How were old timers so good?

[TheSouthpaw]

[quote=louis3749;13946538]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.)[/quote

Damn right!

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

The trainers were lifers; Guys who fought themselves, who learned from the best, and then dedicated themselves to doing it for others.

The list of guys like this is growing shorter then anybody is comfortable admitting.

Also, experience. Boxing IS experience. There is only so much to learn, actually: How to punch, how to move, how to block and parry, and when to punch. The rest of it is comfort, awareness, presence, conditioning, and all that lovely stuff that 99% of men can only get through rounds. Sparring serves this purpose some, but ultimately, to get a true comfort level and a solid identity as a prizefighter, you need to prizefighter.

Archie Moore, as an overall athlete, doesn't look all that impressive on film. But he is a perfect technician; He dictates fights in every sense. That is experience, grit, and a steely mind that people still talk about. I've heard old timers say that when you sat ringside at a Moore fight, you watched his eyes, his feet, and his waist, and you saw artistry.

This is, in fact, what boxing is actually about, and this mindset is dying out.

/close thread.

But nevertheless there are great fighters out there who match the fighters of the past. Mayweather, Pac ... perhaps Wlad, Ward and Marquez.

[young griffo]

[quote=TheSouthpaw;13946546]

Originally Posted by louis3749

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.)[/quote

Damn right!

Essentially what Burt was saying fuckwit.

[louis3749]

[quote=young griffo;13946607]

Originally Posted by TheSouthpaw

Essentially what Burt was saying fuckwit.

Ok, don't know if this is targeted at me, but that's just my two cents, explained in a more generalized way, with a couple of specifics. Jeez.

[thistle1]

don't worry there can be some insensitive ignorant people on these boards, but most are just fine.

choose the higher ground and don't meet ignorance with ignorance. you'll also find that the magority of the ignorant ones are english, pay no heed to that either, it's just the beautiful british way.

[hernanday]

So lots of people are saying old timers grew up tougher, fair enough, liston, ali, tyson whatever most these guys come from tough backgrounds. Perhaps that explains why many of the best boxers are now coming out of the soviet bloc and latina america, because there are lots of poverty in places like kazakstan and ukraine and cuba, and maybe that is why we don't see German boxers anymore. But then how do we explain the the UK is still churning out top boxers like calzagie, lewis, did you see the olympics? Uk men not too bad.

[tezel8764]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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.

Location: Russia

Nuff' said.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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.

I do look for it. I watch as much boxing from nowadays as I do from any era. Your point about average fighters is not the one I'm making. I'm not saying old time trainers could make the average man 'great'.

It is a less competitive era nowadays and 'achievement' is easier to come by. Is Ricky Burns' 'two weight championship' as impressive as Harry Jeffra's? Is Nonito Donaire's weight jumping as impressive as Harada's? Is Floyd Mayweather a technical wizard fighting lots of distinctly untechnical guys?

Would Jim Jeffries beat the best cruiserweights today? No, probably not. I agree it's not black and White (no pun intended) and no era is infallible. But boxing is pretty weak right now from a fans point of view.

And I don't agree with Carlos Ortiz there was a massive drop off in ability between him and Duran either. Yes, I'm aware everyone has said there's been a lowering in standards from era to era and it's nothing new. But I do think it's a fair appraisal nowadays.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by tezel8764

Location: Russia

Nuff' said.

Not nuff said. Senya is an old school historian.

[tezel8764]

ok

[hernanday]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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.

In some cases this is true, but when I watch joe louis and then I watch pretty much any challenger in the heavyweight division, it is almost laughabley bad, how terrible these guys are. all tomatoes, beer bellies, no discipline. Can't blame the Klitschkos the division is weak, but the best up and comer right now is seth mitchell who is a joke compared to up and comers of the ol times.

The only active boxer I think will even be though of as great 10 years from now is Pacquiao and possibly gamboa depending on how he does going forward, and Pac is just tough as hell, had he been in an era of great trainers, he could be much better.

Even SRL points out how his fight against duran was what made him great, it made him a better boxer. Who is the great technician of today, a FM, a guy who buys out his competitors? Mayweather senior doesn't even count from the 80s, like father like son, if mayweather jr was there in the 80's he'd never make money because he'd just get ignored and if he fought anyone of talent he'd just get butt hole torn up. Does he think Duran or hearns is going to clinch him like mosely after they stun him, no they are going.

You understand that canelo and mayweather would never be considered great in a strong era because they'd dodge all the top fighters. Charles Burley fought buys who weighed 70 pounds more than him and I am suppose to believe mayweather who won't even fight a guy who weighs 7 pounds more than him is the greatest technical boxer because he crushes tomatoes.

[young griffo]

[quote=louis3749;13946645]

Originally Posted by young griffo

Ok, don't know if this is targeted at me, but that's just my two cents, explained in a more generalized way, with a couple of specifics. Jeez.

Sorry Louis3749 wasn't aimed at you at all mate. The quotations are all messed up for some reason.

The other guy was calling Burt Bienstock senile and then giving you props for saying what amounted to the same thing, so I was having a go at him for being a prick to an older gent like Burt even though in essence he agreed with him the same as he did with you.

For what it's worth I agree 100% with your post too

[hernanday]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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.

True but Joe Frazier pretty much beats any heavyweight post 1970 save for Lewis, possibly Tyson, (foreman is a carryover). Yet his son who presumably had all his knowledge couldn't cut it. He had roughly the same genes so there is no reason why he be any worst or better in terms of athelticism. So clearly it is something more than its just conspiacy, when a guy's son of a top boxer is not very good. If anything Marvis should be an amazing boxer because all he had to do was beat one of the 500 guys who held titles during the 80s.

Seriously though if frazier can beat Ali, then he should have been able to prep his son to beat an inferior mover likeHolmes, it shouldn't have been round 1 ko.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by hernanday

True but Joe Frazier pretty much beats any heavyweight post 1970 save for Lewis, possibly Tyson, (foreman is a carryover). Yet his son who presumably had all his knowledge couldn't cut it. He had roughly the same genes so there is no reason why he be any worst or better in terms of athelticism. So clearly it is something more than its just conspiacy, when a guy's son of a top boxer is not very good. If anything Marvis should be an amazing boxer because all he had to do was beat one of the 500 guys who held titles during the 80s.

Seriously though if frazier can beat Ali, then he should have been able to prep his son to beat an inferior mover likeHolmes, it shouldn't have been round 1 ko.

This is a terrible post. Marvis beat Bonecrusher who was a later titlist. It was Joe's fault Marvis failed ecause he tried to make him fight like he did.

There's no logic here. This is a pathetic speculative punt.

[wrimc]

It really is simple the diversification of weight categories combined with a much smaller talent pool allows for the good boxers to avoid each other much more easily. As a general rule they do not fight as high a quality of fighter as often.

As has been mentioned boxing as we know it has been around since late 1800's and most agree that from a technical standpoint 1890's-1910 has very few "top" fighters they are great in achievement Fitzsimmons middle-heavy etc but probably short on HTH ability.

The transition period from 1910-1920 as boxing became more popular and legalised a better class of fighter emerges. From 1920-1950 when boxing was most popular and fighters fought at the top level much more frequently than today we get the majority of our greats Its no coincidence they were fighting more often against a better class of opponent with more refined styles than earlier counterparts.

It then reached a plateu with from 50-late 70's with the status quo producing good fighters and fights though fighters fought less. then from the late 70's onwards with the proliferation in belts and weight classes as well as a more cautious money driven approach of protection and with the advent of PPV there has been a gradual decline to modern day.

Now we have good athletes who fight less often in more weights against a lower class of opponent......no brainer they are going to be worse.