Do you think 'old skool' boxers were fitter? *POLL*

[steve689]

Excellent point and something to think about You didn't see guys like Salvador Sanchez gassing out in 15 rounders, he used to get stronger in fact and fight more regularly. There's something to be said for the old training techniques.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Fitter, tougher, smarter, much more active and didn't fight in air conditioned arenas.

not to mention the cigar and cigarette smoke.

[dirk2686]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

[Tuan_Jim]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

All the sports you mention don't require hard men. Only boxing. Jack Dempsey only broke Jess Willard's skull, but a 'modern' heavy is better because he has a strength and conditioning coach? Flim flam.

[Ossyrules]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

Boxing is unique by virtue of making weight reducing the impact of evolution. Of course there is still some effects, when thevweigh ins are scheduled etc, but ultimately it's a leveller in this impact

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Get past the Heavyweights, watch Chacon/Limon or Chacon/Edwards and compare the pace to these Miiua fights we've been loving. People would have wondered what was wrong with those guys if they fought like that.

Boxing is Boxing, not great equipment changes or inventing the wheel on a new strategy. The fact of the matter is the older you go back, the hungrier and more in need the fighters were. That breeds toughness and desire is a part of condition.

[dirk2686]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

All the sports you mention don't require hard men. Only boxing. Jack Dempsey only broke Jess Willard's skull, but a 'modern' heavy is better because he has a strength and conditioning coach? Flim flam.

Every sport gets better and every sport at elite level requires people with physical capabilities that 99.99% of people are nowhere near. Roger Federer wouldn't drop a game against Fred Perry, and it's not because tennis doesn't need 'hard men.'

Dempsey was closer in build to someone like Carl Froch than Lewis. Lewis would absolutely slaughter him.

[dirk2686]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

Boxing is unique by virtue of making weight reducing the impact of evolution. Of course there is still some effects, when thevweigh ins are scheduled etc, but ultimately it's a leveller in this impact

Don't weightlifters have to make weight? And in sports like Judo, MMA etc?

I just don't buy that in the entire pantheon of sports, from long jump to darts to diving to hammer throwing, everything gets better but boxing is a special case.

[Ossyrules]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

Boxing is unique by virtue of making weight reducing the impact of evolution. Of course there is still some effects, when thevweigh ins are scheduled etc, but ultimately it's a leveller in this impact

Don't weightlifters have to make weight? And in sports like Judo, MMA etc?

I just don't buy that in the entire pantheon of sports, from long jump to darts to diving to hammer throwing, everything gets better but boxing is a special case.

Yes you went a little bit literal when I say boxing is unique, the principle for other sports where weight is made the principle applies, as oppose to say rugby players that are bigger quicker and fitter than ever. That's evolution (and also professional era)

[crusader]

Curious about the following....are there many sports in which (1) achievement is measured in objective, isolated units (so time, amount of weight lifted, etc... none of which involve major subjectivity in determining, and none of which depend directly what other people lift, run, etc.) AND in which (2) there have not been, overall, major performance increases within the last few decades?


By the way, I'd say physical and mental toughness are huge factors in numerous sports that don't involve combat.

[Tuan_Jim]

Runners run faster, sprinters sprint faster, tennis players hit harder, golfers hit further, weightlifters lift heavier, jumpers jump further, rowers row faster. Even snooker players knock in more centuries and darts players keep the averages ticking higher.

Every sport improves, and the reality is that for all the blood 'n guts stories of past training, prime Lennox Lewis would absolutely thrash someone like Jack Dempsey into oblivion and Floyd would run rings round Willie Pep.

Whether this means modern boxers are fitter or not is perhaps a side issue, but they're almost certainly better.

All the sports you mention don't require hard men. Only boxing. Jack Dempsey only broke Jess Willard's skull, but a 'modern' heavy is better because he has a strength and conditioning coach? Flim flam.

Every sport gets better and every sport at elite level requires people with physical capabilities that 99.99% of people are nowhere near. Roger Federer wouldn't drop a game against Fred Perry, and it's not because tennis doesn't need 'hard men.'

Dempsey was closer in build to someone like Carl Froch than Lewis. Lewis would absolutely slaughter him.

If you think Carl Froch could slay a 6'6" 245lb Jess Willard you are a full blown special needs retard. Lennox couldn't slaughter Levi Billups or Ossie Ocasio but he could slaughter Dempsey? Highly plausible.

[dirk2686]

All the sports you mention don't require hard men. Only boxing. Jack Dempsey only broke Jess Willard's skull, but a 'modern' heavy is better because he has a strength and conditioning coach? Flim flam.

Every sport gets better and every sport at elite level requires people with physical capabilities that 99.99% of people are nowhere near. Roger Federer wouldn't drop a game against Fred Perry, and it's not because tennis doesn't need 'hard men.'

Dempsey was closer in build to someone like Carl Froch than Lewis. Lewis would absolutely slaughter him.

If you think Carl Froch could slay a 6'6" 245lb Jess Willard you are a full blown special needs retard. Lennox couldn't slaughter Levi Billups or Ossie Ocasio but he could slaughter Dempsey? Highly plausible.

Charming.

Every sport gets better except boxing because those participating are 'hard.' This is why people competing ninety years ago living on booze and fags are better than modern professional athletes. I genuinely don't know any sport where people have this misty eyed fondness for the past.

[arlovski]

Every sport gets better and every sport at elite level requires people with physical capabilities that 99.99% of people are nowhere near. Roger Federer wouldn't drop a game against Fred Perry, and it's not because tennis doesn't need 'hard men.'

Dempsey was closer in build to someone like Carl Froch than Lewis. Lewis would absolutely slaughter him.

If you think Carl Froch could slay a 6'6" 245lb Jess Willard you are a full blown special needs retard. Lennox couldn't slaughter Levi Billups or Ossie Ocasio but he could slaughter Dempsey? Highly plausible.

Charming.

Every sport gets better except boxing because those participating are 'hard.' This is why people competing ninety years ago living on booze and fags are better than modern professional athletes. I genuinely don't know any sport where people have this misty eyed fondness for the past.

If you think boxing has 'got better' over the years/eras, in terms of the fighting ability, conditioning or durability of the participants, then you haven't watched enough boxing.

It's pretty much an established fact that the quality of fighters has decreased decade upon decade from the 1950's onwards, for a number of reasons that I can't be arsed going into.

Also, Keith Thurman does not beat Mickey Walker, and Jorge Linares does not beat Henry Armstrong, regardless of the fact they are clean living 'modern professional athletes'

[dirk2686]

But sports do get better though. Human advancement means the top level sportsmen move quicker, have greater endurance, are stronger and hit harder.

No tennis fan pretends Fred Perry could beat Roger Federer and no golf fan thinks Sam Snead at his best is better than a peak Tiger Woods. Serena Williams demolishes Billie Jean King, Usain Bolt beats Jesse Owens, Ronnie O'Sullivan is better then Joe Davis and so on. Seriously - why is boxing any different? Is it the only sport to have regressed?

[Counter-puncher]

But sports do get better though. Human advancement means the top level sportsmen move quicker, have greater endurance, are stronger and hit harder.

No tennis fan pretends Fred Perry could beat Roger Federer and no golf fan thinks Sam Snead at his best is better than a peak Tiger Woods. Serena Williams demolishes Billie Jean King, Usain Bolt beats Jesse Owens, Ronnie O'Sullivan is better then Joe Davis and so on. Seriously - why is boxing any different? Is it the only sport to have regressed?

How good would Federer be if he only played two tournaments a year?

[Counter-puncher]

But sports do get better though. Human advancement means the top level sportsmen move quicker, have greater endurance, are stronger and hit harder.

No tennis fan pretends Fred Perry could beat Roger Federer and no golf fan thinks Sam Snead at his best is better than a peak Tiger Woods. Serena Williams demolishes Billie Jean King, Usain Bolt beats Jesse Owens, Ronnie O'Sullivan is better then Joe Davis and so on. Seriously - why is boxing any different? Is it the only sport to have regressed?

Because unlike other sports who play more often- more golf tournaments more cricket matches more tennis tournaments, they're all year-round and nonstop- boxers now 'play' less often

It's interesting, you ask if boxing is the only sport to have regressed, in this incredulous tone as though that's inconceivable, without looking at the very simple thong that separates the development of boxing compared to other sports

You ask as though it's impossible for boxing to be unique, when as far as I know that's exactly what it is, as far as I know it's he only sport where the practitioners are nowadays not more, but less often plying their trade. Correct me if I'm wrong on that I can't think of anothe sport like boxing in that regard

[dirk2686]

It's a reasonable question but I'm not sure it works in an era of professional sport.

Take a fighter who had twelve fights a year way back when. How much training did he do? What was his diet like? Did he have a day job that prevented him training? I don't think you can take a guy who trained by eating rare steak and drinking Guinness and had a dozen fights a year and say he is therefore fitter than someone like Mayweather who perennially keeps himself in mint condition.

There's a reason nobody has that many fights anymore and it's because it's massively detrimental to the body.

[Autobarn]

The timing of this thread makes me think it's inspired by Joshua's mid/late fade...

Another factor worth considering for Joshua v Wlad is that one guy was closing in on 18 stone and the other was big enough at over 17 stone.

People this size do tire pretty early if hurt or if they fight at a fast pace. This applies to not only Joshua and Wladimir but also Vitali and Lennox (look at theexhaustion they were punching through in their wild slugfest) and Riddick Bowe, who was able to fight at a consistent pace in just one of his major bouts (the first epic with Holyfield)

Today's super sized heavyweights are certainly better than yesteryear's.

[Tuan_Jim]

It's a reasonable question but I'm not sure it works in an era of professional sport.

Take a fighter who had twelve fights a year way back when. How much training did he do? What was his diet like? Did he have a day job that prevented him training? I don't think you can take a guy who trained by eating rare steak and drinking Guinness and had a dozen fights a year and say he is therefore fitter than someone like Mayweather who perennially keeps himself in mint condition.

There's a reason nobody has that many fights anymore and it's because it's massively detrimental to the body.

You should research this subject before entering into a debate about it. The reason you are making so many howlers is due to your astounding ignorance of vintage fighters and their training.

[dirk2686]

It's a reasonable question but I'm not sure it works in an era of professional sport.

Take a fighter who had twelve fights a year way back when. How much training did he do? What was his diet like? Did he have a day job that prevented him training? I don't think you can take a guy who trained by eating rare steak and drinking Guinness and had a dozen fights a year and say he is therefore fitter than someone like Mayweather who perennially keeps himself in mint condition.

There's a reason nobody has that many fights anymore and it's because it's massively detrimental to the body.

You should research this subject before entering into a debate about it. The reason you are making so many howlers is due to your astounding ignorance of vintage fighters and their training.

So training from 50/100 years ago improves beyond any question in every other sport except boxing?

Boxing's my favourite sport but it's a bit cringeworthy how much some people hang onto the past. It's fine to recognise former greats but the world has moved on. You said 'It's pretty much an established fact that the quality of fighters has decreased decade upon decade from the 1950's onwards.' That, my friend, is bullshit.

[rhino222]

also remember that fighters used to weigh in on the day, you could suggest this is more dangerous but there is now was (in my opinion) they were as gaunt in weigh ins as they are now knowing they have 30+ hours to rehydrate. remember how hatton used to look at weigh in, imagine him fighting on the same day!!

[Counter-puncher]

There's a reason nobody has that many fights anymore and it's because it's massively detrimental to the body.

do you really think that the reason todays fighters fight less often is because at some point someone arrived at a decision, 'you know what, too many fights are detrimental to our health, i think its best if we make a conscious decision to fight less often'?

you don't think it might have anything to do with the fact that perhaps they earn more money per fight, so can afford to fight less/ combined with the fact that TV/etc budgets are limited so they/the TV companies won't stump up money to pay fighters 4 times or whatever per year?

I mean if the tv companies could and would stump uo for 4 fights a year for a given fighter at £2million/whatever per fight, do you think they would be turning it down on the grounds of being detrimental to the body?

[dirk2686]

There's a reason nobody has that many fights anymore and it's because it's massively detrimental to the body.

do you really think that the reason todays fighters fight less often is because at some point someone arrived at a decision, 'you know what, too many fights are detrimental to our health, i think its best if we make a conscious decision to fight less often'?

you don't think it might have anything to do with the fact that perhaps they earn more money per fight, so can afford to fight less/ combined with the fact that TV/etc budgets are limited so they/the TV companies won't stump up money to pay fighters 4 times or whatever per year?

I mean if the tv companies could and would stump uo for 4 fights a year for a given fighter at £2million/whatever per fight, do you think they would be turning it down on the grounds of being detrimental to the body?

To be fair the comment was in reference to someone saying they had 'only' had nine fights that year. Nobody has that many fights a year at anything approaching top level.

I'd also say it's not just money. Increased safety measures have been introduced, from mandatory periods of enforced inactivity, fewer rounds, more weight limits and weigh ins being brought back. Wlad can't fight for ninety days at the minute for example; he cannot replicate the old days of fighting every month or so even if he wanted to.

[Tomasino]

100%, modern training is not better and older people were just tougher in general due to life being tougher. One of these bad ass boxers would lose their poo if they lost their cell phone for a day.

I just think of the likes of Gans, Greb and Moore travelling by train all night to make fights. Now we have Yusaf Mack, Victor Ortiz, Kermit Cintron etc fighting for world titles.

[dirk2686]

100%, modern training is not better and older people were just tougher in general due to life being tougher. One of these bad ass boxers would lose their poo if they lost their cell phone for a day.

I just think of the likes of Gans, Greb and Moore travelling by train all night to make fights. Now we have Yusaf Mack, Victor Ortiz, Kermit Cintron etc fighting for world titles.

Easy to play that game though. Tony Galento fought for the world title training on burgers and booze. Yeah, it's fine to find amusement and in fairness some admiration for a tubby little fat guy who could fight three times in one night, boozing throughout, and still drop the heavyweight champion, but it was a different era. Nobody is going to convince me that just because he had less in the bank than someone like Wlad or Joshua that he wouldn't have been obliterated by them.