Why do people judge the old time fighters so harshly?

Nope, modern fighters are afraid to get hit and generally cautious and resort to long range pawing, and passive counter punching.

If that is what you call "modern skill" then boxing is regressing.

The more skilled fighters of the past sussed that sort of style years ago with feinting, creating openings with false punches, and took advantage of debilitating body shots that pay off in later rounds.

 

I don't like how some here use Holmes as an example of modern evolution of "the jab". His jab was indeed one of the better examples in Boxing, but Sonny Liston had a very dangerious one and more importantly it was where he aimed that jab (the centre of the forehead to diminish his opponents balance so they cant throw punches properly), and so did Dempsey back in the early 1920's which can score knock downs. It was the technique which took advantage of gravity and body mechanics.

Modern evolution my ass.

 

I think you would be hard pressed to find boxing guys that believe skill had increased. John David Jackson and many many others lament the lack of good teachers and the vast amount of knowledge that has been lost. Not only with Futch and Arcel, but with the passing of guys like Johnny Flores and who knows how many other guys that spent 50 plus years teaching guys to fight.

 

You're equating Dempsey's jab with those of Liston and Holmes or have I misread you?

Liston's jab was better than any that existed in the first half of the century. The biggest evolution comes after Ali though, when heavyweights began firing multiple effective jabs on the move, while keeping balance so that they could fire off other types of punches if they perceived an opening. This technique was used to great effect by many otherwise limited fighters and was superior to the jabs of the boxing superheroes of yesteryear.

 

BTW, do you agree that the use of the jab evolved under guys like Corbett and Peter Jackson? If so, why is it so hard to understand and see how much it evolved since them?

 

Sure, some boxing guys love to complain about the skills that have been lost. It's amazing and a shame that all of the men who've worked with guys like Futch and Arcel and the hundreds and hundreds of fighters who trained under them apparently weren't able to retain any of their knowledge or improve upon any of their techniques...

 

Early boxers were the kings of standing around doing nothing.

 

By all accounts McVea was doing damage with his jab, in both of their first two fights.

The objection to the verdicts seems to stem from the idea that he was using a safety first style, and not trying to knock Langford out.

Presumably that was what they meant by “inflicting damage”.

I get the idea that you would have been on fairly safe ground scoring these fights for McVea today, but not under the conventions of the period.

 

Ruiz was grappler. That's a different skill than doing nothing. Briggs shows the old timer skill of nothingness in abundance after a few rounds.

 

I don’t think that Ruiz would have done well back in the day.

He would have been accused of trying to avoid the fight, both for his use of the jab, and his excessive clinching.

There would have been a strong presumption in favour of his opponents, when the scores got added up.

 

Yes it is sad. I will guarantee you that you will not find one knowledgeable boxing guy, one who makes a living in boxing, that will class Roach as an equal to Futch. Not a one, not even Freddie himself. If you were aware of what you are seeing when you watch fights...
When you lose guys like Freddie Brown, Gil Clancy...there are so many. Patsy DiFloria, and many others you have never heard of. If you went to gyms, if you spent time in them and KNEW what you are seeing...you would see how far the sport has fallen. IF you had any background to base it off of, IF you had seen guys that knew boxing and how to teach it.

 

Get one thing through your re****ed head duck egg. YOU were the one who got banned for mentioning a 4 year old child engaging in s&£ual contact with an adult, you lying scum.

I was banned for wishing cancer on you, sooner rather than later I believe were my words. Not the same thing at all. It doesn't bother me how many times you lie about it duck egg, you are the sick pervert who mentioned a child and an adult in that context.

Now that is sorted out, I want you to go back to your girlie rant about slaves being whipped by their owners duck egg, because it seems to irk you duck egg, which is why you mentioned it.

Lets be sensible about these things duck egg. What is the point in owning a slave if you can't treat it exactly as you see fit. Rather defeats the object if you can't, doesn't it?

Surely even your little mind can work that out. Were you trying to equate slavery with racism duck egg?

Were the ancient Egyptians racist then duck egg, or did they not really care what colour creed or race the people they enslaved were? How about the Romans when they were building their empire duck egg Were they racist, or again did they simply not give a toss from where the slaves originated?

How about the stronger African tribes who captured and enslaved the weaker African tribes, then sold them on for profit duck egg? Were they racist?

So do tell why do you get your little panties twisted when crying like a little girl about Murican slave owners abusing their Murican slaves?

It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that the majority of those owners were white, and the majority of slaves were black could it duck egg?

Only that would be inconsistent to say the least, and possibly racist at worst, on your part wouldn't it duck egg?

:hammertime

 

So the debate has now moved on from " old timers having less skill " to judges and referees in days gone by not giving the same amount of credit for the use of the jab as modern day judges do.


Hmmmm, sounds about right for ESB.

 

Yes, because the alleged scoring rules of yesteryear were offered as an explanation (excuse) for the poorly-developed jabbing skills exhibited by older fighters. I don't buy it at all but it's clearly relevant to the discussion.