Have boxing skills progressed, or have they regressed?

How many times can you be wrong.

Thats exactly how Schmeling beat Louis in their first fight,by watching film.

 

Where there is big money youre going to get every type of person.

When big money started coming into boxing,as Dempsey correctly points out,every man and their dog started training boxers and the cycle started from there.

 

Tyson's best work was on the inside. His best shots are right hook to body, left uppercut combination. With his short reach he had to get inside to work. You cant throw body shots and uppercuts at long range. Its a myth Tyson wasn't good on the inside.

 

Everything I said is true or fact.

It's obvious that his prime started then which is the only obvious reason why he lost so bad in the rematch.

Louis prime started when he beat Schmeling in the rematch. So yes Rusak comments are off and they are totally off when it comes to Dempsey.

 

I don't know of any fighters that watch film with their trainers? I would assume that trainers watch the film which is more traditional today. Kingpin Johnson admitted he doesn't watch film,his trainer does...but you're say otherwise? wanna give some source

 

List 3 active trainers that are better than Goldman, Fuch and Dundee?

 

wtf...

 

I mean professionals

 

Of course there is. Look at their records and the gameplan their fighters implemented in the ring.
Haye fought a woeful gameplan against Wlad and thats on Booth his trainer. They should of known Wlad has poor stamina and is weak to the body, yet Haye didn't throw a single body shot.

Fuch knew how to beat Ali and trained Frazier exactly how to do it.

 

Most old trainers studied fighters known or not,they learned everything they could. Ray Arcel was the best at it, he couldn't identify any style a current fighter and say hes fight like so and so and remembers how that style of fighter came unstuck.

Also what dino said.

 

Whether the fighter watches the film with the trainer is surely irrelevent. The point is that the film is watched, and the relevent knowledge assessed and passed on to the fighter.

Boxing ain't called the sweet science for nothing, there are skills that can be learned and passed on, ergo there is a progression.

The list on the number of registered fights through the years near the start of the thread is interesting, but look at the big peaks:- late 20s early 30s - why? Cos' there were millions of guys out of work and literally fighting for their dinners. Does this imply quality.
Peaks again in '46 why? Millions of demobbed guys who ain't afraid of a bit of a brawl. Quality? What do you think.

Of course there were greats from every era who would have been great in any era, but these are exception rather than the rule. The existence of such guys says nothing either way for the sport as a whole.

Boxing is far more international now, making the talent pool far larger than ever before, so it is hard to argue that it has somehow regressed. One could argue that US boxing has suffered in the past coupla decades as the amateur program has been gradually culled, but this says nothing for the international sport, which is stronger than ever.

Yeah, things always seem sweetest when we're young, and the past always better than the present, but objectively it's hard to argue that boxing skills haven't continually developed and evolved since it's inception.

 

Hmm..

It's better to show the fighter the mistake rather then pointing it out. Lewis vs Tua. How many opponents knew of Tua left hook and were still caught by it? Lewis watched him and so did Steward and that weapon of his, the leaping left hook, never came into play.

In the 10 and 20s is when middle class had money. The boom of boxing was then born and that's when any person of the street started training boxers and the regression started from there. If you look at most great trainers they were either very articulate,smart or they were taught by great trainers themselves.

Best example is a man who believes in the old school way of thinking the late Emanuel Steward and what did done to Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko, it's pretty easy to argue it has regressed.

Vitali Klitschko is no 30year Klitschko,hes dreadful yet still on top?

Hopkins gets by using his Ring IQ nothing more and still is on top. The age for a champion is getting older and older,shouldn't it like most sports be getting younger

 

You can't teach a boy to ring IQ. He must learn it for himself or it's natural. No skill have not progressed so much its quite the opposite. Vitali Klitschko style he never got hit,he was smart from the get go. Today only thing he has on his younger opponents is he's learned to master distance,sure he still hits good,in shape but compared to a 30yo Vitali hes shot to ****.

 

Personally I think the sport has both regressed and progressed due to changes in the sport of boxing. Just like with tennis when introduction of slower balls and slower surfaces killed off the serve volley game so have the changes in boxing changed the skills required to succeed in modern boxing.

Changes like the weight in time and the switch from 15 to 12 rounds changed the sport forever. Also the changes in the amateur game to the computer scoring system changed how amateurs fought and were trained which of course changed the fighters coming into the pro game. I even think the introduction of head gear altered the sport.

If the conditions of the sport change then of course the fighters and the skills required to succeed will change. Some skills get neglected as being less effective while others are focused upon more as they are seen as more beneficial.