Are boxers getting faster?

Is it me or does it seems that there is more "fast" boxers than before?

 

No, cameras are getting better.

 

Yeah, i also thought this might be one of the reason

 

I think the athleticsm levels of boxers, and athletes in general, are going up. It's not even really up for debate, either. I'm not one of those who think modern fighters walk through past fighters (if anything I'm the other way around) but it's pretty undeniable that training and consequently improving your athleticism now, is a lot easier than it was 50 years ago. Which means yeah, I'd say the average boxer now is clearly quicker than the average boxer from 1971, or 1951. But then again, Sugar Ray and Muhammad Ali were as quick and athletic as anyone today. More so, actually.

 

Overall, all athletes have gotten faster, and we know a big reason for that...

I would note that in terms of handspeed, that the four fastest guys of all time imo (Jones, Leonard, Camacho, Taylor) were products of the 80s/90s.

I cant think of a true speed demon around right now.

 

Gary Russell Jr. definitely falls in that category for hand-speed.

 

I believe boxers in general have become faster, since all other athletes have as well.

It is too simplistic to blame it all on doping too: sport science develops, as does all science, and we learn more and more about producing explosive power. That said, juicing has been regular at least since the 80s, when records of many events were shattered and fighter turned more muscular as well.

It may be true that a welterweight of 2020s isn't faster than a welterweight of 1970s. It should be remembered however that the welterweight of 20s is also generally the bigger, more muscular guy andfor that reason lacks on speed department.

I do believe fighters also hit harder than ever, since it happens in all other sports too. Eye doesn't tell that, and in boxing it is also hard to measure

 

I also think that power as somewhat improved, and i think it's one of the reason for the degradation of skills

 

They were OUTLIERS, Particularly for THEIR Day...Still Among THE Fastest Hands EVER As REED Types, But Obviously AHEAD of Their Time...

Aside from Roy and Byrd, What "Heavyweight" Had BETTER Handspeed than Pre-Exile Ali???...More than 60 Years LATER, Ali's Still an OUTLIER...



REED

 

It could argued that Mike had better handspeed than Ali, and thats not an exaggeration.

Mike's handspeed was arguably more impressive than Ali's, when you consider he was putting full force and leverage behind every punch.

 

Tyson MIGHT Have Been Able to Deliver Inside Hooks/Uppercuts a HAIR Quicker, But There IS NO Argument in Terms of OVERALL Combination Punching/Punching in Space, Which is Where the Vast Majority of Shots are LAUNCHED From...

REED Loooooooooves Mike, But He Doesn't Have a "Cleveland Williams" Example to Match Ali's Combination Punching Handspeed, NOR Does He Have a "Liston II - Anchor Punch/Pull Counter" Example to Match's Ali's Single Shot Handspeed...

In REED's Opinion, of Course...




REED

 

I think ali foot movement and fluidity were a lot more impressive than is hand speed, which is a bit overrated imo

 

I'm with JOM.

Ali's handspeed at this point is overrated. His footspeed and reflexes were more impressive.

I can cite several Tyson examples that were faster than any Ali combos - I.E. the right uppercut, left to the temple combo that finished Berbick.

The combo that took out Marvis Frazier was also faster than any Ali combo I can recall.

As a kid, I was enamored by Ali and more impressed by his speed, but watching them both today, Mike's handspeed impresses me more, because each combo was thrown with full leverage, whereas in Ali's combos there were a few slapping left hooks mixed in with legit right hands.

 

Ali was overall a better athlete than Tyson, but Mike was more fast-twitchy.

 

There has been a big change in focus.
It used to be, all that mattered was boxing, and all your training was geared to that purpose. Nobody cared how athletic you were. Now, there are s&c guys involved in every corner and the fighter spends as much time with them, if not more, than he does with the guy teaching him how to fight. That makes sense because getting a guy in shape is easier than teaching him how to fight, and learning how to be more athletic is easier than learning how to fight.
So you see greater athleticism in a bunch of guys that don't know how to fight.
As to greater punching power....you have guys that are thoroughly "strength and conditioned" swinging at guys that really don't have a plan beyond a "high guard" and were never taught to keep their chin down (the premier trademark of a guy that was "trained" by a coach that is "great" on the mitts), you are going to see some guys get splattered.

 

Great post.

 

Again...

Tyson MIGHT Have Been Able to Deliver Inside Hooks/Uppercuts a HAIR Quicker, But There IS NO Argument in Terms of OVERALL Combination Punching/Punching in Space, Which is Where the Vast Majority of Shots are LAUNCHED From...

A Pull Counter is ALL About HANDSPEED...

How Many Did Mike Execute in His Career At All, Nevermind Against an All-Time, Top 10 Heavyweight PUNCHER Like Liston???...






REED

 

Mike wouldn't throw a pull counter, because it wasn't his style.

Could Ali explode with a lead hook as fast as Mike? Like the blindingly fast hook that iced Carl Williams for example.

Look at how fast he got off the right hand that dropped Holmes, in an another example.

 

Put it THIS Way...

Ali Could EXPLODE w/a Lead Hook OR Right Hand QUICKER than Mike Could Throw a Pull Counter OR 2-Fisted Flurry...TRUE Handspeed is about EVERY Punch in the Arsenal, Bruh...

Again, the VAST MAJORITY of Shots are Launched from DISTANCE...Joe Louis, Diego Corrales and Others Could Unleash Rapid Fire Punches IN CLOSE Also...Not Like Mike, Obviously, But They COULD...

Ali's Handspeed was IRREGARDLESS of Range and CLEARLY Superior to Mike's from Distance...Yes, Mike Tyson Threw SOME Punches Quicker Than Ali, but His OVERALL Handspeed Wasn't Superior...

That's All REED's Saying...





REED

 

Must side with x. Tyson was much faster than ali imo. Ali speed came a lot from him being such a great mover. He could unload without planting his feet, really sneaky. But his hand speed per se wasnt that incredible. Greatest hw mover by far, but i don't think he's the fastest handed hw

 

I actually think Mike could've incorporated a pull counter into his style, similar to Canelo or Duran. When he was leant heavily on the front-foot, he could use it then. Counter a right hand by pulling back and throwing an uppercut, or counter a left by coming over the top with a cross or overhand. I've no doubt he could've done it, and he could've worked off these punches in combination as well.

Obviously he didn't though, because pulling back would fuck with his side-to-side rhythm, which is too big a negative just to set up KOs he would've gotten anyway.

 

I've always wondered the samething. You can't argue with oldtimers about the good old days. You know the types that say they don't make them like they used to. Like Ali, Leonard, Hagler, Robinson, Duran etc... my argument is this.. if other sports evolve. Like the fastest man on earth (Usain Bolt), MMA fighters ect... why can't boxers get better over time with better training, drugs, supplements etc. To say they'll never be another Ali or Duran is idiotic. There's Just a sector of people that overly romanticize the good ol days.

 

There won't be another Duran or Ali. Some athletes are so special that they can't be duplicated, even as the decades pass.

There hasn't been another Wilt, Magic, or Kareem in the NBA, and likely never will be. They'll never be another Shaq either.

It's been over 40 years since Duran's prime, and over 50 since Ali's prime... you would think their replacements would be here by now...

The problem with guys like you and Ugo is that you two really don't have enough reference of all the past greats to automatically call the current crop better.

I would submit to you guys that extreme recency bias is every bit as dangerous as nostalgia bias.

Guys who think Sam Langford would whup Fury are annoying (and I call them out), but whats also annoying are guys who were calling Loma better than Duran and Whitaker with less than 15 fights, and a pretty underwhelming resume - just because he was new and shiny.

After Fimo beats his ass, those same people claiming Loma beats Whitaker and Duran had egg all over their faces.

Newer does NOT always equate to better.

 

I would add that these are the two most annoying schools in boxing - the extreme nostalgia bias crew, and the extreme recency bias group.

One group won't watch the current scene, because these new guys just don't box like Benny Leonard...

The other group doesn't watch any fighters or fights pre-80s because those guys were obviously caveman not well equipped to deal with these modern geniuses of fighting...

I find both extremes highly annoying. Do I tend to lean to more toward the past? Yeah, but I watch fights from pretty much every decade.

I'm not deluded enough by the past to think Benny Leonard could beat Floyd.

But I also aint deluded enough by recency to think Keith Thurman would beat Kid Gavilan.

 

I don't believe @Boxingfan25 meant that there would be an exact replica of a past fighter, obviously not. But there might be fighters better than them. Just like in basketball there have probably been centers better than Wilt, head to head. Now, the tactics of basketball have changed so much that you hardly can even compare modern centers to the past.

The point is, without a clock we would probably think there will never be another Carl Lewis (his records are long gone). Without a scale, we would think there is never going to be a new Vasily Aleksejev (the greatest weightlifter ever).

What I find irritating is that if a person has this so called "modern bias", they are immediately labeled as ignorant. I do believe two people can differ in opinion even if they both know their stuff.

Personally I used to pick Ali, Armstrong and Robinson over everybody. However the more I have learned about both boxing, science and sports, the more I have become to assume that is not the case. I believe sometimes you have to believe probabilities over your own eyes, but I do respect the take of those who don't.

And modern isn't always better and I don't think anyone has ever said so, that is a strawman argument. In track-and-field too, several results made in 1980s would still be awesome, heck some are still world records. But there is a limit. Results of 1930s are outdated, and I do believe so would be the boxers of 1930s. Many disagree, and that's fine

 

Track and field isn't the right sport to correlate with boxing. One (T&F) is all about speed and technique, whereas in boxing, skill and intangibles play a far bigger role.

And boxing skill has NOT appreciably evolved since say, the 50s and 60s.

As I ALWAYS point out, the best fighter of this generation (Floyd) used an OLD TIME style, with OLD SCHOOL skills and techniques.

 

And even if we were to accept it that the fighters of 2000s were inferior to their predecessors, it still is pretty fruitless to point it out if the discussion is about Spence vs Bud, for example.

 

Wait, what? I didn't say ANY of that. Who's building a strawman now?

Honestly, you're the one notorious for derailing threads with your recency agenda, not me with a nostalgic agenda.

I've never posted in a Spence v Bud thread saying something like: "I don't care who wins, because these guys aren't Robinson."

But YOU HAVE gone into threads, on Kid Gavilan for example, just to spout your agenda, and intentionally made a point to attempt and diminish Gavilan's skill.

Just as you attempted to build an argument for Inoue beating Wilfredo Gomez, and couldn't base the argument off of anything besides modern training.

 

I never said you do that. Chill out

 

Fair enough, but I did say that I find both groups annoying. And TRUST ME, I've called out the nostalgia nuts before- George has seen me do it on ESB.