I don't think boxing skills have evolved

Boxing skills evolved and peaked in the 1930s. The black fighters of the 1930s and 40s. They could do everything. TV came along in the 50s and killed the small fight clubs. Before fighters fought all the time. The great ones perfected their craft in the ring UNDER THE LIGHTS. They took Ls and didn't retire. They learned from a loss. Imagine that. At one time the thinking was that if a fighter didn' have at least 1 loss on his record he wasn't ready for a title shot.

 

Nowadays the thinking is if you have even 1 loss, your career is over.

 

That sucks for us as fans. A fighter with something to lose isn't going to take the chances they once had to. I don't hate today`s fighters. There are good tough fighters today. There just trying to get over like everybody else.

 

And in a way that train of thought has prevented so many great fights from happening at the right time.

 

All that **** about evolved training and techniques is bs. It's excuses used for why "modern heavyweights" would beat older ones. Look at literally any other division and that concept goes right out the window. Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Gene Tunney, Michael Spinks, and Bob Foster would still whoop todays light heavyweights. Sugar Ray Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, and Walker would whoop today's welterweights. Lamotta, Greb, Zale, Fitzsimmons, and Hagler would whoop today's middleweights. Gans and Duran would whoop todays lightweights.

Point is all of the great fighters from over a hundred years ago would still be great if they fought in todays divisions. It's only at heavyweight that all this talk of modern conditioning and training is talked about. Frankly, its bogus. Doing squats on a ****ing versa ball isn't going to make you a champ lmao.

 

They haven't.. What was lost is activity and toughness. Top fighters will fight only 1,2, or maybe 3 times a year .. Complete joke. Boxing died many years ago unfortunately

 

Good call I think I have to agree skills are born of necessity from the fire of competition I don't think today's competition warrants the skills those guys had

 

It all really depends on the fighter, I'd pick jack dempsey, Archie Moore or michael spinks over kovalev or oleksandr. I think skill wise hasn' developed over time, mostly nutrition and to a smaller degree the way they train, fighters used to not lift weights

 

I believe that, skill-wise, boxing took a giant evolutionary leap between the two wars!

I'm not (with a few exceptions) too impressed by what we can see on film pre WW1, but up through the 20s and 30s more "modern" fighters seem to have came along. Ross, McLarnin look very good... as do Tunney and Canzoneri, just to mention a few. In the late 30s Louis took heavyweight boxing to a whole new level, and by the early 40s we of course have Pep and Robinson, who (imo) were both the "finished product", so to speak. I don't see anyone taking boxing to another level since then.

That being said, I don't understand why some people say boxing today is dead! There are still fine fighters out there ... and is there anyone here who ISN'T looking forward to Usyk-Gassiev in May? Or Groves-Eubank Jr. this weekend?

 

There are good fighters. It's the way they run the sport. In a sense it's improved in other ways. The fighters have it safer, they have more rights and protection. I don' believe the Mob is controlling the game like they did with the Managers Guild. Those were the bad old days.

 

For laughs id like to bring back Mickey Walker and unleash him on the Welterweight division. If Mickey doesn' like the decision he would just have a rematch later at the bar.

 

Bloody good post mate.

 

Yes excellent post and nail on the head. There s too much negative feedback now if u suffer a loss ,that you can't cut it against the top guys. In that case Robinson must have been absolute **** , with all those defeats !

 

Fine post pal.