Older Fighters Really Better?

Question

rumble in the junglealivsforeman : You probably meant this answer for another question. Thanks anyway.

Answer 1

I don't think you can compare the fighters from different eras and say that the best fighter from the older era is better than the best from the newer era.  For one, I think there will be substantial physical differences between most boxers; for example, I believe Marciano was only about 185 lbs and yet fought as a heavyweight.  Compare that to any modern-day heavyweight, not to mention the stars of that division in relatively recent times.

I also believe you will find that boxing skill has improved - both offensively and defensively - in the boxers of more recent times; look at older film and you are likely to see a good deal of slow, prodding movement, wide punches, many haymakers, and maybe as a consequence, an apparent lack of defensive skill that you see nowadays.  

I see it somewhat like comparing pro football players from the 20s to those of today.  Line up pro-bowl players from today against their equivalents from the 20s, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to bet on the 20s team to win any out of a series of games.  Today's athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, more trained, better trained, etc., and the sports are big-business now compared to then.

Answer 2

Older fighters are mentally tougher, they fought because they love the game, not because of money alone. Today fighters are bigger physically and they have more equipment to train with than old timers but they do not face the same type of competition. For example, a fight between Rocky Marciano vs Lennox Lewis, Lennox will have a puncher chance and Rocky will have to survive the first 3 rounds but if he survive he will win the fight because of heart. It is soo difficult to explain but those oldtimers are tough, we as a new generation are soft. When my grandfather was still alive back in the 70's, I used to go out in the field to work with him and until this day I still couldn't understand how a 5'5" 145lbs person (my grandfather) can always outwork a 6'2" 210lbs in shape (me) any day of the week. He was just tough...hope this help.

Answer 3

I agree with you, I greatly admire Marciano because he did not dodge anyone he fought everyone that challeneged him and still managed to remain undefeated,dempsey's contribution to modern boxing cannot be denied he redefined the term "big draw" and was a pioneer in hand comibination and lower stances.....but that's were I stop. I have never understood how someone could believe that Dempsey could KO Lennox Lewis or Marciano defeating Larry Holmes, modern boxers after all learned from dempsey and marciano and evolved from there to improve their skills thus it is obvious that in a match up Lewis and Holmes would be the likely victors it is common logic,that does not in any way mean that depsey and marciano weren't good, it just means that their time has passed and with each generation boxing styles and traning improved. People need to realize this fact and make the distinction between historical contributions that they made and their actual strenght in the ring.

Answer 4

I would say they are better simply because they have more and tougher competition.

Answer 5

I understand where you're coming from, but I look at it like this- the guys from the past had over 200 or sometimes 300 fights and sometimes fought within weeks of their last fight.  They had tremendous experience and they constantly fought the best of their era without hestitation.  Look at Sugar Ray Robinson- he beat so many of the top fighters of his era and never hesitated to sign the contract- he fought Jake Lamotta 6 times.  The newer guys would not be active enough to keep up with him- yes, rest does a fighter good, but not when you're only fighting once or twice a year.  And most of the big fights today take about a whole year to get made, whereas back in the day, the top dogs beat the h**l out of each other, and they didn't demand no crazy amount of money to do it either.

Also, just look at the way that some of the older guys fought and you'll see what I'm talking about.  I'll give you an example: Sugar Ray Robinson compared to Floyd Mayweather, Jr.  Defensively, they are about the same because Robinson and Floyd both use the shoulder roll, but Robinson made it become more popular and he is probably the first modern-day practitioner of it.  Offensively, Robinson was a windmill who threw combinations non-stop, even to the point where he knocked someone out going backwards.  Floyd on the other hand tries to pick his shots and cruise his way to a win, unless he gets a fighter hurt.  He is a great, accurate puncher, but I really don't think that his defense would have held up to Robinson's offense.  I'm not saying that all of the old fighters would have beaten the newer ones, but I think that they are called all-time greats for a reason and most of the newer fighters wouldn't be able to deal with them.  With the heavyweights, its a bit different because of the size, but I still think that someone like Wladimir Klitschko who only throws 10 right hands in an entire fight would get his chin cracked by someone as powerful as Dempsey, Marciano, or Johnson.  Remember that I am only speculating because there is no way that anything could be proven, but based on what I've seen, I would favor the older fighters in MOST hypothetical matchups.