BoxRec

I think a few here could benefit from watching this video. Most of the improvements in athletics, swimming, cycling and other similarly athletic-based sports come down to improvements in technology, not the supposed superiority of modern athletes. Boxing is a sport that hasn't been affected by similar technology improvements, so comparing the boxers of yesteryear with today's champions isn't as silly as some claim it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

I think fighting is primal. You could have trained me as kid.still don't think I could of beat Tyson or Ali a like. Iam 6ft. But fighters like khan think if trained from young could beat. I would fancy it now

Plus, a lot of what makes athletes better is changes in size.

All the 250 lb offensive lineman from the 70s would not be able to block guys in 2018......but. Welterweight is still 147.

ldlamb wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:40 Plus, a lot of what makes athletes better is changes in size.

All the 250 lb offensive lineman from the 70s would not be able to block guys in 2018......but. Welterweight is still 147.

A welterweight competing in 1973 would have entered the ring weighing around 150lbs. Many modern day welterweights enter the ring weighing 165lbs or more.

Marvin Hagler may have even been a welterweight or at least a light middleweight if he competed today.

brilo33 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 10:49 I think fighting is primal. You could have trained me as kid.still don't think I could of beat Tyson or Ali a like. Iam 6ft. But fighters like khan think if trained from young could beat. I would fancy it now

In Ali's case it has been suggested that he suffered from a form of dyslexia which may have been compensated by unusually good reflexes.

Whereas with Tyson it is known that D'Amato spent many, many years looking for a potential heavyweight champion with great talent. With Tyson he knew almost straight away.

These qualities would be very hard, if not impossible to manufacture. So it's fair to conclude that great fighters of all generations would be great today if they were able to take advantage of modetn hydration regimes which were prevented by same day weigh-ins.

The heavyweights are a different case altogether as the optimum size/ weight has not been established. But they are defintely getting bigger if not definitely better.

As far as fighting Khan goes, how would you deal with his speed? I guess you'd be looking for the knockout as he's almost impossible to beat on points.

Thomastearns wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:56

brilo33 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 10:49 I think fighting is primal. You could have trained me as kid.still don't think I could of beat Tyson or Ali a like. Iam 6ft. But fighters like khan think if trained from young could beat. I would fancy it now

In Ali's case it has been suggested that he suffered from a form of dyslexia which may have been compensated by unusually good reflexes.

Whereas with Tyson it is known that D'Amato spent many, many years looking for a potential heavyweight champion with great talent. With Tyson he knew almost straight away.

These qualities would be very hard, if not impossible to manufacture. So it's fair to conclude that great fighters of all generations would be great today if they were able to take advantage of modetn hydration regimes which were prevented by same day weigh-ins.

The heavyweights are a different case altogether as the optimum size/ weight has not been established. But they are defintely getting bigger if not definitely better.

As far as fighting Khan goes, how would you deal with his speed? I guess you'd be looking for the knockout as he's almost impossible to beat on points.

Remember it was a tounge cheek answers
How would i deal with his speed .walk through him and spark him. Truth is I could nt. I he is a top boxer.i wouldn't want be in ring with froch or Joe Lewis or any fighter. Because i think fighters are productor of the area but also have real skills and power or strength or sports back round. Jaws. And Big hearts. I don't think that can be taught .I think it can be made better.

The only differences are in the sizes of the fighters. That's down to same day vs next day weigh ins, not any advancements. Apart from the Heavyweights, but past a certain size it becomes more of a negative than a positive.

Techniques haven't advanced since about the 40s. Gyms, trainers, public interest (and thus participant interest) have all been declining for a good while now, leading the best athletes and potential boxers elsewhere.

The whole "newer is better" argument doesn't apply to everything. Boxing is one of those things. Athletics in general have improved, though. No denial there.

Abradolf Lincler wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:21 The only differences are in the sizes of the fighters. That's down to same day vs next day weigh ins, not any advancements. Apart from the Heavyweights, but past a certain size it becomes more of a negative than a positive.

Techniques haven't advanced since about the 40s. Gyms, trainers, public interest (and thus participant interest) have all been declining for a good while now, leading the best athletes and potential boxers elsewhere.

The whole "newer is better" argument doesn't apply to everything. Boxing is one of those things. Athletics in general have improved, though. No denial there.

You're probably right about athletics too, but it must be marginal because evolution takes forever. Remember also that the tracks are much faster now. And then there's all that PED use to consider.

A lot of the Eastern European women's records from the 1970s are still remarkable today. In fact Kratochvilova's 1min 53.28 secs 800m world record from 1983 still stands today, and like Flo-Jo's 10.49secs 100m world record from 1988, is in no imminent danger today.

My 17-year old son who didn't even make a high school state cut has a 100 backstroke result better than 1952 Olympic winner and winners of all previous Olympics. This has nothing to do with technology but everything to do with better technique and better coaching.

ldlamb wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:40 Plus, a lot of what makes athletes better is changes in size.

All the 250 lb offensive lineman from the 70s would not be able to block guys in 2018......but. Welterweight is still 147.

Current welterweights wouldn't be fighting below MW 70 years ago. They are much bigger and stronger that WWs from that time.

If I was ever under the impression that modern fighters were better than vintage fighters, it's because I watched them and found that their boxing mechanics were more consistent with how world class trainers tell you how to box, and vintage fighters seem to violate every rule of movement. The toughness of vintage fighters is also legendary compared to modern fighters, but I'm also seeing that the opponents of these vintage tough men were throwing their punches mechanically wrong and likely not getting as much power behind them.

It is not as though I've judged boxers in the way that this TED presenter has. I wasn't like "well, they've been measured to jump higher and run faster, so I think they're better. Just look at these compubox numbers." If anything, I think the technological improvement that is most relevant to boxing is the technology of good coaching. Over time, you see one fighter like Sugar Ray Robinson who transforms the sport by just boxing way better than everybody else, and then every coach teaches their fighters to adopt his improved style. Then you see one fighter like Muhammad Ali transform the sport by boxing way better than everyone of his era, and then every coach teaches fighters to adopt his improved style. Whenever you get the opportunity to see a boxer use techniques that are a vast improvement over the status quo, and it is caught on video, then everyone can start adopting his techniques and rise closer to his level.

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:14 My 17-year old son who didn't even make a high school state cut has a 100 backstroke result better than 1952 Olympic winner and winners of all previous Olympics. This has nothing to do with technology but everything to do with better technique and better coaching.

Bear in mind that whilst technique has improved consideranly, especially in backstroke, that the pools today are faster too. Something to do with the overflow speed and rate.

i think looking after your body , has shown that 30 years old which was the end of a career is now the prime

brilo33 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:25 i think looking after your body , has shown that 30 years old which was the end of a career is now the prime

Yep, it's all about hydration today. Hardly anyone carried a water bottle around back in 70s. Now it's essential for anyone in sport to stay hydrated. Also anyone working hard at a PC!

Thomastearns wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:32

brilo33 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:25 i think looking after your body , has shown that 30 years old which was the end of a career is now the prime

Yep, it's all about hydration today. Hardly anyone carried a water bottle around back in 70s. Now it's essential for anyone in sport to stay hydrated. Also anyone working hard at a PC!

maybe even the amount of fights the fought aswell

I think it's only boxing fans' obsession with fantasy matchups that is making this topic at all contentious. It's not to any individual's discredit that things just develop over time. Most people would accept that a decent high school student today knows countless things that, say, Aristotle didn't know, and would never have imagined. This shouldn't be said to diminish the old-timer's era, his importance, or his works. Some time after we're gone, our era too likely be imagined as a primitive time when people still didn't know much and weren't very good at things.

brilo33 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:36

Thomastearns wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:32

brilo33 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:25 i think looking after your body , has shown that 30 years old which was the end of a career is now the prime

Yep, it's all about hydration today. Hardly anyone carried a water bottle around back in 70s. Now it's essential for anyone in sport to stay hydrated. Also anyone working hard at a PC!

maybe even the amount of fights the fought aswell

Yeah, it seems insane how many used to have 100+ fights in their careers. Where was the rest period? And all before the age of thumbless gloves too. Ouch!

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:16

ldlamb wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:40 Plus, a lot of what makes athletes better is changes in size.

All the 250 lb offensive lineman from the 70s would not be able to block guys in 2018......but. Welterweight is still 147.

Current welterweights wouldn't be fighting below MW 70 years ago. They are much bigger and stronger that WWs from that time.

Either today’s fighters would be fighting under the old rules or the older fighters would be able to rehydrate more today...whichever it was they would be fighting under the same rules.....so no, I do not believe that a 1981 Ray Leonard or Thomas Hearns would be at a substantial disadvantage against a Keith Thurman, for example, if they were subject to the same weighin rules.

squiggy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:43 I think it's only boxing fans' obsession with fantasy matchups that is making this topic at all contentious. It's not to any individual's discredit that things just develop over time. Most people would accept that a decent high school student today knows countless things that, say, Aristotle didn't know, and would never have imagined. This shouldn't be said to diminish the old-timer's era, his importance, or his works. Some time after we're gone, our era too likely be imagined as a primitive time when people still didn't know much and weren't very good at things.

I think this is a terrible analogy.

Just because a high schooler today can memorize certain facts that weren’t known in Aristotle’s time....certainly doesn’t mean that ole Ari doesn’t far surpass them in mental abilities.

You've misunderstood my intention; I said not to diminish his importance or his works. Were we in the practice of staging fantasy showdowns between the intellectuals of today and those of the past ("Richard Dawkins would totally smoke Socrates in a debate!"), we'd probably get into some heated thing about how to relate works from one period fairly to those those of another. Fortunately we don't do that, so I think we're content to just note that a rising tide lifts all boats, but that, as I said, that fact is not to any individual's discredit.

(Which is to say I think some people in this thread and the George Foreman one are being pretty silly.)

ldlamb wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 16:16

squiggy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 13:43 I think it's only boxing fans' obsession with fantasy matchups that is making this topic at all contentious. It's not to any individual's discredit that things just develop over time. Most people would accept that a decent high school student today knows countless things that, say, Aristotle didn't know, and would never have imagined. This shouldn't be said to diminish the old-timer's era, his importance, or his works. Some time after we're gone, our era too likely be imagined as a primitive time when people still didn't know much and weren't very good at things.

I think this is a terrible analogy.

Just because a high schooler today can memorize certain facts that weren’t known in Aristotle’s time....certainly doesn’t mean that ole Ari doesn’t far surpass them in mental abilities.

Have to agree, those old Greeks more or less invented the Western world. Mathematics, science, medicine, politics, philosophy, and yes, they were holding boxing contests 10 centuries ago. Probably better judging too.

There seems to be far too much emphasis on memorisation and far too little on creativity and questioning in today's education. The Greeks, luckily for us had it the other way around. At least until the Romans came along to prove that nothing ultimately matters more than the ability to fight and win.

I sometimes wonder how the schooling of the 17th century produced a genius like Newton, and yet ours often produces illiterates. Newton himself said he was standing on the shoulders of giants and thus able to see further.

Today's boxers should aim to learn as much as they can from the past masters and create something new Mike Tyson style.

Hey did someone mention Lomachenko?

Thomastearns wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 17:14 There seems to be far too much emphasis on memorisation and far too little on creativity and questioning in today's education.

I'm not sure about that. Half of Americans question everything. They question science, degreed experts, technological advancement, the roundness of the Earth, the legitimate media, everything. They excel at questioning. They suffer when it comes to actually absorbing well-vetted information, proven theories, peer-reviewed research, fact-checked journalism, etc. They are as thick as bricks, and they question everything.

Lackeos wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 18:11

Thomastearns wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 17:14 There seems to be far too much emphasis on memorisation and far too little on creativity and questioning in today's education.

I'm not sure about that. Half of Americans question everything. They question science, degreed experts, technological advancement, the roundness of the Earth, the legitimate media, everything. They excel at questioning. They suffer when it comes to actually absorbing well-vetted information, proven theories, peer-reviewed research, fact-checked journalism, etc. They are as thick as bricks, and they question everything.

My mistake. That kind of questioning could be a good starting point but is only really useful if it's carried through to original thinking a la Aristotle or Democritus. Otherwise its just unnecessary and distracting noise bordering on paranoia.

I should have said thinking for yourself like the Greek pioneers did. Or Muhammad Ali for example.

Nope athletes in every sport get better with each generation.

People just don't want to admit it with boxing because it means they'll have to take their rose tinted glasses off.