The reason the sport has evolved has little to do with diet or genetics but more to do with styles, codes get cracked, once the blue print is out for a specific style then every succeeding fighter after knows how to beat it, so styles become more effective, waste less energy and add more speed and power and evolve them selves.
Take a fighter like John L Sullivan a man who could fight 75 rounds! seems impressive until your realize that many rounds went by were neither man threw a punch and your average punch out put for most fights was 10 punches a round, fights were rather boring and only a means of gambling, the addition of gloves made the fights more exciting for now the fighters could throw more punches without fear of breaking their hands.
But even still look at the style of a Jack Johnson, hands low, head back, feet rather close together, it was a great style for beating sailors and lumber jacks but a modern fighter would exploit that style with ease.
Take Rocky Marciano, hands low, crouched looking to land one big punch. There are middleweights today that would exploit the great Marciano let along modern heavyweights who stand anywhere from 6'3 to 6'7 and weight in anywhere from 230 to 260. Middleweights today walk around heavier then Marcianos fighting weight.
Its like any other sport people just get more and more athletic, learn new tricks, build off what the greats before them did and improve upon it. There are special fighters that could compete today and win world titles and perhaps even rank in the top pound for pound guys like Ray Robinson of course, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Joe Gans, Joe Louis and a couple others who where so ahead of the game they seemed like super heroes which is why they still rank so high.
It might be nice to romanticize about a fight between Bob Fitzsimmons (a name i see thrown around here allot) and Roy Jones Jr, or Rocky Marciano vs Lennox Lewis but in reality Roy Jones would hit Fitzsimmons at will, crack his body make him miss and put him away. Marciano might just stare across the ring in awe of a 6'5 240 lb dread locked black beast like Lennox Lewis and take a knee before the bell, and if he didn't the fight would be over rather quickly, I cant imagine a scenario in which Marciano takes even one strait right from Lennox. Or imagine a Mike Tyson screeching across the ring at Jack Johnson, bobbing and weaving, jabbing and throwing 6 punch power combos with lightning speed it would seem super human and surreal to a fighter like Johnson who would be overwhelmed and succumb fairly quickly.
If you took the record of Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong or any other fighter from those days past and scratched out all the pay check opponents and tough men with no real skill, the part time boxers, dock workers and depression desperate men who were looking to eat then you would have what resembles a modern day boxers record. You could likely squash Robinsons record down to 50 fights or so. Which is still impressive and is why he is still considered the best fighters of all time.
A few points
1. Rule and officiating changes make up the biggest difference in any sport. That's what changes athletes, not "evolution" over a short 60-100 year time span. For instance fighters in the early 1900's tended to grapple because volume punching isn't a positive attribute for a 25 round bout.
2. How many fighters do you think are "full-time" boxers? You would be lucky to find 50 active boxers that didn't have a second job. Boxing has become a niche sport and because of that there is far less money available for people to make careers out of it and it's concentrated in even fewer hands.
3. The specifics of what fighters do while training and their diet has only changed during the last decade. The only reason that has occurred is because athletic trainers that failed providing services in the big 3 sports, where the money is, sought a living in boxing.
I agree nostalgia can create a false memory of athletic attributes, but belief that everything new is better can produce the same results on the other side of the spectrum.
Side Note- Tom Brady & Peyton Manning couldn't wash Johnny U's jock and anyone that knows the game will tell you that off camera. Aside from the fact that both have wet noodle arms and only get away with it because rule changes have taken away hitting from defenses, they are mice in the pocket. Forget 55 years ago when football was more savage than sport, if they played under the 80's rules they would be benched for being scared to get hit. Hell Jim Everett was called Chris Everett because he took a ghost sack during a game, what the heck do you think would happen with Peyton "Happy Feet" Manning and "Blow The Whistle" Tommy Brady if they could be hit every pass play?
Every QB that played prior to 1995 has wet dreams about playing in this b.s. flag football era.
so people should give extra praise to modern fighters for being pampered and overpaid compared to old school fighters? you're dismissive about the fact that old school fighters had to fight more often for financial reasons, but at the same time, if a fighter like mayweather was unable to make tens of millions fighting at a rate of once a year against b-level opponents like guerrero, ortiz or a shopworn cotto, and instead had to fight at a rate of once or twice a month like old school fighters, how well do you think he'd hold up? given his reputation for having brittle hands, i doubt he'd have a long career. there's no point in comparing fighters of past eras to today's because boxing was a lot more physically demanding back then, not only because they fought more often, but also because the fights were often longer. for instance, the longest fight ever recorded was 111 rounds! how many fighters today can go 111 rounds??? not many i gather. not to mention, there was only one champ per division back then, so in order to be the best, you had to beat the best, which isn't usually the case these days when you can cherrypick titles in multiple divisions. for instance, broner is considered a three division champ over a four division span even though he has only beaten b level opposition.
i disagree that you can't compare era's you can compare them perfectly, its just that its mostly opinion based, although some of it is common sense, and to be honest,i don't think the technical side of boxing has changed much since about 1970, and personally any top notch from then could probably give any top notch from now a good hiding or at least a really tough match, i would say though that boxers from the early 1900's are tougher than modern day boxers, they could take better hits and such, evidenced by the fact they fought for 35 rounds, but to say someone who fought in the early 1900's could beat someone of today would be silly,the match ups have changed so much since then, and the whole part time thing, that's not fair, alot of money wasn't made in boxing at that time for the regular fighter, but all the top fighters have always been only boxers, all the way back to John L Sullivan "himself"
It's total BS, and it's simple.
There was no PPV back in the day, no HBO or Showtime to pay out of their asss to show the best fighters.
SRR had what, like 200 fights? The only reason he had that many fights was to supplement his income. He would knock out three or four bums a month just to pad his bank account.
SRR wouldn't do that nowadays. He'd be on PPV, or headlining an HBO card, making that HBO money AND getting a piece of the gate.
Having a lot of fights means nothing. It was what guys had to do back then, fight very often, b/c that was the only way they could make an actual good amount of money.
It's as simple as that. If a guy like Henry Armstrong or SRR were fighting bums twice a month (at least), all they'd do it get criticized. In this day and age, it wouldn't be necessary, b/c they'd be getting paid money they deserve from tv networks and promoters.
i agree that the amount of fights someones has doesn't mean they were better ,most older fighters didn't have much if any amateur fights compared with say don curry who had 400 fights before turning pro .
i want to put this myth to bed right now that just cause fighters of the past fought more, they are some how superior to modern fighters
isnt it funny that we recognize the evolution of modern athletes in just about EVERY OTHER sport except for boxing....
no one ever argues that Johnny Unitas or Y.A. Tittle could walk out on to a football field today and outplay Tom Brady or Peyton Manning...
so why boxing??
you know why old school fighters had so many more fights ???? cause they was fighting like every two to three weeks, and not to mention they sparred a hell of a lot less....
now, you tell me: if you were a trainer or a manager, would you rather put your fighter back into the ring less than a month after his last fight...???
or, would you rather get him sequestered away for 8 weeks doing nothing but training, dieting, working out with nutritionalists, and preparing for one specific opponent....
which brings me to another point: fighters from eras past were famous for working 10 hours a day in the factory or the field, and then training by night
so basically, they were part time fighters, behind their day jobs....
you still see this from time to time with journeymen type fighters, but virtually all top notch modern fighters are FULL TIME
there will always be a handful of fighters from the past who's stye could transend eras, and could be competitive in the modern era....
but era vs era, i wish old school fans would give more credit to the evolution of the game
after all, how many of you really think a matchup of the 1953 championship Lakers vs the 2012 Miami Heat would be competitive??? i'm betting on the Heat to mop the floor with those Lakers...
but that's just me
