Has the Classic forum learned anything in the old vs modern debate?

If someone actually does a follow-up to "The Arc of Boxing"... one can only hope, it will be less biased than the original one!

 

Maybe I don't believe training methods have shifted quite as much as I used to. For example, the use of weights in training seems to be quite individual. There is certainly much more of it than, say, 40 years ago, but probably not to such an extent that I previously thought.

I don't believe the shift in nutrition has been as massive as I once did either, even though things like eating steak in camp are probably much more rare today, and maybe more fruits and nuts back then where as emphasis today might be more on vegetables.

I still don't believe in lost arts or that boxing stoped developing at some point. With the easy access to film we have today, it would be strange if today's boxers didn't learn from past masters. Knowledge that earlier had to be passed down, they now can scoop up directly by just going to Youtube.

 

The sign of a considered poster not trying to blow their own trumpet but actually wanting to learn.

 

If the day comes when you want to save Classic we and the team you assemble in the montage will be ready. But I’m gonna be the guy you gotta save from his PTSD and alcoholic self destruction before I join cause I’m just dramatic like that.

 

I think a realization that things have progressed somewhat, has started to sink in.

Conversely, in the General forum I often see blatant ignorance and disrespect for th old ATG's.

I remember the "Kovalev beats Marciano" thread which was laughable.

 

is there a sea of excellence between the Truly BEST TOP Men? NO!!!

but the MAIN thing that Has to be Attributed the Past TOP Men is Numbers of Top Opponents over YEARS...

my best example favouring those past greats, is, Tarver vs RJJ.

Roy got SPARKED and was NEVER the Same, Ok, so what some might say, so what.

Well what 'IF' Roy would have met 2 or 3 Tarver's a Year, what IF he met the Tarver's Types Earlier rather than lesser fighters with the occasional name.

I'm not saying Roy wasn't a great fighter, he WAS!, Repeat he was.

but the Point is, IF all of these 25 - 35 Fight supposed greats would have met the Tarver's of their respected division more regularly and sooner, Well, Fair Question here

HOW many of them, like Roy, 'might' have been finished or fallen away sooner???

the Past Fighters DID it, it's DONE, Already Recorded and for ALL-Time... They DID IT!

Too, too many 'supposed' Modern greats Have Not!

it's a very simple Observation and Equation, it only needs an honest objective analyses to come to a certain conclusion one way or another, and/or for an individual fighter(s) or not.

there are Great Fighters in Every Era - OF COURSE, but 'Generally Speaking' the PAST Fighters have LOCKED it, Much, Much More without question!

 

No, in fact if anything we have confused the issue further!

 

It learnt me that some people will always stay attached to their opinions, even against new facts and reasonable argumentations.

 

You laugh but Kovalev probably does beat Marciano. Marciano was an extremely crude boxer. Nothing I have seen of his fights convinces me he could get close enough to Kovalev without getting floored.

 

@cross_trainer Long time no see.

And no, not much has changed.

 

I’ve learned that Boomers greatly overrate fighters from the 1970s and early 80s.

 

Then somebody would have turned the trick in the real universe.

 

Yeah I agree that Kovalev was a much better boxer than Marciano

So were a number of guys Rocky fought and they all ended up in the infirmary.