admittedly, but e.g. many Tour de France cyclists back in the day would drink whiskey from a hipflask while out training and before a big climb! Many smoked too. Such things would be inconceivable today for any professional sportsman taking their fitness seriously.

In terms of pure cardiovascular fitness and conditioning I think modern sports science would give today's fighters the edge in this department, but what they gain in this they trade for pure grit and toughness in my opinion.

jimglen wrote:exactly I always compare Golf, 300 odd yard drives, do that with Older Golf balls and clubs... and if they really want to compare the present to the past, well then make the wholes longer to allow for the advancement in equipment, evening it out a bit, then see how much 'under' par they regularly are.

- This a reasonable assumption Jim. My response will also be for our thread compatriot apparently born Feb 6, 1986 who's parents look to have made a transcription error with the 3rd letter of his given name who has extolled the extra exceptionalism of modern athletes through year round modern training and extra vitamins, thereby proving just how much dumber he would've been had he been born 100 years earlier. Yet some will say we can clearly see the exceptionalism of modern wunderkinds on this forum from their besotted mam wank threads and women bullying men threads. I say NOT, so let's look further.

Circa 1977 three young bucks met for some golf on a typical wide open Texas slugger course of about 7000+ yard length. I was at a 5% body fat 5-8, 150 lbs being trained down for bicycle and motorcycle racing and had played no golf for at least 5 years, my bro 6-2, 190 ex baseball prospect and a 6-7, 350 Alexander Ustinov replica were rec players, a perfect study on body types as applied to golf. My bro and I shared my old man's 1960 Ben Hogan persimmon golf set he was given, and Bear also played with sweet set of persimmons since that's all there was. As can imagine, it quickly became a driving contest, and then one of who made the green first, and of course on the greens we reverted to grade A hackers as befits the average rec player. We played from the pro tees and were easily driving 300+ yards whenever we got in a straight shot and jockeyed back and forth over who led who in yardage, a ton of fun we had. Since I had long stopped playing golf, never had the chance to really see how I could do in the sport, but my best score for the only year that I played at age 13 was an 87 from the men's tees, and plenty boys better than me, but they had grown up playing.

My best shot in the above shootout was also the best of our round when on a dog leg left par 5 of about 550 yards, they went straight down the middle to avoid the 100' pines, but I teed up heavy on my left foot to loft a sky rocket over the pines into the middle of the dogleg for a 325 yard drive about 50 yards ahead of their safe, but substantial drives for bragging rights. Point being my clubs were heavily used by my old man who was a hacker for 15 years previous and I had scarcely played more than a 2-3 rounds over the past 10 years. I could've used one of those legal titanium and aluminum hybrid metals and modern golfballs and easily added 30 or more to those drives, and with some practice and specific workouts devoted to golf, another 20-30 yards. I can also buy a stock Mercedes SUV today that does 200 MPH and claim to be better than Barney Oldfield, but such misapplication of logic is already the bane of moderns that always inherit this earth as we see in the current results.

I also naturally thought in my spiking testosterone that my generation was the greatest, but then humbly discovered the wisdom of the ages to set me back a few paces from my hubris. Enjoy your ride lads, for ye too soon to be dust before you can blink by the end, and what then?

knockout wrote:

Bundana wrote:

knockout wrote:James makes a good point , in pretty much all sports participation levels have increased, leading to improved performance, but I think in boxing it's the reverse.

Numbers have fallen as people have got richer and more comfortable thus decreasing the talent pool ?

What numbers (that have fallen) are you talking about?

The number of active boxers.

Are you sure about this?
Hasn't the number of fights each year gone up over the past several decades - along with (I presume) the number of boxers that take part in these fights? Or have I misunderstood something?

If boxers are fitter now than they are much less talented.

Bundana wrote:

knockout wrote:

Bundana wrote:
What numbers (that have fallen) are you talking about?

The number of active boxers.

Are you sure about this?
Hasn't the number of fights each year gone up over the past several decades - along with (I presume) the number of boxers that take part in these fights? Or have I misunderstood something?

I don't have the numbers but over years a few people on here have tried working it out and found the number of shows in the UK and USA has declined.

I know in the 30s boxing was one of the top three sports in America alongside Baseball and horse racing and now comes way down the list.

J-C wrote:

Bundana wrote:

knockout wrote:
The number of active boxers.

Are you sure about this?
Hasn't the number of fights each year gone up over the past several decades - along with (I presume) the number of boxers that take part in these fights? Or have I misunderstood something?

I don't have the numbers but over years a few people on here have tried working it out and found the number of shows in the UK and USA has declined.

I know in the 30s boxing was one of the top three sports in America alongside Baseball and horse racing and now comes way down the list.

But what about the rest of the world? After The Wall came down, so many new (former communist) countries have embraced pro boxing - which (I would assume!) must have added significantly to the overall talent pool?

Much less fights worldwide.