How were old timers so good?

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Brownies

I hope he got banned out of this place for this Burt. I'm personally really glad to have you on this website, able to provide us with some hindsights on how it was back then.

Thank you B...

[wrimc]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Who are these "most" and how much research have they done studying that era?

You are right I have made an assumption that many people agree with my particular opinion but I am of that impression. Dont get me wrong I think there are some fantastic boxers from that era.

The problem is their achievements often have to be put in perspective. I dont claim to be the best most versed in that particular era of boxing though it is certainly one that interests me greatly.

The style and rules of boxing were completely different are you telling me the upright range based stance many adopted in that era was the most effective? i am of the opinion that as with any sport boxing as a style from a technical standpoint began to reach its golden era in the 20's.

[Senya13]

They used different stances and styles back then, just as boxers do now. It is true that there was some specifics, though, gloves, bout duration, slippery ring floor and shoes, etc. I don't think the best technicians from the 20s were better than Gans, Driscoll, McFarland, etc. Who were the best technicians of the 20s who didn't start in the 10s?

[Flea Man]

Nowadays guys just seem to use watered down 70s styles IMO. Bigger gloves mean more eye catching work and less punch placement for the better fight.

Lots of 'athletic' types coming up as prospects. The prospects for the next generation looks bleak IMO

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

TheSouthpaw is a troll Burt, and hated by everyone. You needn't worry.

F, much appreciated your post.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Nowadays guys just seem to use watered down 70s styles IMO. Bigger gloves mean more eye catching work and less punch placement for the better fight.

Lots of 'athletic' types coming up as prospects. The prospects for the next generation looks bleak IMO

it's an interesting take flea. better or worse, two of my favourites at the moment are andre ward and adrien broner. ward has proven himself at the top level, broner hasn't come close.

what are your thoughts on them? styles, skills, pure athletes?

[MagnaNasakki]

Experience and activity is EVERYTHING.

Inactivity is a cancer that kills careers.

A lot of people talk from their ass on these subjects. Take it from the guys here who actually know; Its incredibly, incredibly important.

[Flea Man]

Broner is one of many of the 'new breed' trying to copy Floyd's defensive style without having the natural reflexes or years to nurture it.

Offensively sloppy and only looks like a banger because he's faced overmatched guys that don't cut as much weight as he does.

Clearly lost to Quintero and Ponce IMO.

BUT moving up in weight might allow him to dedicate more training time to boxing and not sweating. DeMarco is the real test for him. At the moment, Berto-esque hypejob but let's see

You know of my admiration for Ward

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Experience and activity is EVERYTHING.

Inactivity is a cancer that kills careers.

A lot of people talk from their ass on these subjects. Take it from the guys here who actually know; Its incredibly, incredibly important.

I agree.

As for the last point, I hold your opinion very highly. Lesser talent poll, generally lower skill level (with a few exceptions); agree?

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Broner is one of many of the 'new breed' trying to copy Floyd's defensive style without having the natural reflexes or years to nurture it.

Offensively sloppy and only looks like a banger because he's faced overmatched guys that don't cut as much weight as he does.

Clearly lost to Quintero and Ponce IMO.

BUT moving up in weight might allow him to dedicate more training time to boxing and not sweating. DeMarco is the real test for him. At the moment, Berto-esque hypejob but let's see

You know of my admiration for Ward

yeah i needn't have asked about ward, really loving that guy now myself

as for broner, foolish i may be, i see a bit more in him than you. you're right: he's another floyd rip off i just HOPE he has the reflexes at the top level to do the job. his single bunch hand speed is impressive (even if he can't throw fucking combinations) and his movement has been ok for the level he's facing. i worry that because floyd hasn't "lost" (castillo 1 aside) people assume his style is flawless...even though others (including his father) got destroyed using it because they faced smart and equally talented fighters.

btw: i fucking love roy jones making a crack that broner's style was beatable and he knew how (one of the other hbo crew said he faced it in toney) but wouldn't say how. fuckers gotta do it themsevles

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

I agree.

As for the last point, I hold your opinion very highly. Lesser talent poll, generally lower skill level (with a few exceptions); agree?

Lesser trainers, lesser work ethic, erratic careers that have a stop-go quality. Because of these, I'd agree on the lower skill level. I'd also add a lack of loyalty; Its not easy to hop, skip, and jump about trainers so often as these guys do. Its a detriment, much of the time; The big shot trainers can only take on so many fighters at once. Leaving a dedicated guy who you were having some success with to get on the waiting list with a big shot isn't gonna end well. Chad Dawson comes to mind; Looked brilliant with the underrated and extremely competent Dan Birmingham. I'd argue he's regressed with every switch he's made since.

I disagree about talent. Athletes today are great, scary good in cases, just as good as they've ever been since I've been alive. We have more purely athletic fighters thriving without sophisticated skill than I can remember, either. But without combining those gifts with that know how, we have precious few greats. Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Marquez come to mind. Andre Ward and Sergio Martinez likely make their mark on history, as well. Beyond that, I can't think of any I consider physical specimens with a boxing mastery.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Lesser trainers, lesser work ethic, erratic careers that have a stop-go quality. Because of these, I'd agree on the lower skill level. I'd also add a lack of loyalty; Its not easy to hop, skip, and jump about trainers so often as these guys do. Its a detriment, much of the time; The big shot trainers can only take on so many fighters at once. Leaving a dedicated guy who you were having some success with to get on the waiting list with a big shot isn't gonna end well. Chad Dawson comes to mind; Looked brilliant with the underrated and extremely competent Dan Birmingham. I'd argue he's regressed with every switch he's made since.

I disagree about talent. Athletes today are great, scary good in cases, just as good as they've ever been since I've been alive. We have more purely athletic fighters thriving without sophisticated skill than I can remember, either. But without combining those gifts with that know how, we have precious few greats. Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Marquez come to mind. Andre Ward and Sergio Martinez likely make their mark on history, as well. Beyond that, I can't think of any I consider physical specimens with a boxing mastery.

I might make the argument that purely athletic talents get on better in an era without lots of technical types around. Any weight in that you think?

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

yeah i needn't have asked about ward, really loving that guy now myself

as for broner, foolish i may be, i see a bit more in him than you. you're right: he's another floyd rip off i just HOPE he has the reflexes at the top level to do the job. his single bunch hand speed is impressive (even if he can't throw fucking combinations) and his movement has been ok for the level he's facing. i worry that because floyd hasn't "lost" (castillo 1 aside) people assume his style is flawless...even though others (including his father) got destroyed using it because they faced smart and equally talented fighters.

btw: i fucking love roy jones making a crack that broner's style was beatable and he knew how (one of the other hbo crew said he faced it in toney) but wouldn't say how. fuckers gotta do it themsevles

Check out George Benton. He faced the best. Beat the best. Lost to the best. Lost to the not so great some nights. Very experienced, fighting from 49-70, seeing middleweight champs as varied as Ray Robinson, Paul Pender, Gene Fullmer and Dick Tiger without facing a single one of 'em.

Oh, and he went on to train Whitaker, Holyfield, Taylor with mixed success admittedly. But mainly success of the highest order. Make some massive mistakes, but that happens at that level.

So why are fighters built up to have the '0' nowadays?

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

I might make the argument that purely athletic talents get on better in an era without lots of technical types around. Any weight in that you think?

Biggest example of what I said is, to me, the seeming inability of the young guns to get past the surviving and active greats around them.

Bernard Hopkins is schooling folks and he's nearly 50.

Marquez is cleaning house, and he's old for his weight.

Pacquiao, regardless of the scorecards, just schooled the premier American light-welterweight.

Floyd Mayweather made Victor Ortiz look like a punk.

Sergio Martinez took the robust brute Chave Jr. and clowned him.

Absolutely, athletes survive and thrive in the absence of craft. The proof is present by the fact that those without craft are still falling to those with boxing mastery, even as they get comically old.

Seriously. Bernard Hopkins might not even be done winning against younger fighters. He's almost 50. In the time I grew up in, there would be no excuse for a fighter in his mid-twenties, with a good trainer, and a solid amateur background, to lose to a 50-year old guy. It's astonishing. BHop is just THAT much better.

[Flea Man]

Would you say there are always examples of that though? Archie Moore is the best example but there are others, still taking on young guns and managing to outwit them. I guess you could say the difference is levels wasn't always so pronounced as it is now.

One thing is for sure:Experience always matters and always has.

Anyway I'm stoned now. The above is a mess without direction and I'll be getting progressively worse as the night goes on so don't pay any more attention to me Sir

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

I might make the argument that purely athletic talents get on better in an era without lots of technical types around. Any weight in that you think?




Check out George Benton. He faced the best. Beat the best. Lost to the best. Lost to the not so great some nights. Very experienced, fighting from 49-70, seeing middleweight champs as varied as Ray Robinson, Paul Pender, Gene Fullmer and Dick Tiger without facing a single one of 'em.

Oh, and he went on to train Whitaker, Holyfield, Taylor with mixed success admittedly. But mainly success of the highest order. Make some massive mistakes, but that happens at that level.

So why are fighters built up to have the '0' nowadays?

because they don't fight frequently enough or against top competition enough to warrant it when you sooooo carefully pick your opposition and fight only once MAYBE twice a year, every lose is held under a microscope and used as evidence of their weaknesses and inferiority.

if you're fighting top ranked opposition 8 or 9 times a year, a loss is expected and a learning experience. if you fight one bum and one top 5 guy a year, a loss, fair or not, is extremely damaging to a champion