How were old timers so good? - Page 2

RockyJim · 10-07-2012, 09:01 PM

Desire...

hernanday · 10-07-2012, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brownies

There are many good boxers in the lower weight division. Guys like Moreno, Donaire, Rigondeaux, Nishioka, Mares, Gamboa (if he's still alive).

True, I thought of Donaire and gamboa but couldn't remember his division

So why are big guys so unskilled compared to their smaller counterparts?

TIGEREDGE · 10-07-2012, 11:57 PM

there was more people doing boxing years ago thus rising the standard

burt bienstock · 10-08-2012, 12:42 AM

Why were "the oltimers" better ? Simple...When you have 10 times the amount of fighters than today, fighting so damn more often, under the guise of full time professional trainers, it stands to reason that by sheer experience learning your craft
that the fighters of the past HAD to be better...Of course there are a few fighters today that would be competitive with the fighters of the 1940s, but only a rare few...
If experience doesn't count, why is there 4 years to complete college rather than one year ? I'm for example, on the internet about 2 years, and I type SO much better than when I first hit the keys...Experience... When the boxers of the 1940s fought 15 or so fights a year, against all styles, fighting the fighters the PUBLIC demanded ,you get
tougher and more well rounded fighters. Common sense I think...

hernanday · 10-08-2012, 01:03 AM

True burt but there were no amateurs either so you started out pro.

Theron · 10-08-2012, 02:56 AM

Back then fighters would fight, they would go to the death to get a victory, i always think of Joe Frazier in the Thrilla in Manilla wanting to rather die than let Ali beat him, fighters back then had to fight for what they got, if you look at the way they grew up you can usually see why they fought as hard as they did.

Senya13 · 10-08-2012, 02:59 AM

Been repeated many times. The idea that old-timers were more skillful and better in general than contemporary boxers is a psychological fallacy. Read the experts' or trainers' opinions about contemporary fighters from 30 years ago, 50 years, 100 years ago, they all claim that the past boxers/trainers were better, and many old-school skills have been lost, modern boxers are crude and tough, lacking skills, and champions and top contenders are not fighting meaningful fights very often and are all about money, picking weak opponents, etc etc. Bullshit, plain and simple. Experience is important, but not as much as many like to believe. If the fighter is average, he'll stay average even if he has 500 bouts, he'll still lose to a youngster with better physical attributes and only 10 fights.

Flea Man · 10-08-2012, 03:22 AM

Clearly boxing has deteoriated technically. Lesser talent pool spread over more weights. Risk makes the fighter 'great' so the more recent operator will not garner the achievements to put him on the level of a great chanpion from era's gone by.This is not psychological.

I'm not actually sure anyone in the last 15 years has a better resume than Gil Turner.

TheSouthpaw · 10-08-2012, 03:34 AM

Because unlike the fighters of today, These fights were fighting for there lives, they're training regimens were far beyond anything these fighters do in training camp and that probably goes for the fighter for the past 50 years ( bad Training ), These guys chopped wood for eight and then would go run 20 miles or more, spend about 4 hours on the bags, and then go run another 20 miles. EVERDAY!..It was just a different breed of man and fighter than we have today tough times makes tough fighters especially when your fighting to literally put food on the table, that make you one tough Son of a Bitch .

TheSouthpaw · 10-08-2012, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hernanday

True burt but there were no amateurs either so you started out pro.

Dude this dude is Senile youll have to excuse him..Im pretty sure he doesnt even know where he is

TheSouthpaw · 10-08-2012, 03:42 AM

[quote=hernanday;13944111]Modern boxing only started in the late 1800s, in England like 1880/90s under the current rules. How were old time trainers so good when the average person never even travelled more than 15 miles from their home? Yet today people can travel anywhere easily get boxing information, watch tapes in slow motion of greats, and we have a dearth of good fighters.

Boxing is one of the strangest sports in this manner in that when we speak of many of the greatest in the sport we speak of guys from almost over 100 years ago, tunney, johnson, corbet, joe gans,dempsey and so on. One would imagine with all our technology, video footage, devices to measure power of a punching technique, someone would have put it all together and have made a stable of near invincible boxers. But instead what you find is almost a gradually decline of the skill set of boxers since the 70s. I heard some old timers blame it on amateur boxing because they say it makes boxers focus on the wrong thing from early on. What I find even more strange is guys who should be good because their dads were great boxer's aren't ie joe frazier son should have tore up the 80s.[/quote

Great thread my man!

TheSouthpaw · 10-08-2012, 03:43 AM

[quote=burt bienstock;13945890]Why were "the oltimers" better ? Simple...When you have 10 times the amount of fighters than today, fighting so damn more often, under the guise of full time professional trainers, it stands to reason that by sheer experience learning your craft
that the fighters of the past HAD to be better...Of course there are a few fighters today that would be competitive with the fighters of the 1940s, but only a rare few...
If experience doesn't count, why is there 4 years to complete college rather than one year ? I'm for example, on the internet about 2 years, and I type SO much better than when I first hit the keys...Experience... When the boxers of the 1940s fought 15 or so fights a year, against all styles, fighting the fighters the PUBLIC demanded ,you get
tougher and more well rounded fighters. Common sense I think...[/quote

SENILE!!!

Flea Man · 10-08-2012, 03:54 AM

I think 24 hour weigh in's actually encourage fighters to try and shed more weight. Spending less time on honing their skills.

Senya13 · 10-08-2012, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Clearly boxing has deteoriated technically. Lesser talent pool spread over more weights. Risk makes the fighter 'great' so the more recent operator will not garner the achievements to put him on the level of a great chanpion from era's gone by.This is not psychological.

There's no "clearly", it's only an opinion that is not based on anything factual. If you decide to look for it, you'll find plenty of excellent technicians nowadays. Or, if you go from the opposite end, you can find plenty of technical mistakes about any supposed ATG technician. No matter how great Eddie Futch or Ray Arcel were, if they had an average boxer, they wouldn't be able to make a first-rater out of him. No matter how great they were, you'd find their fighters making mistake after mistake.

louis3749 · 10-08-2012, 04:12 AM

Biggest reasons: Greater mental toughness, dedication, fought more often(experience), and a better skill set(more body punching, and feinting), particularly in defense(open glove blocking, parrying and slipping, and shifting/only necessary footwork.)

10-07-2012, 09:01 PM	#16
RockyJim Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,268 vCash: 1000	Re: How were old timers so good? Desire...
Top

10-07-2012, 11:57 PM	#18
TIGEREDGE Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,315 vCash: 1000	Re: How were old timers so good? there was more people doing boxing years ago thus rising the standard
Top

10-08-2012, 12:42 AM	#19
burt bienstock Champion East Side Guru Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 7,121 vCash: 500	Re: How were old timers so good? Why were "the oltimers" better ? Simple...When you have 10 times the amount of fighters than today, fighting so damn more often, under the guise of full time professional trainers, it stands to reason that by sheer experience learning your craft that the fighters of the past HAD to be better...Of course there are a few fighters today that would be competitive with the fighters of the 1940s, but only a rare few... If experience doesn't count, why is there 4 years to complete college rather than one year ? I'm for example, on the internet about 2 years, and I type SO much better than when I first hit the keys...Experience... When the boxers of the 1940s fought 15 or so fights a year, against all styles, fighting the fighters the PUBLIC demanded ,you get tougher and more well rounded fighters. Common sense I think...
Top

10-08-2012, 01:03 AM	#20
hernanday Gatekeeper ESB Full Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 312 vCash: 500	Re: How were old timers so good? True burt but there were no amateurs either so you started out pro.
Top

10-08-2012, 02:56 AM	#21
Theron Steele the Tacoma Assasin ESB Addict Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 3,449 vCash: 773	Re: How were old timers so good? Back then fighters would fight, they would go to the death to get a victory, i always think of Joe Frazier in the Thrilla in Manilla wanting to rather die than let Ali beat him, fighters back then had to fight for what they got, if you look at the way they grew up you can usually see why they fought as hard as they did.
Top

10-08-2012, 02:59 AM	#22
Senya13 Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Russia Posts: 3,300 vCash: 1210	Re: How were old timers so good? Been repeated many times. The idea that old-timers were more skillful and better in general than contemporary boxers is a psychological fallacy. Read the experts' or trainers' opinions about contemporary fighters from 30 years ago, 50 years, 100 years ago, they all claim that the past boxers/trainers were better, and many old-school skills have been lost, modern boxers are crude and tough, lacking skills, and champions and top contenders are not fighting meaningful fights very often and are all about money, picking weak opponents, etc etc. Bullshit, plain and simple. Experience is important, but not as much as many like to believe. If the fighter is average, he'll stay average even if he has 500 bouts, he'll still lose to a youngster with better physical attributes and only 10 fights.
Top

10-08-2012, 03:22 AM	#23
Flea Man มวยสากล East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: @ferociousflea Posts: 44,051 vCash: 75	Re: How were old timers so good? Clearly boxing has deteoriated technically. Lesser talent pool spread over more weights. Risk makes the fighter 'great' so the more recent operator will not garner the achievements to put him on the level of a great chanpion from era's gone by.This is not psychological. I'm not actually sure anyone in the last 15 years has a better resume than Gil Turner.
Top

10-08-2012, 03:34 AM	#24
TheSouthpaw Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,857 vCash: 500	Re: How were old timers so good? Because unlike the fighters of today, These fights were fighting for there lives, they're training regimens were far beyond anything these fighters do in training camp and that probably goes for the fighter for the past 50 years ( bad Training ), These guys chopped wood for eight and then would go run 20 miles or more, spend about 4 hours on the bags, and then go run another 20 miles. EVERDAY!..It was just a different breed of man and fighter than we have today tough times makes tough fighters especially when your fighting to literally put food on the table, that make you one tough Son of a Bitch .
Top

10-08-2012, 03:42 AM	#26
TheSouthpaw Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,857 vCash: 500	Re: How were old timers so good? [quote=hernanday;13944111]Modern boxing only started in the late 1800s, in England like 1880/90s under the current rules. How were old time trainers so good when the average person never even travelled more than 15 miles from their home? Yet today people can travel anywhere easily get boxing information, watch tapes in slow motion of greats, and we have a dearth of good fighters. Boxing is one of the strangest sports in this manner in that when we speak of many of the greatest in the sport we speak of guys from almost over 100 years ago, tunney, johnson, corbet, joe gans,dempsey and so on. One would imagine with all our technology, video footage, devices to measure power of a punching technique, someone would have put it all together and have made a stable of near invincible boxers. But instead what you find is almost a gradually decline of the skill set of boxers since the 70s. I heard some old timers blame it on amateur boxing because they say it makes boxers focus on the wrong thing from early on. What I find even more strange is guys who should be good because their dads were great boxer's aren't ie joe frazier son should have tore up the 80s.[/quote Great thread my man!
Top

10-08-2012, 03:43 AM	#27
TheSouthpaw Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,857 vCash: 500	Re: How were old timers so good? [quote=burt bienstock;13945890]Why were "the oltimers" better ? Simple...When you have 10 times the amount of fighters than today, fighting so damn more often, under the guise of full time professional trainers, it stands to reason that by sheer experience learning your craft that the fighters of the past HAD to be better...Of course there are a few fighters today that would be competitive with the fighters of the 1940s, but only a rare few... If experience doesn't count, why is there 4 years to complete college rather than one year ? I'm for example, on the internet about 2 years, and I type SO much better than when I first hit the keys...Experience... When the boxers of the 1940s fought 15 or so fights a year, against all styles, fighting the fighters the PUBLIC demanded ,you get tougher and more well rounded fighters. Common sense I think...[/quote SENILE!!!
Top

10-08-2012, 03:54 AM	#28
Flea Man มวยสากล East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: @ferociousflea Posts: 44,051 vCash: 75	Re: How were old timers so good? I think 24 hour weigh in's actually encourage fighters to try and shed more weight. Spending less time on honing their skills.
Top

10-08-2012, 04:12 AM	#30
louis3749 newbie Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 38 vCash: 500	Re: How were old timers so good? Biggest reasons: Greater mental toughness, dedication, fought more often(experience), and a better skill set(more body punching, and feinting), particularly in defense(open glove blocking, parrying and slipping, and shifting/only necessary footwork.)
Top