Comparing the Old with the New

By Adam Moody - 06/13/2014 - Comments

By Adam Moody: To begin with, I would like to put it on record that I do not intend to pick sides over which generations of boxing/boxers are better. Having only developed a true passion for the sport roughly 4 years ago, it would be foolish for me to claim Sugar Ray Robinson’s era for example, is greater than the Floyd Mayweather Jr era (sorry to any Manny Pacquiao fans). It would be foolish because I wasn’t alive during the 1940s when Sugar Ray Robinson won his first world title, so how could I possible offer a valid analysis on that generation’s boxing ability, especially when most of it wasn’t even recorded?

Instead, what I mean to go over is what do we compare when comparing generations of boxers against one another. Most fans including myself, agree that world titles mean very little in the modern boxing world. There are currently 85 world champions in boxing if we ONLY include the WBC, WBO, WBA, IBF and Ring titles. To put that into context, here in London, you could fill an entire double-decker bus with people who can say the are the best in their division. What’s more, is that there would still be a few people not able to get on the bus! It is because of this, that many fans now rightly disregard the significance of being able to call yourself world champion, when there is a bus load of people who can do the same. As such, when comparing champions, older boxing generations tend to be better off as they have less weight divisions, and much less belts, making it harder to become a champion, but more significant when they do.

Another comparison that is often made, is the amount of fights a fighter has now, compared to how many they used to have. For example going back to my Ray Robinson example, he fought 200 times professionally, on  some occasions he defended his world title as often as twice in the same week. This, compared to modern fighters who tend to average perhaps 40 fights per whole career, makes them seem less impressive. However, what many people don’t know, is that due to the increased safety regulations put in place, modern fighters are much more limited in how much they are ALLOWED to fight, and so this lack of activity is not always the fighter’s fault.

When trying to determine which fighter is better from two different generations, we are often tempted to ask ourselves; “who would have won if they fought?” Personally, I find this unfair for 2 main reasons. The first was mentioned in an interview I saw featuring Muhammad Ali, where he explained that styles makes fights. He claimed that the reason Foreman KO’d Frazier so easily in their first fight, was because Frazier’s come forward style suited Foreman’s heavy hitting one, and not because Foreman was in fact a better boxer than Frazier. While this point may be debated, it is certainly a factor influencing the result of a boxing match, yet it might not reflect who the better boxer is.

The second reason I believe it is unfair to ask “who would have won” between two boxer’s of two generations, is because if they didn’t fight, there was no winner anyway. When Eubank was asked who would win, Calzaghe or Collins, he replied “I know, but it would be wrong to say because it didn’t happen.” Therefore even if a win did determine who the better boxer was, as the fight didn’t happen, this is just a mute point.

Often I see writers far more knowledgeable then myself claim that current boxers couldn’t mix it with the former legends of the sport, yet I can’t help but disagree. Watching the small amount of footage there is available on the boxers of old, they simple don’t seem to demonstrate the pure skill in footwork or defensive finesse current  boxers do. Also, with an increased knowledge of biology, boxers are able to get more out of their workouts and diets than before, so they are performing at higher levels in terms of fat:muscle ratio, fitness, power, speed etc.

Now that we know what we are comparing, is it right to make these comparisons? Personally, I think the recent generation of boxers are widely unappreciated. While there are certain aspects of boxing we would would all like to see change, boxing over the past few years has still been excellent, and looks only to improve as time goes on.

Although this is of course only my opinion, and I am interested to know your views if you find the time to express them. Has boxing fallen from grace in a strictly skill based manner of speaking? How should we compare fighters between generations? Should we compare fighters from different generations at all? Let me know your thoughts and please let me know what you thought of this article. Thank you for reading.



Comments are closed.