Why do people judge the old time fighters so harshly?

The more I watch of the old timers the more I feel that it's not fair to judge them based on todays fighters. Rather I think boxers have to be judged against their peers of the day, in terms of legacy. Doesn't mean you can't speculate on H2h activity but the reality is most top notch fighters today would beat the fighters of yesteryear mainly based on superior technique. But that doesn't mean going to the other extreme and comparing them to amateurs. The other thing to consider is the evolution of the sport itself. If you're going 40+ rounds your unlikely to throw a whole lot of combinations and exert yourself the way you would over 12.

But I do think boxing goes threw ebbs and flows with respect to technique as you don't see many fighters of the JCC mold anymore and if boxing got progressively better one would expect to see a fighter like that today, or a fighter like Tyson. So you need a particularly gifted person who can reach the top echelon of the sport regardless of what time period you're talking about.

 

Yeah, Shane just couldn't shake the sh*t out of Jin these days. I would've conjured the ghost of Bobby Fitz in my occult class, just for Shane. He needed help. Just don't mistake kindness for weakness. We have eternity - to know, your, flesh.

 

What's funny is how the same chaps saying the boxers from the 20s are garbage are the ones saying the boxers now wouldn't stand a chance against their favorites from the popular 80s.

I guess boxing didn't so much evolve as it just peaked during their favorite era.

 

No-it's the boxing fans who haven't evolved.They wouldn't know Joe Louis from Jerry Lewis.

 

That depends. I prefer to rate the man, not judge him on a specific era of boxing. Most people really do not know a lot about fighters 100 years ago.

My belief is power, speed, stamina, durability and such translate well into any era.

Techniques evolved over the course of time. Most old timers were better at in-fighting, body shots, feints, and upper cuts because they had to be...the ref let them fight. Most old timers were also much worse at the jab, and combinations.

In many cases the film is not clear and shot at a distance, so skills can not be as easily appreciated.

Necessity is the mother hood of invention. Who is to say a boxer from 1900 could not learn modern technique if he was around today? If his balance and athleticism was good, it’s the odds are he could.

Conversely what if a boxer from 2000 started out in 1900. How would his technique be?

 

I'm pretty critical of the old-time heavyweights because many of the skills that have long since been recognized as core boxing abilities evolved significantly over the mid-to-late 20th century. The jab, purposeful combination punching, the use of stances and footwork that enabled boxers to keep their balance and maximize their chances of landing punches without being hit, etc. These developments are a really, really big deal such that I have a hard time imagining those who lacked these abilities competing.

That and I disagree with the way some folks in forums like this treat them like they were super-humans whose special greatness would enable them to defy the laws of nature and common sense such that size and modern skills don't matter. In no other athletic context would any serious person even contemplate making an argument ****ogous to picking Corbett over Tua(!!), or even Langford over Ruddock.

 

That's fair but it's also an entirely different question. If you took one of the physically gifted early greats and gave them years of modern skill training, you end up with an entirely different fighter than the one that actually existed.

 

The bias (generally) goes the other way around. (at least here which it has to be expected)
People who love the old timers try to justify everything regarding them, because they love the old timers. The definition of bias.

 

the technique the "old timers" used was based off of the same fundamentals we use today.

 

what the bloody hell are you talking about, lmao,,,,,

actually who cares, I like it, :good

make more posts like this :deal

 

I believe the "strategies" over time "evolved" so as over time "strategies" got BETTER. Or more "effective" against older strategies if you want to say it another way. I don't think this works in leaps and bounds, I think it is a gradual process whereby "overtime" the less effective strategies are "weeded-out" and more effective strategies are employed more and more. Thus I don't think the newer guys would blow away the older guys, I just think they would beat them more often then vice versa :bbb

 

The people, who are most critical of the old timers, are generally the people who know the least about them.

This is probably the salient point of the debate.

 

LOL the Courtney guy sucked fro this video