Is Boxing the only Sport that has not Improved over the Years?

[Elroy1]

you a funny dude Elroy. keep on trollin, but man you make yourself look like a grade A dumbazz to anyone who has boxed for even two weeks.

like really your **** dont even make sense in this thread because practically every trainer (and boxer) from then and till now has honed their craft studying past fighters. boxing is an innovative sport, but there is nothing new under the sun.

like really, you are dumb as fuck.

But clearly it's YOU who are confused about the whole thing.

Of course every generation of boxers has studied those that were in the past, that's how anything and everything has innovated and progressed.

The thing is, is that they've built upon it and time and again and pushed the limits further and further.

Crediting them with laying the groundwork for what came after is the PROPER way to honour them! And that way outsiders to the sport would not look down on you as the mental insects that you are and boost the fanbases credibility!

Forget about the guys like OneRound that only boxed for 2 weeks.

Larry Holmes. Michael Spinks. Evander Holyfield. Mike Tyson. Rid**** Bowe. Lennox Lewis. Both Klitschko's.

All of these guys have slammed the past at one stage and promoted themselves "better than anything that came before" quote Holyfield. Tyson's own theory is almost a transcript of mine above.

So your saying brainwashed 2 bit punks like OneRound are more credible than all the HW champs from the modern era? GTFOOH!

And in any case I don't even care too much for heresay arguments anyhow.

If it looks bummy on film, and the record interprets bummy.. The boxer is more than likely bummy! Regardless of any trash talk!

You got a whole lot of nothing Sly. You and your little simpleton mate there!

[SlySlickSmooth]

But clearly it's YOU who are confused about the whole thing.

Of course every generation of boxers has studied those that were in the past, that's how anything and everything has innovated and progressed.

The thing is, is that they've built upon it and time and again and pushed the limits further and further.

Crediting them with laying the groundwork for what came after is the PROPER way to honour them! And that way outsiders to the sport would not look down on you as the mental insects that you are and boost the fanbases credibility!

Forget about the guys like OneRound that only boxed for 2 weeks.

Larry Holmes. Michael Spinks. Evander Holyfield. Mike Tyson. Rid**** Bowe. Lennox Lewis. Both Klitschko's.

All of these guys have slammed the past at one stage and promoted themselves "better than anything that came before" quote Holyfield. Tyson's own theory is almost a transcript of mine above.

So your saying brainwashed 2 bit punks like OneRound are more credible than all the HW champs from the modern era? GTFOOH!

And in any case I don't even care too much for heresay arguments anyhow.

If it looks bummy on film, and the record interprets bummy.. The boxer is more than likely bummy! Regardless of any trash talk!

You got a whole lot of nothing Sly. You and your little simpleton mate there!

Please refer to my earlier post,

I feel the issue isn't with the fighters. Its that many of the ex-fighters were trained by men who have probably seen boxing's evolution.

Those trainers saw or at least heard of Dempsey or Louis and took the sweet science seriously. They were able to study those scientists in the ring and teach it to guys like Roberto Duran.

Hell, Robert Garcia is content with his corner advice consisting of
"Mas fuerte."
"More punches."
"Don't stop."

The lack of truly intelligent and elite trainers is diminishing, even then right now there only a handful of elite fighters that people can truly study the sweet science from. Whereas back in the 40s etc. the skill was so abundant there was so much to learn and so much to innovate off.

We're in an era where men like Broner can make millions fighting sub-par opposition. We're not in the Great Depression. There is no color barrier. You can make much more money at a lower level of skill as opposed to back in the day.

[Elroy1]

Do you seriously believe that professional boxers today, actual professional boxers, have never heard of or studied Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey? You think they never thought to hear an old fart out once in the course of their training and everybody they meet along their journey and sit down and watch them fight?

You fool!

Problem is with learning explicitly from that now and not something more modern is that neither Dempsey or Louis have any relevance for professional boxing today whatsoever.

Neither of those men, great as they were, would ever be competitive in top level amateur boxing today, let alone as professionals! A modern fighter could be served just as well by watching a couple of modern era school boys flog it out on the oval. And that is exactly what Louis and Dempsey were by todays standards.. Just kids!

And as for Dempsey, he could barely even bloody box at all!

We can see a clear evolution from Louis to Waldimir (boxer-puncher to boxer-puncher) from and from Ali to Wladimir (out-fighter to out-fighter) through Holmes, Lewis and Vitali and a whole range of spin offs along the way.

We also seen a clear evolution from Frazier to Tyson also.

The styles evolved in direct relation to the punch power. The infighting became a dead end for all but the shorter boxers with cast iron chins. For all others the outside game has taken increasing priority because it is now too dangerous to take shots like a human punching bag.

If I had to define past eras boxing, pre1980's, it would be the "punch bag eras".

[Elroy1]

Alexander Povetkin and Carlos Takam.



These are supreme boxers.

There is not a single boxer prior to atleast 1980 that stands any chance of victory against either of these guys under any circumstances.

From a young Larry Holmes through Muhammad Ali 1 and 2, Geroge Foreman 1, Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and any other old school champ/contender you can pull up, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WOULD END UP TOTALLY THRASHED AND COLD CANVASSED KOED against either boxer!

That is a fact. Watch the above clips and the please try to find me any single fight out of the thousands of fights available from your nostalgi period that features greater athleticism, strength and power or skills than this expose?

AND THIS ISN'T EVEN A TITLE FIGHT TODAY!

[bojangles1987]

Actually basketball have decreased as well.

Are you seriously telling me that Cousins/Marc Gasol/Dwight Howard/Davis is >than Shaq/Hakeem/Ewing/Mourning/Robinson/Yao/KG/Wallace/Webber eras? No they are not.

Outside of Lebron and Durant, it is very obvious that today's era is not as talented as

Prime KOBE/SHAQ/DUNCAN/KG/DIRK/IVERSON/MCGRADY/CARTER/KIDD.
It's not.


From top to bottom both Football and Basketball are clearly inferior to the 90's-2000's.

As is the Heavyweights.

How the **** can you say Wlad+the rest is >than Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe+the rest?

Lewis alone will brutally KO Wlad.

That's definitely not true. Yeah, the NBA and NFL greats of the 90s are every bit as good and many are better than a lot of players in their sports today, but athletes in those sports get bigger and stronger and quicker with every generation. It's mostly because of drugs, yeah, but the point remains. Point guards like Westbrook and Rose did not exist two decades ago. Neither did forwards like Lebron or Durant.

Though the decline of the big man is strange in the NBA. Other positions are getting huge, but centers are smaller and worse. It's interesting to see.

[bojangles1987]

Since then the population of the world has quadrupled in size and the whole world is in to boxing now. Plus no world wars, malnutrition and boxing is not just the sport of the poverty stricken now.

Yeah, and they've migrated to dozens of other sports that make better money and don't involve getting your brains beaten in so you end up a vegetable at 40 or 50. There are a lot less fighters today than there used to be.

[Elroy1]

Yeah, and they've migrated to dozens of other sports that make better money and don't involve getting your brains beaten in so you end up a vegetable at 40 or 50. There are a lot less fighters today than there used to be.

That is totally false.

A boxer is a boxer because he loves to box. No pedigreed boxer has ever been interested in other sports for health or money reasons.

Half the worlds boxers are former Eastern Blocers which were forbidden to even participate in other sports for profit or preservation reasons.

The current era is among the most populous in terms of number of boxers in the professional ranks ever (rivalled only by the Joe Louis era).

And taken given there were very little amateur programs back in the day and pro boxers turned pro much earlier, if we combine total ammy+pro boxing participation rates together, current boxing blows EVERYTHING out of the water for all time.

The reasons are the popularisation of boxing by the health industry, increasingly violent societies (avenues to channel anger), massive increase in world and national populations and the globalisation of boxing.

Your post was shocking. You should never post again with such low quality, easily assailable rubbish!

There has never been a stronger, more diverse or larger talent pool as today. Fact!

It's unbelievable the new lows that nut bags will sink to now days.

[SalimShady1212]

Depends how you measure improvement, of course boxin has improved. In terms of medical and technological advancement atheletes are muh fitter and in much better shape with the supplements which have been developed. We have nutritionists to help fighters make weight and so on. Boxing certainly has improved but there's a lot more ways to measure other sports. Football and basketball etc are all quantitative whereas as boxing is more qualitative.

[Elroy1]

Depends how you measure improvement, of course boxin has improved. In terms of medical and technological advancement atheletes are muh fitter and in much better shape with the supplements which have been developed. We have nutritionists to help fighters make weight and so on. Boxing certainly has improved but there's a lot more ways to measure other sports. Football and basketball etc are all quantitative whereas as boxing is more qualitative.

Please explain this?

Footballers either do something good with the ball or they don't. They mark a ball (sorry, Aussie) or they don't, kick a ball or not. Boxers either do something good or they don't. They parry a punch or they don't, they land a punch or they don't.

Footballers win or lose as a team. Boxers win or lose as an individual.

They are both qualitative and quantitative.

Punch power, accuracy, timing, speed etc can be quantified. And many aspects at once like offensive or defensive efficiency can be embodied in end-point analysis which a nostalgist completely neglects.

I'm not having a go at you, you declared yourself not one of them anyway, I'm just trying to see where you were coming from there.

I feel that there are many more variables in boxing than football that's all which is not a really heavily skill based sport by comparison.

[SlySlickSmooth]

Do you seriously believe that professional boxers today, actual professional boxers, have never heard of or studied Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey? You think they never thought to hear an old fart out once in the course of their training and everybody they meet along their journey and sit down and watch them fight?

You fool!

Problem is with learning explicitly from that now and not something more modern is that neither Dempsey or Louis have any relevance for professional boxing today whatsoever.

Neither of those men, great as they were, would ever be competitive in top level amateur boxing today, let alone as professionals! A modern fighter could be served just as well by watching a couple of modern era school boys flog it out on the oval. And that is exactly what Louis and Dempsey were by todays standards.. Just kids!

And as for Dempsey, he could barely even bloody box at all!

We can see a clear evolution from Louis to Waldimir (boxer-puncher to boxer-puncher) from and from Ali to Wladimir (out-fighter to out-fighter) through Holmes, Lewis and Vitali and a whole range of spin offs along the way.

We also seen a clear evolution from Frazier to Tyson also.

The styles evolved in direct relation to the punch power. The infighting became a dead end for all but the shorter boxers with cast iron chins. For all others the outside game has taken increasing priority because it is now too dangerous to take shots like a human punching bag.

If I had to define past eras boxing, pre1980's, it would be the "punch bag eras".

I believe Marcos Maidana doesn't even following boxing unless you're a superstar. He just fights and lives on his farm. Again, recall my earlier post about Robert Garcia's corner advice and decisions like training Donaire over the phone.

Now compare it with this:

Tyson existed because Cus D'Amato did. Who is Cus D'Amato? The trainer who invented the peek-a-boo. Who did Cus D'Amato grow up and see fight? Dempsey and Louis.

Remember, Maidana lost to Floyd Jr. who is trained by Floyd Sr. and Uncle Roger who were around to witness and even fight against greats like Ray Leonard and Chavez Sr.
They learned by experience/watching past fighters how to train and bring up a fighter to be great. The trainer aspect, remember that.