Skill over the decades

Depends how you define "skills," I guess. The biggest differences are in technique, strategy, and tactics, imo.

 

I've said it recently, on both the podcast and to Lach and Greg in private but in my opinion, the guys around and before the 20s are just as talented physically, but in different ways. Back then they were exceptionally tough and well conditioned as well as having punchers to match or better the modern ones. Lots of talent, just in different ways. They were less guys I'd call athletic.

As for skills, guys like Johnson, Langford and Gans are elite technicians in their era but their skillset is obviously more suited to their ruleset. Guys like Schmeling, Tunney and Braddock look better suited to life after the Walker law, even though they came after it. Don't get me wrong, they have aspects of perfection. Look at the uppercut go the solar plexus Tunney used to stop Carpentier, or Loughran's jab and positioning. It's amazing **** but it's a minority over a majority. It took awhile to adjust for the new rules, and that adjustment came in the mid 30s.

There's exceptions, as there are to all rules, like Walker, Ross, Armstrong, Dempsey, Louis ect. but on the whole, I'd say boxing approached it's modern form in the late 30s.

 

So you're essentially asking me to generalize about the differences between heavyweights of the past decade and heavyweights of the 30s? I'll do that but first can I ask whether you've ever had a good trainer show you his understanding of good boxing technique?

 

I think the biggest difference is that most well-trained fighters today seem more defensively-oriented than their predecessors from the 30s-50s. They keep tighter, higher guards, they prefer to fight at distance, they tend to eschew slugouts where they might get clipped by a punch they don't see coming, they tend to rely on their jabs and straight punches more, they use a lot fewer lead hooks, etc.

I think these tactical and strategic shifts benefit certain types of fighters while undermining others.

 

Modern fighters feint plenty, but the kind of highly-exaggerated feints you saw a lot more of in the past are far less effective against guys who keep tight high guards and guys who don't reach to parry punches.

 

My earlier reply to George sums up some of the differences I see.

It might help if you could share some of the examples of people saying that today's fighters are "more skilled" than fighters from the 60s and 70s. And again, people might have very different things in mind when they say "skilled."

 

I agree, imo it comes from back when you HAD to be more aggressive or you lost. That stigma stayed with the greats, or at least the loved ones. Guys like Dempsey and Jeffries were revered, people wanted to be like them. It's similar, as you see people today looking up to Ali, Whitaker, Durán, Jones, Tyson ect. so people try and take things from them, and trainers learn techniques and when you throw a stone on the water, you get ripples. It all adds up to get a more modern style, which ends up changing things. Especially with infighting being such a rarity now.

Again, there's always exceptions.

 

If you look at a boxing manual written in 1900, it is almost indistinguishable from one written today.

The one obvious difference, is the lower guard position that is recommended.

They also talk more about using the hands to defend against body shots.

Taking a body shot with those small gloves must have been hell.

One thing that you notice about the early fighters with a low guard, is that they raise their hands when they fall into a crouch, and their torso cannot readily be hit.

My conclusion is that the skills set follows the rule set.

There might however be an issue, in the decades where the sport was transitioning, between bare knuckle and Queensbury rules!