BoxRec

This is the thread I hate the most as it cannot be proved in any way, however, I'd like to know the views of this board as I am a newcomer to box recs brit forum.

How has boxing evolved over the last 10,20,30,40,50,60 etc... years.

Are the competitors today fitter, faster stronger or has boxing not taken the road fo the 100m dash and long jump in the evolution stakes.

thanks in advance for your views.

Wales wrote:This is the thread I hate the most as it cannot be proved in any way, however, I'd like to know the views of this board as I am a newcomer to box recs brit forum.

How has boxing evolved over the last 10,20,30,40,50,60 etc... years.

Are the competitors today fitter, faster stronger or has boxing not taken the road fo the 100m dash and long jump in the evolution stakes.

thanks in advance for your views.

Boxing has gone backwards. The number of titles available means fighters can go for a title before they've even served a proper apprenticeship. David Reid would be an example of this. He was chucked in at world level, had the natural ability to win a world title, but once the opposition got really formidable just wasn't rounded and experienced enough to cope. He took bad beatings and his career was ruined.
Lawrence Murphy would be a more recent example.

long jump is a poor example, the record stood for 20odd years, but evolution took its toll and somebody beat it eventually.

okay, lets talk the elite, the main men.

i think so, but unlike track and field there is no way of comparing. I believe that the standard of to day is deeper and is definately higher than the first half of the century. It's alot harder to say when comparing with fighters from the 60's onwards where boxers became alot better technically. I think at the top of the game, the sport hasn't evolved, but maybe through the levels it has. It's so hard to measure.

bennie wrote: Boxing has gone backwards. The number of titles available means fighters can go for a title before they've even served a proper apprenticeship. David Reid would be an example of this. He was chucked in at world level, had the natural ability to win a world title, but once the opposition got really formidable just wasn't rounded and experienced enough to cope. He took bad beatings and his career was ruined.
Lawrence Murphy would be a more recent example.

Bennie, as usual, is right. However, the perverse thing is that co-existing with the above is the fact that elite athletes, including boxers, are fitter, bigger, stronger, quicker and every other positive comparative that I can't bring to mind, than ever before.

Our game lives and dies by comparison, including evolution. I dare say that talent-wise Jimmy Wilde would be up there amongst the greats. Put him in now and he is merely a world champion. Maybe only 5 times over.

Boxing has gone backwards no doubt about it.

Some of the athletes who box are stronger now, but they are not as good at boxing. The golden era of the sport has gone.

It's simple maths, when a once popular sport becomes a minority sport with fewer and fewer active participants, the standard is bound to drop.

True but other sports have also declined in comparison I prefer to be less pessimistic in outlook, sport period has changed and money in many ways has been both a blessing and ball and chain....
Boxing is a rare sport that is relatively devoid of the corporate evolution that has engrossed sports - with contracts like Beckham's in Barcelona, luxury suites at events, sponsorship outshining your Clubs logo on the football jersey, and free-agency in the US sports ranks, it is refreshing to have a sport that remains much the same in concept and practice as it did years and years ago, and hence you can learn a lot about today's fighters from looking back into the storied past of the truest competition in sport, boxing.
The core of boxing remains unchanged, where a man's strategy and preparation melds with his heart and desire to make for unparalleled competition where any weakness glares, any mistake can cost you the title, and only a perfect fight is guaranteed to win in any given night.

Agreed, Boxing has gone backwards and is now ruled by the money men. Too many guys holding "world" titles in there back years not willing to risk fighting the competition to see who is the best. These same guys know that if they risked themselves they would not be up to the grade so are content to sit back and rake it in without ever testing themselves, years ago guys would travel the globe to fight each other and all in the name of Boxing, nowadays it's only the brave or the overmatched who are willing to commute.

I think boxing has certainly gone backwards from the 60's and 70's - I am convinced that if you but a prime Ali in with Klitchko(s) the great man would come out on top 9 times out of ten. Why do you think some people still believe that an ancient Mike Tyson can reclaim the belt, its an indicator of the state the game is in.

However, the P4P top 10 is as good as its ever been, well maybe it was better about 3 years ago when Tito was still around and Moseley was undefeated. But all the names in the P4P top ten will be remembered long after their career is over.

But, yes I agree overall the fighters were better in the 60's - I don't think though that fighters of the many years ago (i.e. 1920's etc) are as skilled and good as the fighters today. Guys like Ray Robinson, Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali revolutionised the game, and today's fighters and coaches have to be thankful for their presence. Technically even the likes of the Klitchko's are as technically sound as fighters such as Primo Carrerna, Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries etc. I'm not saying that Johnson and Jeffries didn't have more natural talent than today's crop - but we have learned the art of defence from the likes of Willie Pep and Floyd Patterson in later years, and weapons like the jab are used much more prominately now.

So I partially agree, of course we have moved on from the early part of the last decade, but we haven't changed much from the 60's/70's and them lot were better than this current bunch.