Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is Boxing the only Sport that has not Improved over the Years?
Collapse
-
Some other sports -- tennis, golf being two easy examples -- have improved by equipment technology (racquets and clubs) as much as by actual level of play. Boxing doesn't have the same opportunity.
Football has gotten "better" as much by rule changes as anything. Linemen back in the day could not grasp defenders without being penalized, had to keep their hands to themselves. And defensive backs could contact defenders all the way down the field as long as the ball hadn't been thrown. Change those two rules and the passing game opens up, quarterbacks have more time to throw and receivers are better able to get open and go long ... and because of this the passing game opens up and the perception is that QBs are "better" than before, when in reality that's debatable. Not to mention that a QB used to have to call the entire game in the huddle or at the line of scrimmage, now they can give him plays over his earpiece and tell him from the booth upstairs if he has a mismatch to exploit.
That's not to mention that bigger, stronger linemen are part of the game because they went from one-platoon (players had to play offense and defense with very limited substitution) to separate units for offense and defense and unlimited substitution. And constant TV commercial breaks mean more rest time, so 300-pounders can recover -- which would have been very difficult in the days when you had no breaks other than at the end of the quarter and at halfitme.
I think basketball is a fairly good example of a sport that has progressed on similar terms with boxing -- yes, there are bigger and more athletics players in the NBA now than there were 20 or 30 years ago but fundamentals are not as strong. It can be argued that the "game" is not better but the teams are better due to that athleticism ... but I'll put Larry Bird or Jerry West up against anyone in the game today for shooting accuracy or passing ability for instance.
We have better athletes boxing now across the board, I think, than we did in the 1930s or 60s or 80s, but the funamentals are probably not as good.
A lot of that has to do with the decline of participation ... boxing is not as popular, there aren't so many gyms and club fights for guys to develop as there used to be, awareness of long-term effects of concussions is greater so a lot more parents keep their kids out of boxing and into sports that won't leave them as walking vegetables, etc.
Another thing is weight divisions -- the rules change to day-before weigh-ins makes today's guys bigger and more powerful in the ring than their counterparts from the same weight divisions in decades past. But apart from that, outside of heavyweights (where the increase in size is rapidly apparent from heavies of yesteryear), you aren't going to see massive increases in size from decade to decade. The average NBA guard or NFL tight end is taller and heavier but if they were subject to weight divisions it probably wouldn't be so.
I'd wager that the best boxers today could hold their own with those of the past, but if you compare it to a time when there were as many licensed boxers in New York as there are in the USA today (or close to it) then there is a bigger pool and thus more quality below the top.
Comment
-
-
Boxing might not be as popular in America as it was back in the day, but it is much more popular in the world today.
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View PostI don't think it's that since most footwork today is atrocious as well.TheBoxingInformator likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by D4thincarnation View PostOr are we just too nostalgic.
Weightlifter lift more.
Sprinters are faster
Footballers score more goals
Baseball players hit more home runs
Snooker players get more century breaks
Tennis is played at a higher level
With the advancement of sports science, sportsmen being more professional tactics and training methods have made huge gains in all other sports.
All except one.
Well that is if you listen to your average boxing fan
Which sees boxing in a very nostalgic way. Where the boxers in the past were faster, hit harder, could take a better punch, were tougher and had more stamina, more skilful and had better tactical awarness.
Hard to believe yes. Despite all other sports improving boxing has gone backwards.
Are you one of those that believe this rubbish?
Luckily they time the 100m or some of you would be claiming Lewis was faster than bolt
SRR looked at Burley as a beast and SRL looked at Pryor as a beast. Boy Burley aint no damn Mayweather and Pyror is like a bummy version of Pac.
Also SRL was recognized as so good because of his versitility. He can fight in the pocket and in the outside. However, SRL isnt half as skilled as Floyd. Who has PERFECTED Pocket fighting, outside boxing, fighting on the ropes, counterpunching, coming forward without being touched.
SRL had a plus minus of 15, same as Ward who is allot slower than SRL. Floyd at his peek, had a plus minus of 30 which was TOP THREE IN BOXING HISTORY. Now if SRL Fought Floyd's opponents he may knock them out, but is he going to have a plus minus of 30? GTFO!!!
Some of you, well ALL of you, have a habit of lying about how good the past fighters were, but I feel that boxing evolved so much that they would be downright SHOCKED by the skill level, if Floyd and Pac were to even fight in SRL's era. I completely disagree!
Comment
-
Originally posted by D4thincarnation View PostAnd it is a known tactic, so counter tactics are worked on.
Floyd has ran allot, but nowhere near as much. Floyd was standing flatfooted, and shoulder rolling the shiat out of foes. And on the outside, he basically would outslick df out of guys at outside range! SRL wasnt doing any of that. The skillset was on a lower level!
Comment
-
Boxing is the only sport where everyone except heavyweights are the same size as always. And we have video proof of greats being in better shape, having better stamina, and having more skill than 99% of the sport today.
Comment
Comment