Do Modern Day Boxers Punch Harder Than The Old Timers?

Due to weigh ins being on a separate days to the fight and fighters generally bulking up a ridiculous amount inbetween that time (Ortiz weighs in against Floyd 147 then goes to 164 day of the fight) This would be the very logical reason as to why boxers back in the "olden days" seemed to have better chins? Also boxers back then they used to train more for stamina as they were going to go more rounds - whereas nowadays we now seem to have a thing for bulking up more and more emphasis being on size and strength...

Or am I way off?

Way off, and you'll no doubt have instigated another old vs new discussion. For which you should be publicly flogged.

Why reward him balti?

Ah, he's one of 'them', is he?

i feared i may be wrong... but i wouldnt mind an explanation why... as this makes logical sense to me.

and no... i arent a wum...

Technique. That's what you'll be told. Just cut your losses, man. Do you not see the slippery slope this is headed down?

But suppose an old and new WW have roughly the same level of ability, then the one who has an extra stone or so for the fight is going to hit harder (generically) right?

WUM or not, it seems logical.

well if people come and debate in the correct manner then it should be fine... i havent said thats what i believe but it makes sense to me unless someone can swipe it down with a clear case...

plus i find it a joke that i am even being labelled as a WUM... i have over 2000 posts on this site and if you scroll down and read my articles i always give genuine reason and never try and antagonise... its a bit of a joke that i create one mildly contentious arguement in which to me my reasoning makes sense but yet i am a WUM...

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you are a wum Alex. I think you are talking sense.

Who labelled you a WUM? All I'm saying is that you're going to be met with a deluge of posts telling you that it's not as simple as 'old vs new'.

Also, quantity of posts does not necessarily equate to quality of poster. Witness:

Exhibit A

joeyjojo618 wrote:But suppose an old and new WW have roughly the same level of ability, then the one who has an extra stone or so for the fight is going to hit harder (generically) right?

WUM or not, it seems logical.

Well your opponent would be the same size too. But yes, a modern WW will be a similar size to a 'old time' Middleweight.

The most important factor for me is your prospect vs total fights ratio.

why reward him?

ah hes one of them?

sounded as though i was being called a WUM...

I thought they were implying you would enjoy being flogged you chuffer.

trottb wrote:I thought they were implying you would enjoy being flogged you chuffer.

This. Boxers may come into the ring heavier than they used to be able to but you're going to hear two names mentioned: Dempsey and Marciano. Both had no upper weight limit to worry about and both are considered hefty punchers.

Will not focus on the extra weight but I don't think a modern guy who weights, for sake of argument 154 when entering the ring hits any harder than an old timer who weighs 154 entering the ring. The thing to remember is nobody really knows beyond any shadow of a doubt what causes pucnhing power and so if you don't know what causes it how could you possibly do anything to improve it to any discernable level.

Obviously like all skills with proper technique you can improve it but there are countless examples of guys with all the mystical benefits the modern era brings who are in outstanding shape, have speed and technique to burn yet can't hit worth a damn such as Paulie Malignaggi, on the flip side there are countless guys who are hardly ripped physically or models of technical perfection who if they catch you cleanly will put you to sleep such as Tony Galento or Samuel Peter.

BALTIMORA wrote:Way off, and you'll no doubt have instigated another old vs new discussion. For which you should be publicly flogged.

Should be banned in my opinion.

Alex, did you take my advice and get leathered because that's the only possible reason as to why i can think you've made this quite utterly laughable statement.

I know you're young, but go and watch SRR (That's Sugar Ray Robinson) deliver the best left hook i've ever seen on Fullmer (that's Gene Fullmer by the way) - then come back to me/us. You should perhaps go as far as thinking about editing your article, unless you like being derided?

coxy0001 wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Way off, and you'll no doubt have instigated another old vs new discussion. For which you should be publicly flogged.

Should be banned in my opinion.

Alex, did you take my advice and get leathered because that's the only possible reason as to why i can think you've made this quite utterly laughable statement.

I know you're young, but go and watch SRR (That's Sugar Ray Robinson) deliver the best left hook i've ever seen on Fullmer (that's Gene Fullmer by the way) - then come back to me/us. You should perhaps go as far as thinking about editing your article, unless you like being derided?

He’s asking a question, get a grip.

But yes, one boxer is great proof for your theory.

it was a question go beat tiger woods at golf again. if you read carefully it clearly isnt a statement.

Don't see what all the fuss is about, Alex is ok and has asked a question in a civil manner, warrants answering with similar levels of civility. Sometimes think there is only me and Truss with any class on here.

Sorry Alex - meant to imply you are a masochist. Punching power can be improved by muscle but not much - not to the extent you become a murderous puncher when you weren't before.

rowley wrote:Don't see what all the fuss is about, Alex is ok and has asked a question in a civil manner, warrants answering with similar levels of civility. Sometimes think there is only me and Truss with any class on here.

Since when did the pair of you start teaching laddie? My apologies - my gentle jest at Alex has ruined a creditable thread. There is considerable evidence that smaller fighters slapped around bigger fightrs with massive weight differences - I don't think power has much improved - its one of the main reasons why general evolution of boxing is based in technique and not much else.

AlexHuckerby wrote:youre being ridiculous you can contribute coxy but just insulting me is pointless.

go watch a margaret thatcher speech to calm yourself down.

Saying insulting me is pointless then you do the same to me?

Anyway, you could actually argue that pound for pound the old guys hit harder than todays fighters. Guys like Wilde (here we go again) would regularly give away serious amounts of weight and yet still stop the other guy.

But alas you couldn't argue that because there's a serious difference in the gloves. The big padded gloves 'spread' the blow around the contact area whereas with old school gloves there wasn't this 'spread' of force.

Fellas, I've removed a few comments before it turns nasty.

Would appreciate it if we could try to discuss the issue so that I can keep my nose out.

Thanks.

That's not really hitting harder though coxy, that is using different equipment to maximise the impact/effect of the punch.

coxy0001 wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:youre being ridiculous you can contribute coxy but just insulting me is pointless.

go watch a margaret thatcher speech to calm yourself down.

Saying insulting me is pointless then you do the same to me?

Anyway, you could actually argue that pound for pound the old guys hit harder than todays fighters. Guys like Wilde (here we go again) would regularly give away serious amounts of weight and yet still stop the other guy.

But alas you couldn't argue that because there's a serious difference in the gloves. The big padded gloves 'spread' the blow around the contact area whereas with old school gloves there wasn't this 'spread' of force.

wasnt meant to be insulting... but fair enough.

rowley wrote:That's not really hitting harder though coxy, that is using different equipment to maximise the impact/effect of the punch.

Last time i checked guys in 1930 didn't have machines testing impact

2 punches the same, 2 different gloves = possibility of 2 different outcomes. A 'cuffing' punch (which we do see nowadays) putting a guy down in todays age might not have had the same effect with the less padded/smaller gloves used in years gone by.

There's no way of definatively proving it though. But i still reckon if Marciano, Wilde and co hit you (well not us but pros) with their best shot you'd most certainly feel it

Sorry to be obtuse, but the answer to the question varies so much according to the fighter that it makes that question almost pointless. Ivan Calderon does not punch as hard as Jimmy Wilde or Terry McGovern, nor does Toshiaki Nishioka punch as hard as Wilfredo Gomez. On the other hand, Maxie Rosenbloom didn't punch as hard as Bob Foster, nor did Harry Greb hit with the chilling power of Julian Jackson. Sandy Saddler probably hit a little harder than Naseem Hamed, Bob Fitzsimmons and Stanley Ketchel certainly hit harder than Bernard Hopkins, but Joe Gans didn't hit as hard as Brandon Rios.

It just depends on the individual fighter, and it always has. A lot of experts believe that one-punch KO power is just a God-given thing. You can be taught to increase your punching power through better timing, use of the whole body behind the shot, different angles and so on, but only up to a point. Who knows how and why Wilde and Jackson, fighters separated by 80 years, could hit people from almost any angle and watch them fall over as if they'd been hit with a ring-post? I'm fairly sure that they didn't/don't know themselves.

captain carrantuohil wrote: Sandy Saddler probably hit a little harder than Naseem Hamed,

You're breaking my heart here Captain

"Possibly hit a little harder" any better, Jeff?

Will have to settle for that I guess, am still smarting from him missing out on our Hall of Fame, I knew I should have set up the aliases.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Due to weigh ins being on a separate days to the fight and fighters generally bulking up a ridiculous amount inbetween that time (Ortiz weighs in against Floyd 147 then goes to 164 day of the fight) This would be the very logical reason as to why boxers back in the "olden days" seemed to have better chins? Also boxers back then they used to train more for stamina as they were going to go more rounds - whereas nowadays we now seem to have a thing for bulking up more and more emphasis being on size and strength...

Or am I way off?

It's am interesting theory, but I don't think it holds water. Unfortunately, you've only looked at this from one side. Both fighters have opportunity to 'bulk up' from the weigh in to the fight. Therefore any power gained is offset by the fact that the other guy is now bigger and better able to take a punch. Equally, you'd think that draining yourself to make the weight would have a bigger impact on your chin than your power. Therefore, you'd expect the 'old-timers' to have worse chins, if anything.

There may be something to your theory that boxers train slightly differently nowadays, and that they place more emphasis on power rather than stamina. I'm not sure you'll find too much support for it on this forum, however.

If only someone could go back in time with one of those fair ground punch-machines that give a score out of 1000! Problem solved.

Have to agree with captain and coxy on this one. There are just far too many unknowns to give any sort of educated answer.

If I was pushed I would say no. Purely based on genetics and human evolution, I don't think we have changed that much over the past century to warrant fighters of today having (on average) more power that there old counterparts.

Of course some might say that the average height of a human has gone up which could help, but even then that could mean they are fighting at a higher weight class.

Pound for pound, no difference IMO.

If it was simply a question of weight and modern nutrition then any two current fighters weighing exactly the same would have exactly the same punching power. We know that not to be true.

On human evolution in general - there is a school of thought that our pre-historic ancestors ran faster than we do and that man is slower at this point in human evolution than at any time in our history. Not really relevant to this debate as you can't really measure human evolution through boxing (the time lines are too short) but a possible indicator that human evolution doesn't necessarily lead to faster, stronger, higher, further.