Unpopular opinions

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your analogies aren't really apt though. They don't explain how the teachings and practices of prominent men with hundreds and hundreds of students, colleagues, and proteges who each possess strong incentives to soak in as much of that infirmation as possible would be suddenly forgotten upon their departure from the sport.

 

You're welcome. Well how does the same thing happen with a trade like masonry? Surely when a master mason dies all the journeymen and apprentices who have worked under him have those same incentives and should collectively know and be capable of perpetuating all his knowledge? That does not happen and history is filled with examples of it. Its an extremely apt analogy.

 

I don't know anything about masonry but that seems like a more fitting analogy that I'll have to think about some more. Did masons categorically become substantially less knowledgable and effective over time, akin to how posters here posit that boxing trainers forgot information and skills that had been prevalent a generation prior? Were there no improvements in masonry technique over time either?

 

Well the pyramids in Egypt were just an obvious example of knowledge in a particular trade in one continuous society dramatically declining with skill getting worse. I understand the perspective you're coming from as it's counter intuitive but you can find lots of examples. I'm not a mason but do something comparable and as mentioned i encounter it quite frequently, i'm presented with a problem then research only to find a technique, method, tool, etc that used to be common place one, two, even three hundred years ago that nobody i talk to has even heard of but its a brilliant solution.

 

Many of the high standards of old, in almost all areas of industry and commerce, give way to today's mass production and marketing. Finding a quicker and cheaper way of doing things has supplanted a better way.

 

Very very true that definitely plays a big part in it. With boxing i have always believed that the steep decline in the average boxers number of career fights plays a role. The modern amateur scene provides some benefit in terms of facing different styles and learning how to deal but the differences between amateur and pro boxing mean that many technical things (old vet tricks) particularly at close range aren't acquired by fighters until much later in their careers if ever. The things that somebody like Hopkins is heralded for were more common place when a guy had 100 pro fights easy. Nothing replaces experience.

 

Agreed.

In the days when boxers were competing, sometimes twice in the same month, there was less fear of losing and more hunger to keep getting in there to make something of themselves (if not just to keep earning a crust). This made for fierce competition and rivalries. As such, they were forced to learn from their experiences, in order to improve - because there was only one path to the top and the shot wasn't going to be masterminded for them with clever matchmaking and multiple title routes.

These days, any loss is seen as a blow to marketability and so prospects are protected for commercial reasons, whilst their gains in actual boxing experience remain glacial if not dormant.

 

You nailed it ^^^

In 1950, it's possible that GGG and Canelo would fight twice in a month. Think how surreal that would be today.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. Never have. Athleticism can't guarantee success at every sport. Specialized skills are more important.

 

Fleischer wrote the following

"The old timers were masters of the finer points of the game".

 

Muhammad Ali couldn't break an egg.

 

Ali was the only fighter to ko Foreman.
Ali was only one of two fighters to ever stop Frazier.
Ali was the only fighter ever to stop Bonevena.

Ali was no Louis, Marciano or Foreman in terms of punching power but his punches did damage.

 

Nuh-uh. Did not.

Foreman was exhausted. Bonavena wasn't protected by the ref. Frazier took a million shots and didn't go down.

 

Im not sure if this is unpopular or not but i always see someone mention heavyweights and nba or nfl athletes taking away great fighters or that our best heavies are in those leagues

i always find it a little silly because those sports and those leagues existed since the 50's or earlier and had athletes who were large, tall, athletic and powerful but there were boxing golden ages. seems like an odd excuse or conclusion to blame those leagues on todays talent pool when those sports always existed

 

Back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, how accessible were these sports to the majority of big, young and athletic Americans? Did not these sports carry their own type of segregation? Was there the sort of money to be made in those sports, back then?