BoxRec

was it me or did fighters seem to take a lot more punishment?

were the boxers hardier then?

were the gloves less concussing then?

do fighters punch harder now?

do modern day boxers 'look for a way out' a bit more often than they used to?

are the referees a lot stricter now and stop fights that would have continued?

Have you seen the "Boxers of the past" area? They have discussed all the questions you have raised many, many times. It's worth a look.

And the general consensus usually is they are bigger better faster stronger harder and could turn water into wine by stirring it with their cocks. Especially ones there is no footage of.

JLP wrote:Have you seen the "Boxers of the past" area? They have discussed all the questions you have raised many, many times. It's worth a look.

not seen it mate, i only tend to browse this forum and a bit 'off topic'

Yeah have a look at the 'boxers of the past' , once you get past the who would win between threads. There are some really good posters on there, and there's always Youtube to see if you agree with them.

Fights are stopped sooner nowadays at lower levels, no doubt about that. But there were 15 round fights and the boxers did ship a bit more punishment, plus were fighting more often.

no need to go to "boxers of the past" i can tell you that they were indeed bigger better stronger and harder than these guys today. the best of them were even able to turn water into wine by stirring it with their cocks. actually that is not true but the first part is unquestionable

misterpunch wrote:no need to go to "boxers of the past" i can tell you that they were indeed bigger better stronger and harder than these guys today. the best of them were even able to turn water into wine by stirring it with their cocks. actually that is not true but the first part is unquestionable

so why and how were less boxers knocked out cold in those days, or am i imagining it?

mister punch= my favourite poster on this site

As the years go by, sprinters run faster, high jumpers jump higher etc etc.

In most sports where individual performance can be accurately measured, improvements are being made year on year.

Why should boxing be any different?

I'm not saying that Martinez is better than Robinson or anything, just making comment.

I think gloves had actually less padding & the thumbs were not stitched down so you could thumb & pinch.
I think fighters were actually weighed on the day & fighting weekly. I think with today's nutritional savvy & strength preservation, it allows fighters to be more explosive & fresh.
People's diets were not as luxurious & many poor which allway's put more need into the cause.

thanks mugabi - somebody loves me - only wish i was as informed about this sport of ours as your good self...have a lovely xmas

keithmoonhangover wrote:As the years go by, sprinters run faster, high jumpers jump higher etc etc.

In most sports where individual performance can be accurately measured, improvements are being made year on year.

Why should boxing be any different?

I'm not saying that Martinez is better than Robinson or anything, just making comment.

Exactly. In just about every sport a modern operator is considered the greatest ever e.g. Woods, Federer, Bolt etc, etc. However ask a boxing fan who would win between Ray Robinson and Mayweather and of course Robinson would've thrashed him like a mere child. In reality Mayweather is probably much closer to GOAT than anyone will ever admit.

Cue gigantic abuse!

YOUUUUUUUUUU rotter!

They might have been stronger or better, but they weren't bigger. The weight divisions still are what they were, fighters aren't significantly different heights at those weights now, and heavyweights are a LOT bigger.

Robinson would have had a big height and reach advantage over Floyd.

Old fighters fought more and endured in an era when there was no-standing 8 count to name but one facet, and I think the individual drive to succeed was stronger - fewer opportunities to escape poverty or be supported in it, than today.

I'd take, generally speaking, an old-school guy over his modern contemporary if you wanted a rule of thumb.

Once you bring individual match ups into it, it becomes impossible.

They were harder men. Other sports are irrelevant. You're talking about people routinely fighting 12 to 15 times a year in tough 10 round fights. Men like Robinson even as a welter frequently fighting middles, light-heavies frequently fighting heavies. No record padding as fight crowds expected good action fights. Champions defending five times a year.

Floyd Mayweather wouldn't have been able to talk himself into 'greatness' in that era - fans would have expected him to prove it in the ring. He would have numerous losses. Khan would have a losing record. Bigger hitting journeyman than Breidis Prescott would have likely banged him out early multiple times. Nathan Cleverly would be cannon fodder in the light heavies.

keithmoonhangover wrote:As the years go by, sprinters run faster, high jumpers jump higher etc etc.

In most sports where individual performance can be accurately measured, improvements are being made year on year.

Why should boxing be any different?

I'm not saying that Martinez is better than Robinson or anything, just making comment.

The World high jump record actually dates back to 1993 [women's to 1987]. The Shot and Discus records were set in 1990 and1986 respectively. I know that this does not disprove your theory but, in my opinion, the biggest difference between now and , say the 50s, is that the old-timers actually learnt their craft after 40 or 50 fights. It's rare these days to see to see boxers who look at home in the ring,Mayweather, Martinez and Hopkins being the exceptions.

Probably the biggest difference between boxing and other sports when you compare modern athletes to those of previous generations was that there were simply far, far more boxers back then - the talent pool was a hell of a lot deeper and boxers fought much more often. It's probably true that they didn't hit quite as hard on average as modern athletes owing to diet and modern strength and conditioning techniques being superior (although I bet the natural punchers, being the cream of a much larger crop, hit just as hard if not more) , but they would have had to be tougher men and would have been found out earlier if they lacked the chin and heart to compete at the top level. In terms of ringcraft, I think at top level the old fighters were better owing to the sheer number of fights they had (and the fact that those who got to fight on TV were the best of a much larger number of boxers). They may not always have looked as clean and textbook as the average modern fighter, but that awkwardness and mastery of subtle moves was part of the game (see Ken Norton as a prime example). When combined with their superior toughness, it made them hard men to beat.

A great little fight that shows the mastery boxers had back then of the finer point of the game - Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter taking on George Benton in a non-title fight from 1963. Look at those defensive skills! This isn't even at world level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-S-ng23OXg

Track and field events are making huge headway because of their diet of undetectable performance enhancing drugs. And clever supplements that work almost as well as their illegal counterparts.

Fighters do punch harder now and are fitter, due to increased modern training, diet and longer training camps. But fighters did take far more punishment then and suffered the consequences in later life.

dookus wrote:A great little fight that shows the mastery boxers had back then of the finer point of the game - Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter taking on George Benton in a non-title fight from 1963. Look at those defensive skills! This isn't even at world level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-S-ng23OXg

nice.

if you like that, you will probably like some of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2BEE8Ce70

on Charley Burley and Ezzard Charles, nice breakdown on their styles

rhino222 wrote:was it me or did fighters seem to take a lot more punishment?

were the boxers hardier then?

were the gloves less concussing then?

do fighters punch harder now?

do modern day boxers 'look for a way out' a bit more often than they used to?

are the referees a lot stricter now and stop fights that would have continued?

Don't know really - but they certainly seemed to fight more often. I think too that they weighed in on the day of the fight which might of meant that a welterweight (say) was a truer indication of their real weight class. Many moons ago I was a (fairly) regular attendee at the old Liverpool Stadium where Johnny Best was the promoter - his brother was my doctor! - and as I worked nearby would go with my mates to the weigh ins on, I think, Thursday lunch times. Great atmosphere, good fighters like Peter Fallom, Wally Thom, Brian London and many others - and it was OK to take wives and girl friends without having to put up with some of the shenanigans that sometimes have to be risked these days.

dookus wrote:Probably the biggest difference between boxing and other sports when you compare modern athletes to those of previous generations was that there were simply far, far more boxers back then - the talent pool was a hell of a lot deeper and boxers fought much more often. It's probably true that they didn't hit quite as hard on average as modern athletes owing to diet and modern strength and conditioning techniques being superior (although I bet the natural punchers, being the cream of a much larger crop, hit just as hard if not more) , but they would have had to be tougher men and would have been found out earlier if they lacked the chin and heart to compete at the top level. In terms of ringcraft, I think at top level the old fighters were better owing to the sheer number of fights they had (and the fact that those who got to fight on TV were the best of a much larger number of boxers). They may not always have looked as clean and textbook as the average modern fighter, but that awkwardness and mastery of subtle moves was part of the game (see Ken Norton as a prime example). When combined with their superior toughness, it made them hard men to beat.

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Very astute post.

The only thing I disagree with is that current fighters might hit harder - you either have that mix of natural born stopping power & perfect execution or you don't. Khan does all the same super advanced high tech strength and conditioning Pacman does but he will never be a puncher. Same across the board.