How come boxing hasn't progressed naturally over time the way the 100m has??

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Shrewd Operator, Nov 21, 2012.


Page 4 of 8
  1. iceman71

    iceman71 WBC SILVER Champion Full Member

    51,687
    23
    Jul 28, 2008
    "but the movie said" :lol:

    agree 100%

    movies are based on a story or event and are normally played up or played down for more dramatic effect.
     
    iceman71, Nov 21, 2012
    iceman71, Nov 21, 2012
    #46
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,546
    47,087
    Mar 21, 2007
    There are a coule of things you don't address here. First of all, every single sport you've mentioned has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of equipment and conditions (check out the conditions of the tracks Owens and Bolt used for examples), and even so, you do see near static records such as the men's long jump.

    Contrarily, boxing equipment has remained basically the same (and even small changes see big changes in the sport), but there are changes that have affected it negatively and would affect any sport negatively. For example, modern fighters spar less. Much less. This is because it has been proven to be dangerous for the fighters. Modern fighters fight less, much less. For the same reason, mostly, plus enhanced earnings introduced a tax-trap.

    The two best ways to get better at something - practice or do it. Fighters do considerably less of both.

    They train for shorter fights. This closes any "stamina gap".

    As discussed, the talent pool for this sport is considerably smaller. There were fewer registered boxers in the world in 1995 than there were in Britain, alone in 1945.

    So if modern tennis players were playing about a tenth as much, practicing about half as much, but doing other exercises to attain an athletic peak and using the same equipment, and MANY fewer people were playing it, what I would expect to see is better all round athletes slipping technically and generally turning in a lower standard.

    That's what we have in boxing.

    Football is a good link, and a much better comparison than sprinting. Footballers are so defined by athleticism now that there are arguably areas where they too are technically slipping - it does interest me that two of the ten most gifted footballers in Britain are Scholes and Giggs. I think there's been a shift in the way players are "built" which will show a paradigm shift in the next few years. But that's besides the point really.
     
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    #47
  3. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    The sport itself has progressed, but there are so many fewer people competing now that the overall quality is probably lower than it used to be.
     
    Brickhaus, Nov 21, 2012
    Brickhaus, Nov 21, 2012
    #48
  4. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,253
    2,301
    Jan 4, 2005

    There are sports where the equipments remains the same yet we see improvement, such as strength training, weights is weights. The improvement is PED's...which might be the case in boxing too.

    Fighters may spar and fight less but that doesn't mean they're not as good. Fighters reach their peak and IMO sparring or fighting more past that isn't really gonna improve you. For example Floyd trains all year round, I dont think he's particularly improved skillwise from 5 years ago, 5 years of training basically to maintain that peak. The same with Roger Federer whom I think reached his peak many years ago, he trains every year with no improvement, just trying to maintain peak. Fighters reach their peak, the difference is the potential the body will allow. For example RJJ's potential was possibly the highest in history due to his athleticism, course he lacked in other departments..

    Also knowledge is passed down, not the opposite. We can learn from the past, not the future, it then goes without saying that our knowledge of boxing today is better than before? Of course you could also argue that the trainers of today isn't as good as yesterday, completely subjective. Roach learned from Futch, maybe Roach learned everything+more, or maybe he didnt even learn half of what was in Futch's brain.

    The biggest argument for boxing decline is talent pool. IMO the people of today are bigger, faster and with nutrition and knowledge of sports science have greater potential. However if you are drawing from a crowd of 100 that averages potential of 7/10 VS drawing from a crowd of 1000 that averages potential of 6/10, you may still get the better fighter from the latter, talent pool simply is bigger and will have more exceptions.

    Gerrard would disagree with your statement. Coming from a former Man U fan.
     
    dangerousity, Nov 21, 2012
    dangerousity, Nov 21, 2012
    #49
  5. Low blow

    Low blow Member Full Member

    377
    3
    Dec 13, 2008
    I think it has progressed. It is just hard to see, especially in the heavyweight division.

    In America especially, young people take up other sports (basketball, football) as their opportunity to get scholarships etc.
    Some of the lower boxing weight classes still attract some of the top athletes but many big men choose the other sports.
    So I think the heavyweight division may not have progressed as much as the other weight classes based on drawing from a smaller pool of talent than in past years when boxing was in its prime.
     
    Low blow, Nov 21, 2012
    Low blow, Nov 21, 2012
    #50
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,546
    47,087
    Mar 21, 2007
    Definitely the case that weightlifters have come on because of PED's. That's a given.

    I do disagree with you, and most fighters do too. Almost every fighter will say that they learn with each fight, that they continue to learn throughout their careers.

    Now this doesn't neccessarily make them flat out better but as we'll see there are circumstances...

    He's learned new things, and he'll tell you so. The way Mayweather fought De La Hoya was the only way he could have fought him at that time. He could fight him differently now, he could fight him much more in the pocket, neutralising the jab more affectively.

    Floyd has slipped now.

    So what you have to imagine, is Floyd aged 24 with as many fights as he has now taking on a three month training camp to fight in a world title. That's a fighter who is nearly as brilliant fighting more statically as he is on the move

    He's a fine example actually of a fighter who's boxing IQ rocketed as he got too old to take full advantage. Ray Robinson fighting in this era would never hit the peak he reached in his own time. His smarts, his brilliance, his strategical excellence and eye for tactics (those hurtful body punches round the corner on LaMotta in VI, neutrilising his strength advantage?), that all had to be learned. And he learned fight on fight.
     
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    #51
  7. RSBonos

    RSBonos Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,436
    141
    Feb 27, 2008
    The boxrec data suggests there are more fights today then in the 60/70/80's. Less then in the golden age but not by far, the only decade which really stood out was the 1920's.

    These threads ultimately end up in a circle jerk for the old timers. Nothing measures up to those Titans and lets not forget that bashing modern fighters makes you 10x the hardcore fan.
     
    RSBonos, Nov 21, 2012
    RSBonos, Nov 21, 2012
    #52
  8. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,253
    2,301
    Jan 4, 2005
    Top tennis players train year round with no improvement, to maintain that peak. Snooker players. Even sprinters train year round to not even break their previous record. Footballers despite training year round may even decline year after year despite physically still being there, of course a lot has to do with injury ie Michael Owen.

    Athletes reach peaks. Yes they may learn more as they practice for a specific fight, but they will also forget(or not be as good) some things that they don't practice as much.

    Pacquiao has improved a lot but that was due to his change in trainer to Roach, after being with Roach for a while, IMO the last few years 5 training camps later, he hasnt really improved. He's reached his peak. JMM's skills are as sharp as ever but I dont think he's "improved" skillwise, he learned what he was taught, and he trained to maintain that proficiency.

    I guess we're gonna see things differently here.
     
    dangerousity, Nov 21, 2012
    dangerousity, Nov 21, 2012
    #53
  9. BadDog

    BadDog Active Member Full Member

    1,345
    3
    Oct 12, 2012
    Please give me an example of MODERN boxer (last 10 years) who works as a laborer and fights at top 10 level. Why use Hagler as an example? he is not a modern boxer.
     
    BadDog, Nov 21, 2012
    BadDog, Nov 21, 2012
    #54
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,546
    47,087
    Mar 21, 2007
    Tennis isn't boxing, is the main thing to say about this. It shows different results as fighters learn. They talk about it. Openly. The best filmed perfromance i've ever seen is Robinson in Lamotta VI. He was 120 fights into his career and would not have been able to put that performance on after 40 fights.

    Conn versus Louis. He did some astonishing things in that fight. He spoke openly about what he learned v Zivic, Lesnevich. A 70 fight peak.

    Hopkins. He learned to neutrliase opponents in-ring and by the time he met Pavlik - his own shout for his career best performance, years past his prime - he was ready to refute his type without learning him.

    It's pretty much inarguable that boxing improves boxers, whatever happens in tennis. You can see it on your tv screen and you can hear it in their words.

    Pacquiao and Marquez are example of fighters who have physically declined. These declines are caused by age. But both also continue to learn. The point i am trying to make is, you can be Bernard Hopkisn and have all that learning behind you aged 45, or Ray Robinson, and have all that learning behind you aged 25. That is, you can have that knoweldge in your absolute physical peak or when you are past it.

    It makes a collosal difference.
     
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    #55
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,546
    47,087
    Mar 21, 2007
    Why?? You are the one that seems to think that whether or not they are doing physical labour is somehow relative to class. I couldn't give a ****.

    I mentioned Hagler because your bizarre story about a Holywood movie being real jogged my memory, to answer your question.
     
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    #56
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,546
    47,087
    Mar 21, 2007
    Boxrec is less complete the further back you go. So in Jack Johnson's era, even world champions have many missing fights, wheras nowadays, even Charlie Zelenoff gets a Boxrec entry.
     
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    McGrain, Nov 21, 2012
    #57
  13. shaunster101

    shaunster101 Yido Full Member

    24,013
    16
    Nov 29, 2007
    Enjoying McGrain's posts here.
     
    shaunster101, Nov 21, 2012
    shaunster101, Nov 21, 2012
    #58
  14. fists of fury

    fists of fury Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,297
    7,042
    Oct 25, 2006
    There is no linear progression in the sport of boxing. Show me the heavyweight who punched like Louis. Show me the fighter that could evade punches like a Pep or a Whitaker. (Arguably, you have Maywearher who ironically is more old school than anything.)
    If there was linear progression in the sport, we would not only have seen their match, but their superiors.

    That's not to say there are not standout fighters today, but if there was a lineal progression, we would have seen another (but improved) Duran, another Hearns, Benitez, another Ali...hell, another Roy Jones.

    Where are they?
     
    fists of fury, Nov 21, 2012
    fists of fury, Nov 21, 2012
    #59
  15. RSBonos

    RSBonos Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,436
    141
    Feb 27, 2008
    Right, but I refuse to believe that boxrec is missing fights from the ATGs who fought post 1950's.

    Here is the data again (2009 was incomplete, this was posted by a mod on boxrec back then):

    > "2752";"1900"
    > "1443";"1901"
    > "2492";"1902"
    > "2498";"1903"
    > "2457";"1904"
    > "2097";"1905"
    > "2482";"1906"
    > "2568";"1907"
    > "3057";"1908"
    > "3445";"1909"
    > "4685";"1910"
    > "6104";"1911"
    > "6053";"1912"
    > "6019";"1913"
    > "6075";"1914"
    > "6298";"1915"
    > "6786";"1916"
    > "6117";"1917"
    > "4377";"1918"
    > "9169";"1919"
    > "12913";"1920"
    > "15197";"1921"
    > "16037";"1922"
    > "18022";"1923"
    > "18356";"1924"
    > "17838";"1925"
    > "18933";"1926"
    > "20639";"1927"
    > "21558";"1928"
    > "23139";"1929"
    > "25748";"1930"
    > "27271";"1931"
    > "22929";"1932"
    > "20395";"1933"
    > "17214";"1934"
    > "15169";"1935"
    > "13531";"1936"
    > "14640";"1937"
    > "14665";"1938"
    > "13476";"1939"
    > "13327";"1940"
    > "10418";"1941"
    > "9755";"1942"
    > "10818";"1943"
    > "14242";"1944"
    > "15243";"1945"
    > "28029";"1946"
    > "26003";"1947"
    > "23362";"1948"
    > "20796";"1949"
    > "16908";"1950"
    > "15929";"1951"
    > "15079";"1952"
    > "14620";"1953"
    > "14257";"1954"
    > "13186";"1955"
    > "12349";"1956"
    > "12153";"1957"
    > "12063";"1958"
    > "11419";"1959"
    > "10556";"1960"
    > "10306";"1961"
    > "9610";"1962"
    > "8947";"1963"
    > "8652";"1964"
    > "8290";"1965"
    > "8568";"1966"
    > "8799";"1967"
    > "9014";"1968"
    > "8889";"1969"
    > "10391";"1970"
    > "9880";"1971"
    > "9178";"1972"
    > "9602";"1973"
    > "8726";"1974"
    > "8825";"1975"
    > "8314";"1976"
    > "10368";"1977"
    > "9896";"1978"
    > "11543";"1979"
    > "12104";"1980"
    > "13536";"1981"
    > "14851";"1982"
    > "14217";"1983"
    > "12304";"1984"
    > "12531";"1985"
    > "11000";"1986"
    > "11272";"1987"
    > "11979";"1988"
    > "12867";"1989"
    > "13197";"1990"
    > "12283";"1991"
    > "12942";"1992"
    > "14069";"1993"
    > "13536";"1994"
    > "14113";"1995"
    > "14126";"1996"
    > "14642";"1997"
    > "14022";"1998"
    > "14782";"1999"
    > "14568";"2000"
    > "15526";"2001"
    > "16641";"2002"
    > "16771";"2003"
    > "17973";"2004"
    > "19089";"2005"
    > "19477";"2006"
    > "20226";"2007"
    > "19529";"2008"
    > "13743";"2009"
     
    RSBonos, Nov 21, 2012
    RSBonos, Nov 21, 2012
    #60
Page 4 of 8