Would Tommy Burns learn new skills in a modern 101 Boxing class?

No hwt boxing has not evolved unless evolving into a less skilled sport is your definition of evolution. The finer aspects of the game are no longer stressed.

 

Fine, I'll play your absurd game. Based on what I see in his 10-round fight against the hapless Gunner Moir, I don't have any confidence that he would fare well against top modern fighters in his weight classes who know how to control distance and score from range, or who have the skills to time him with well-leveraged uppercuts. I suspect that the technique that I see against Moir--the low and loose guard (especially when combined with his love for lead rights), the way that he's often open for uppercuts in the clinch, the way that he primarily tends to defend punches by jumping straight back, etc.--would present problems for him. Skilled modern fighters can exploit these tendencies, and it would be extremely easy for a modern trainer to improve upon them.

 

Low guard does not mean a fighter is easy to hit. The greatest defensive fighters who ever lived fought with a low guard. Instead of covering up mid ring they used classic boxing skill to avoid punches.

 

This post is a great exhibit of your flawed approach for emphasizing superficial similarities between eras while ignoring obvious differences (among other things).

I clearly never said or suggested that there's anything wrong with using lead rights per se. Reread my post.

In the minutes I watched, I saw several instances where his elbows are wide and his face forward and completely exposed in the clinch. His very unimpressive opponent even manages to catch him a few times. You can also find numerous examples of this, of course, in his fight against Jack Johnson.

Those guys demonstrate far more varied defensive repertoires. Far more head movement, slipping punches with minimal movement, rolling punches to get in position, etc. I don't see much of this technique from Burns. Neither primarily defends against punches by jumping back completely out of punching range. Neither "primarily" defends against punches in this manner. Can't tell whether you're being dense or disingenuous here.

 

Probably hopeless but maybe you'd have an easier time seeing the obvious evolution of technique if you look at how ridiculous heavyweight title contender Gunner Moir and some of Burns' other opponents look in the existing films? These guys are world class fighters and heavyweight contenders in their era, and I'm not convinced they would beat Erislandy Lara.

 

Cool. Do you disagree with anything I wrote in that post? If so, what?

 

I've given you plenty. Watch Burns in the clinch against Moir and Johnson. Look at his head positioning and hand placement, for example. Then watch how modern fighters like Tyson look in the clinch. I'm sure you'll just try to find some unrepresentative examples of each fighter doing the opposite, as is your habit, so I'm really just writing this for the benefit of anyone else who's still reading at this point.

No, I most certainly am not. The problem here is that you just don't understand what technique is. You seem to sincerely think that if we can find examples of Fighter A and Fighter B using the same tactic, then they have the same technique. This is dead wrong, and we've been over this again and again. Only an idiot would watch Tommy Burns and think that he has the same defensive technique as a Lomachenko or a Usyk. The technical evolution is most evident here in the fact that they don't jump back out of range more but instead defend with more subtle tactics that better enable them to fight and counter. This is not a mere stylistic difference, it is a technical improvement. By the way, more generally, your stylistic v. technique dichotomy is arbitrary and unconvincing.

And as I wrote above, I believe that mastering how to better protect one's face with one's glove(s) and arm(s) is also a sign of significant technical evolution in the sport.

There are plenty of other examples too, I'm sure, but this is pointless.

 

Let's get back to it then. With what do you disagree? What basis do you have for thinking that Gunner Moir, with his technique and abilities as they existed back then, would be a world-level boxer today?