# Was the average boxer from the era of ATGs far superior to modern boxers?



## Bullshidog (Feb 11, 2015)

We see it all the time about how boxing fans love to praise the ATGs such as Ali and Rocky Marciano as being far superior to modern boxers in every way except height, weight, and nutrition. In particular the training methods of the old champs are often boasted as being superior to what modern boxers face.

Now I seen some videos of old champs like Joe Louis and the stuff they do are definitely lovely grueling to the point that some of them aren't even necessarily boxing based but more like manual labor that could get you injured such as chopping wood and carrying very heavyloads of items. In addition old champs are praised so much because not only did their fights went much longer but also because they fought far more often within a time period. I read about a champ from the 20s boxing 3 times a month!

But all these praise that boxing fans give towards ATGs and their training methods ignore one thing: they are comparing modern boxers to the cream of the crop back then.

I mean for example if you hear people boast about how Joe Frazier had such tenacity that you don't find in boxers nowadays. But Joe Frazier was a LEGEND even in his own time and boxing historians state he had physical gifts and mental strength that is so great that he would be at least a competent pro in ANY period.

Even Rocky Marciano who most boxing fan considered only as lucky is calculated according to one computer generated program I seen as punching harder than even the ATGs of Ali and Louis's era.

So this brings up the question. How much tougher and more skilled was the run-of-the-mill boxer back int he time of the ATGs people love to praise? Was boxing so much competitive and harsher back than that modern champs like Mike Tyson and Floyd Mayweather would not have lasted against a mediocre or even the worst of the worst back in say Ali's day?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2015)

Goes against the concept of boxing a bit. Because better boxers are winning fights. So when did these not as good boxers manage to be successful.

The standard is more likely to improve not decline.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 12, 2015)

We have the same difficulty talking about baseball or anything else. Would Babe Ruth be as sucessful against modern pitching?


----------



## Buka (Feb 12, 2015)

I don't think anyone ever considered Marciano as "lucky". 
Joe Frazier wasn't considered a "legend" in his time, but his fights with Ali were considered legendary. In Joe's time the heavyweight division had more great fighters than at any other time in boxing history.

I understand your question about the all time greats and how they would do in different eras, I think they would do fine. Since there's no such thing as a time machine, they would be training, eating and fighting the same way the champs of today are.

I believe guys like Sugar Ray Robinson and Harry Greb, at their peaks, would eat most of today's champions alive. But that's just an opinion.


----------



## jezr74 (Feb 12, 2015)

They may be all time greats, but I've never personally heard them mentioned as any better than any great of the current times, only by fans.

Different times back then, and have to agree with Buka, they would train and fight as dictated by the period.


----------



## Bullshidog (Feb 13, 2015)

Dude everyone is *MISSING* the point of my question. I'm not asking if ATGs are tougher than modern boxers.

I'm asking if the *run of the mill boxer* was really that greater than the average modern boxer .People always point to the cream of the crop as Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson as proof that not only boxers were tougher back than but that champions today don't even have a 10th of the necessary talent and mental determination to make it even in amateur leagues in the past.

But the problem with such comparison and assumptions is that we are comparing *the cream of the crop of past decades *with every boxer today including mediocre ones. Hell just comparing the best of today with the best of the past already is a flawed comparison because you're only comparing a few elites.

Basically there is an assumption that your mediocre boxer from Marciano's day would easily KO modern legends like Wladimir Klitschko and event he worst of Ali's time would easily compete with Mike Tyson and at least finish the distance.


To the point people don't even consider other weight decisions that are more competitive than ever today as being able to match the weak divisions of the past. I already seen comments like Mayweather's defenses are sloppy compared to *worst of the worst* of his division from the 50s and Pacman is overrated because your *average nobody* from the featherweight and so on were much more tenacious than the competition Manny faces.

This assumption of everyone being in the same league as Ali extends to even divisions that until recently have been quite ignored from the mainstream press such as light hevyweight. The most ludricous comment I seen is Bernard Hopkins would have retired within 5 years of the start of his career if he fought back in the 70s because the era of Ali was the most competitive ever. I don't recall the light heavyweight being as strong as the heavyweight back in Frazier's day.

I definitely have no doubt Mike Tyson would have difficulty making it to the championships back in Ali's prime but at the very least I have no doubt Tyson would *slaughter*  the lesser known elites of Ali's time such as Ken Norton. Your average boxer who just got his licensed? Bye Bye in one round and look forward to getting your *** beaten so hard  you'd probably retire out of humiliation after the first round.

So you're saying Geno Buonvino would make it as champ today? Ignoring that he was at best above average and his only significant achievement in his resume is lasting 10 rounds against Marciano and standing out in a (rather weak) Italian division? Dude many moderns who get bashed today by worshipers of ATGs like Wlad Klitschko would utterly ko Buonvino to sleep before the fight ends. To the point that I'm confident even your mediocre slugger in the modern ring would be more than a match for Buonvino.

Specific point but I'm in serious skepticism that just because the elites can hold off and probably beat moderns that everyone back tan was as tough as Joe Frazier or as skilled as Joe Louis and modern boxers don't have the skills of your run of the mill boxers of yesteryear. Elites definitely I can see proof but a nobody like Gene Buonvino?

To the point people even ignore the basic boxing styleups triangle. Does anyone expect a prime Marcel Cerdan to beat a prime Bernard Hopkins? Hopkins is one of the few boxers who can adapt and he's much tougher and hits harder than most chamions Marcel Cerdan foguth. I imagine a fight like this being similar to fighting Jake LaMotta except Cerdan goes down even faster and with far less hits landed on Hopkins because of Hopkins MO of adapting.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 13, 2015)

Same reason that people were always Joan of Arc or William the Conqueror in former lives. No one ever says "In my former life, I was this dude named Dave. Professional dishwasher."


----------



## Buka (Feb 13, 2015)

Ah....the run of the mill boxer of yesteryear compared to the run of the mill boxer today?

If that's the question (if) I think it might depend on time frame. Back in the twenties and thirties, guys fought to feed themselves and their families, not to buy houses. I think their motivation was stronger than those that came later.

If it's not the question....please have patience and explain further.

As for Tyson, in his youth and prime, I think he would have excelled in any era. But once Cus D'Amato was out of the picture, and once Iron Mike had more money than God - just about anyone could beat him. And did.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 13, 2015)

Might I humbly suggest that this was the definitive debate on the subject?


----------

