Has there been an improvement in strength and conditioning since the 70's

sxt

I am not talking about fighters with 30 ilb advantage like the Klitschkos etc . I am talking pound for pound. Has there been an improvement or did it peak in the 70's ?

Maravilla33

Its a hard thing to measure really. I would say if you wish to increase your strength and fitness then today it is easier than it would have been in the 70s. Advanced training methods and nutritional information means anyone who really wants to and is dedicated can achieve these results easier than someone back in the 70s.

So in theory yes but in practice the results aren't too obvious. In the 70s boxers had to prepare for 15 rounds so they had too be well conditioned. George Foreman is stronger imo than any heavy today. Frazier and Ali as fit as anyone. Guys like Ken Norton and Ron Lyle were in much better shape than the likes of Arreola, Peter, Fury, Chisora etc. Then you have men like Carlos Monzon that smoked 100 a day yet could go 15 hard rounds. That makes no sense. PBF today is probably as fit and well conditioned as any boxer ever so it works both ways.

In general with regards to the overall population, obesity was never this big a problem in the 70s. So I think the knowledge, methods and information available are far greater today with regards conditioning etc, so that all athletes have an advantage today over there counterparts from the 70s. At the end of the day though alot of it comes down to hard work and whether they choose to use these advantages to their fullest.

I'm thinking of starting a new poll actually. "Are all people born in the 90s younger than those born in the 70s?"

cowzerp

O'k with my Personal Trainers hat on here and Boxing coaches 1 too-I know i look silly with 2 hats on but anyway!

The scientific knowledge of training and conditioning has come on so much since the 70's-even as simple as just training with a heart rate monitor and knowing if you need to push more or not, when i was Competitively boxing I got my 1st heart rate monitor and would be pounding the treadmill and running faster than most in the gym could even if they tried-the monitor showed me my heart rate was not going over 150 even at that, to get fit for fighting you would want to have it 165+ so i had to add speed and hills onto my run's

This made my running much more productive and as I had been running what I thought was hard already I never would have known to push it more, that is 1 example of an improvement in conditioning.

Now as far as weights go the knowledge now is very good as far as sports specific fitness, not just bodybuilding, 1 problem here though-Most Boxing coaches have no clue about this as they are old school and in most cases Boxers who utilize this do it off their own backs, The old school approach to training works and most will always be used, but in the future many of the fighters now will use the modern knowledge on their students when they become coaches so we will see a greater improvement in 10-20 years than now.

Evander Holyfield for Example hired Fred Hatfield a legendary Power Lifter and phd in sports science to improve his strenght in a sports specific manner and the results where clear to see-strong, toned, highly conditioned and it did not slow him down and that is key to sport specific training.

With all that said the Nutrition knowledge and rest recovery an all certainly makes for healthier athletes and ones that can perform for longer and more years too.

The Boxers who use modern and old school techniques would be better conditioned, i would suggest that this is only the elite few who get that effort put into them.

walshb

There have been major improvements in many areas since the 70s. Sport now is a massive technology. Again, boxing is so not like other sports. Foreman and Ali and many others and what they did in their training etc is as effective as the men an their methods today.

I mean, nobody is going to say that F1 cars in the 70s are better than today, or even that some are better. They are flat out NOT better, and this is down to technology and improvements. More difficult to apply this to humans.

Also, swimming and running are provaable. In other words, the training and technoloy advancements PROVE that athletes today are running faster, jumping higher and longer and throwing farther.

As for strength. Well, like I said, very subjective and at times difficult to measure and compare. How doe we do it?

Factor in illegal drugs too and it's very complex the whole question of boxing and strength improvement.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

With all that said the Nutrition knowledge and rest recovery an all certainly makes for healthier athletes and ones that can perform for longer and more years too.
.

Yes, but also, top fighters today are fighting a lot less than top fighters from the past. So, that has to be considered as regards their longevity. Put them in an era where they have 8-9-10-12 bouts a year against good opposition and I think that has to have an impact.

Take Griffith in 1960-1961 who had sixteen fights, and some where 15 rd bouts. Most were ten rd bouts, but still, that is a hell of a lot more than the equivalent men today. Plus, he had great longevity even with a far busier schedule.

BTW, I am aware this was the 60s, and not the 70s.

walshb

Related to speed moreso. Interesting statistic.

The horse racing industry is all about technology and advancement. The horses are like well oiled machines. We too are animals, subject to technology and advancement

Top ten Kentucky Derby times. Several old timers making the list. This is a flat out race, and nothing to do with fences or weights or carnage. Flat out speed race.

http://horseracing.about.com/od/kentuckyderby/tp/aa10fastderby.htm.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Take Griffith in 1960-1961 who had sixteen fights, and some where 15 rd bouts.

thats 1960-1962 or 1960 and 1961
2 years averaging 8 fights a year, i would go as far to say this was great training and harder than any workouts you can do but then you have to factor in that he was probably not getting any actual training camps in does not make for a peak athlete and was probably just training year round-this is not smart and , so in that respect Emile at that time was probably super fit, in saying that he may have been overtrained/burned out but nobody would have known back then so it's a lot more complicated than that.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but also, top fighters today are fighting a lot less than top fighters from the past. So, that has to be considered as regards their longevity. Put them in an era where they have 8-9-10-12 bouts a year against good opposition and I think that has to have an impact.

Take Griffith in 1960-1961 who had sixteen fights, and some where 15 rd bouts. Most were ten rd bouts, but still, that is a hell of a lot more than the equivalent men today. Plus, he had great longevity even with a far busier schedule.

BTW, I am aware this was the 60s, and not the 70s.

True true. Look at Archie Moore. Over 200 fights and still fought till he was nearly 50.

Sometimes you just cant measure these things..

Fall_Guy

walshb wrote: »

Related to speed moreso. Interesting statistic.

The horse racing industry is all about technology and advancement. The horses are like well oiled machines. We too are animals, subject to technology and advancement

Top ten Kentucky Derby times. Several old timers making the list. This is a flat out race, and nothing to do with fences or weights or carnage. Flat out speed race.

http://horseracing.about.com/od/kentuckyderby/tp/aa10fastderby.htm.

while we too are animals, we are more closely related to other humans than we are to horses! and as you've already said, the numbers show the huge progression in times for 100m in recent years.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Related to speed moreso. Interesting statistic.

The horse racing industry is all about technology and advancement. The horses are like well oiled machines. We too are animals, subject to technology and advancement

Top ten Kentucky Derby times. Several old timers making the list. This is a flat out race, and nothing to do with fences or weights or carnage. Flat out speed race.

http://horseracing.about.com/od/kentuckyderby/tp/aa10fastderby.htm.

O'k just to be pedantic here-What was best for horses has been known for years-the diet is the same, i'd also say drugs would have been uncatchable back then compared to now-the weather on the day, how the course ran etc all plays parts.

Horses from 200 years ago would be similar to horses from today-training horses is not all that complex either and has barely changed, but again the diet and possible drugs is the key-horses diets will always be the same.

walshb

The horse thing was just to show that sometimes it's not clear cut in some disciplines. Horses today benefit from human technology and advancements in diet and knowledge etc. They benefit thru the generations. We as sports athletes do as well.

Interesting topic.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

thats 1960-1962 or 1960 and 1961.

1960-1961. Two years. Not 1962 at all.

Anyway, that is just one example. I think we can all agree that years ago the men were fighting a deal more, and many still had long careers too. So, what does this tell us?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

1960-1961. Two years. Not 1962 at all.

no that would mean 1960 to 61 not 1960 and 1961

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

O'k just to be pedantic here-What was best for horses has been known for years-the diet is the same, i'd also say drugs would have been uncatchable back then compared to now-the weather on the day, how the course ran etc all plays parts.
.

Drugs in humans too were more difficult to detect years ago too. That is known. Technology has made advancements in detection and also in better drugs to avoid detection.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

no that would mean 1960 to 61 not 1960 and 1961

1960-1961 inclusive. I should have added inclusive. Hence, all of 1960 and all of 1961. 2 whole years.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Drugs in humans too were more difficult to detect years ago That is known. Technology has made advancements in detection and also in better drugs to avoid detection.

Maybe that's how they fought so much :rolleyes:

It amazes me how often some people fought back then compared to now. Henry Armstrong fought and won 27 times in 1937 winning 26 by KO. Thats half a career in today's terms. Now before someone says they were all bums the sheer numbers are still impressive. I wont pretend I know too much about most of his opposition but only 3 had losing records and there were some good and experienced fighters thrown in. Impressive stuff.

walshb

As for the conditioning. This one is even more debateable. I mean, what have we to go on? There are so so many examples of men back years ago who could box and bang for 12 and 15 rds all night. Many examples today as well.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Drugs in humans too were more difficult to detect years ago too. That is known. Technology has made advancements in detection and also in better drugs to avoid detection.

Totally agree

Boxing overall would be 1 of the least drug cheat sports in my opinion in saying that.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Maybe that's how they fought so much :rolleyes:
.

Not sure what you mean by this with the added face?

Do you, like me, believe that it's quite probable that the men years ago were drug taking, just like they may drug take in any era.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Totally agree

Boxing overall would be 1 of the least drug cheat sports in my opinion in saying that.

Sort of agree with this too, but sometimes when I look back the old fights and see what they are doing, I am a bit suspicious. Evn Ali and Frazier in Manilla? Past their best days as well. Really, was that all down to natural training and diet? They were fighting in intense heat non stop for 14 rds and landing non stop on each other too. It seemed beyond human capability.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this with the added face?

Do you, like me, believe that it's quite probable that the men years ago were drug taking, juts like they drug take in any era.

Apologies was being sarcastic. I don't think they were to be honest. I think a lot of them fought so often purely out of necessity and to put food on the table. When they needed money they fought. I don't know a huge amount about PEDs but I don't believe they would have been a big thing in the 50s and before. I'd say recreational drugs were a problem though.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Apologies was being sarcastic. I don't think they were to be honest. I think a lot of them fought so often purely out of necessity and to put food on the table. When they needed money they fought. I don't know a huge amount about PEDs but I don't believe they would have been a big thing in the 50s and before. I'd say recreational drugs were a problem though.

Okey doke. See my post above. I am sorta with you and cowzerp as regards boxing not being as much around drugs as other sports. But, again, what some of them men were doing back then looks almost not possible without some help?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

As for the conditioning. This one is even more debateable. I mean, what have we to go on? There are so so many examples of men back years ago who could box and bang for 12 and 15 rds all night. Many examples today as well.

ok another spanner in the works-2 average fit men could go 15 rounds with each other, put 1 average fit man with a super fit man and he won't, the pace and sustainable power will catch up on him and he will tire out.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

ok another spanner in the works-2 average fit men could go 15 rounds with each other, put 1 average fit man with a super fit man and he won't, the pace and sustainable power will catch up on him and he will tire out.

Yes, but watch many fights with many BOTH great men going 15 rds. That dispells this. Not sure what spanner is there

Champions in the eras gone by were not average men. They were champions.

SRR vs. Jake. They went hell for leather non stop in the Valentine massacre.

Ali-Frazier.

Who is average fit and who is super fit. How can you tell this form an era?

There are fit and average fit and super fit men from all eras. Look at Haye and Andy Lee. Both top fighters today, and both with stamina issues.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but watch many fights with many BOTH great men going 15 rds. That dispells this.

SRR vs. Jake. They went hell for leather non stop in the Valentine massacre.

Ali-Frazier.

Who is average fit and who is super fit. How can you tell this form an era?

There are fit and average fit and super fit men from all eras. Look at Haye and Andy Lee. Both top fighters today, and both with stamina issues.

Your missing my point and i was not saying this was any sort of proof.

SRR V JLM where both elite fit at the time, now assuming today's fit fighters where fitter, they would not last the same 15 rounds they could do with each other and its not always down to the actual work load but the power within that work load, true fitness is when you can keep going at close to 100% not both still going but at 50-60% which is still tough.

walshb

Must compare like with like. Super fit champ today against the best men from the 70s?

Ok, anyone wanna show me how conditioning today favours the man today?

I'll take Frazier and Ali as being every bit as conditioned as the Klits.

I'll take Monzon as being every bit as conditioned as Sturm and Martinez.

Also, put Ali-Frazier and Monzon against these men today and I believe stamina is not an issue for Ali-Frazier-Monzon.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Must compare like with like. Super fit champ today against the best men from the 70s?

Ok, anyone wanna show me how conditioning today favours the man today?

I'll take Frazier and Ali as being every bit as conditioned as the Klits.

I'll take Monzon as being every bit as conditioned as Sturm and Martinez.

Also, put Ali-Frazier and Monzon against these men today and I believe stamina is not an issue for Ali-Frazier-Monzon.

I think that's what you've been saying all along. Put the elite fighters from the 70s against the elite from today and I don't think either have an advantage in conditioning or technique etc. That is despite there clearly being advances in technology today. I agree with this.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I think that's what you've been saying all along. Put the elite fighters from the 70s against the elite from today and I don't think either have an advantage in conditioning or technique etc. That is despite there clearly being advances in technology today. I agree with this.

That is it. No needs for us to confuse it. Compare like with like, and to me, I see no obvious stamina/conditioning improvement. And, NOTHING to do with the level of the fighter or his opposition. Sturm is a top man today, and no, I don't think he would A: beat Monzon, and B: Is fitter than Monzon.

Not saying Monzon is fitter, just that it cannot at all be said that Sturm is.

Advancements in diet and knowledge etc can help, but in some sports it's just not obvious or clear.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I think that's what you've been saying all along. Put the elite fighters from the 70s against the elite from today and I don't think either have an advantage in conditioning or technique etc. That is despite there clearly being advances in technology today. I agree with this.

To get a more clear view compare the contenders to today's, technically etc, and the journeymen-at the end of the day that's what the elites fought mainly and if they fought easier contenders and journeymen then you have to allow for that.

I have no doubt that todays average fighters are far more technical than yesteryears, the further you go back the further the difference.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

To get a more clear view compare the contenders to today's, technically etc, and the journeymen-at the end of the day that's what the elites fought mainly and if they fought easier contenders and journeymen then you have to allow for that.

I have no doubt that todays average fighters are far more technical than yesteryears, the further you go back the further the difference.

Ok, but are they fitter in the pure cardiovascular sense? It's too difficult to debate if we are going to add in things like you are adding in, "men years ago weren't as technical etc." Or, "men years ago were fighting lesser opposition," or words to those effect.

Can you maybe give an example of a fighter today vs. his rough equivalnet from the 70s and make a claim as to who was fitter?

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

To get a more clear view compare the contenders to today's, technically etc, and the journeymen-at the end of the day that's what the elites fought mainly and if they fought easier contenders and journeymen then you have to allow for that.

I have no doubt that todays average fighters are far more technical than yesteryears, the further you go back the further the difference.

Would agree with that believe it or not... Still some exceptions.

They fought so much more back then that of course they'd fight a lot of journeymen. But pretty much all of the big fights were made and the best fighters fought their peers more often than not. Pity the same cant be said today..