Has boxing evolved at all?

Has boxing evolved? If we're talking skill-wise, then from the dawn of gloved boxing until today, certainly. Over the past 60-70 years... not so much!

 

I couldn't agree more!

How many times haven't we heard about "the lost art of feinting"? I don't get, why people say that! It's pretty obvious that boxers feint all the time, even today. In many different ways, as each boxer develops his own style and movements. The Lee-Saunders fight last month was practically 12 rounds of non-stop feinting!

 

I've always thought boxing moves on every 30 or 40 years but the biggest leap came when Joe Louis came along.

 

No hwt has exhibited the boxing skill of Joe Louis since his prime which was 80 years ago.

 

I always go for modern is better because it makes more sense but not where Joe Louis is concerned.
I'd sooner watch Joe answer an interviewer with a one liner than watch the klits fight, at ringside

 

HELL NO ! The quality of top fighters have if anything "devolved" if I may use such a phrase from the 1940s and 1950s. How so ? I'll give you an example folks.
Compare the top 2 fighters in each weight class of the 1940s to today ;
Bantamweight - Manuel Ortiz
Featherweight- Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, Chalky Wright
Lightweights- Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Sammy Angott
Welterweights- Ray Robinson, Charley Burley, Kid Gavilan, Tommy Bell
Middleweights- Jake LaMotta, Tony Zale, Marcel Cerdan. Charley Burley
Light Heavyweights- Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Gus Lesnevich, Joey Maxim
Heavyweights- Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott
And under these guys there were many, many fighters who would be champions today without doubt. Why is this so ? Not because they were supermen those days, but because the tremendous amount of fight clubs operating before the advent of TV allowed fighters to fight every month or more , learning their trade
and in the hands of great full time trainers, these men became hardened skilled fighters who had to beat so many top boxers to reach the top of their weight class...So to answer the thread. NO todays fighters have certainly not "evolved"
above the fighters of the more deeper pool of yesteryear, for the most part..

 

THIS.

evolution is not the same thing as improvement.

plenty of sports have gone bkacwards over the years and centuries, many disappearing all together. its dumb to pretend that sports that have disappeared or almost non existent contain athletes that are better than when the sports thrived, just because time has passed.

 

Yes.

Heredity or environment?

I would argue outside of the heavyweight division, it's mostly environment.

Rule changes, Equipment changes, Nutrition / PED's, and Scoring Changes.

The globalization of the sport has also had a profound impact.

 

Nice post Burt.

Always interesting to read your views and definitely agree with this.

 

Gus lesnevich wouldnt go near Charles and Moore when he had the light heavyweight title.
When he fought Charles for the big one he found out he was right to ignore them.

 

Technical aspects certainly.

I mean if you watch Ketchel fight and you watch Nigel Benn fight you wouldn't be able to spot much difference technically. However Ketchel was the king of his division because that style wasn't able to be technically mastered yet. Eubank was able to stop Benn and he never fought a great MW.

It is easy to imagine Ketchel being outboxed despite how dominant he was in his own era. Would he be champion today? Golovkin would meet him head on and could see Ketchel win but if Canelo is light on his feet he will counter the **** out of Ketchel.

So its hard to say but for me it was a lot easier to defend with your face and make it to the top where as now very few brawlers become number 1. Don't believe that new beats old by default and if you meet someone like Ketchel punch for punch, you'll get sparked.

Then again I see Gibbons at MW and struggle to think of a technically superior MW since him.

As I say, for me it was easier to be a champion brawler in days gone by. Now there's a lot of clinching and footwork that negates those tactics.

I wish it would go back to those days though. Imagine if Wlad was DQ'd every time he excessively clinched and he had to trade up close, much more exciting sport then.

 

this is a quite interesting watch for anyone on this board who is interested in this subject

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_eps...ly_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

 

Interesting point is that it seems a few generations noted a change in boxing or fighting. When guys like Daniel Mendoza and John Jackson fought people were saying that the relying on only brute strength days of Figg and Broughton were over and skill had taken over. Then they said the exact same thing after Corbett beat Sullivan. Saying that the era of brute force is over and muscle had been taken over by skill. I guess those after Cribb forgot that science trumps muscle. Then after that I haven't read too much of new era coming in.

No one hardly thought that say Johnson was more skilled than Corbett or Louis was more skilled than Johnson. Or that they were even doing anything new as far as technique. They might say those guys would beat them but none of them seem to have thought anyone was doing anything new after Corbett. Even those who saw Tunney didn't think he was doing anything new. Even saying they were equal in skill but Tunney was sturdier and hit harder. Those who saw the old timers didn't think they would have any problems competing with guys in the era's after them. Now with heavyweights once they started getting bigger that's when some people started to not like the chances of the older fighters. So who knows even if the sport has changed that doesn't necessarily means its better.

 

Absolutely. Whether this is good or bad is debatable.

Although we all know guys in the '80s were stronger and more explosive.

 

How many old timers were blatantly on amphetamine to enhance their performance? Can't tell. Same with PEDs these days...