Explaining why old boxers make basic mistakes

When you say ''old timers", are you referring to a particular period of time or at least before a certain date?

Can you give some examples of fighters who you think had these technical limitations? There seems to be an assumption of defensive incompetence here on the part of old time fighters but while technique developed and "orthodoxy" in technique appeared (sometimes coming and going as different techniques and styles developed over time) there were always boxers who had good and bad defense, just as there are today.

So I think it's useful to pinpoint some examples if possible.

 

Ok, so we're likely talking pre-1920s? But Louis's opposition is 1930s onward so in terms of defense amd different techniques during that period (and I'm thinking non-heavyweights here), I'm thinking about Tony Canzoneri, who was pretty much a genius fighter as far as I'm concerned and a top 20 all-time great.

@McGrain has a wonderful description of his abilities from his top 50 lightweights piece that he wrote a few years back:
Canzoneri opened up a new avenue for boxing technique but was followed by almost nobody due to the difficulty of mastering it. All feints and leans and surprising punches, I have, in the past, described his style as vaporous, a hellish blend of vanishing physicality and punishing power.

Canzoneri's prime covers both the 20s and 30s and was a fighter who didn't use what we would now consider to be a basic defensive guard (a high guard) - his hands were more or less low down by his sides when he wasn't punching but he used great head and upper body movement as his defense and was ready to counter with his own shots. Lou Ambers, who I understand idolised Canzoneri (and fought him as well) tried to borrow some of that style using his upper body movement as his defense, rather than relying on a high guard. Canzoneri is a top 10 all-time lightweight and Ambers is arguably one as well. For what it's worth, I think they'd be able to beat any of the genuine lightweights today with their defensive skills.

 

The point I was indirectly making is that if you look at film of Canzoneri, this is not what you would teach someone today in terms of defensive technique, even though there may be plenty to learn about defending and countering by using head and upper body movement. His style looks distinctly unorthodox and it was, but there's no question it worked and wasn't "bad" defense even if it was technically unorthodox.

 

I wouldn't count myself among the old fighters are bad and dumb group, but I do think you can point to an area where progress was made.

The existence of a massive film library everyone has access to (first for a fee and now largely free) and everyone having a screen to watch it even in the gym. You can find new and useful techniques, but even better you can study your own film. I know they used mirrors and such for that but it isn't the same, there was improvement.

I think this played a key role in chasing out the now unorthodox, suboptimal approaches you mentioned.

 

That's very interesting thread. I'd like to hear some anti-oldschool opinions here, but unfortunately I'm afraid that it's simply too serious topic for most of them and they don't have good answers.

 

I've said it a million times... Find and Look at the Old Footage that was DONE RIGHT!

stop comparing fighters with crap film footage that never caught movement and most of what you see was a lunge or clinching... NO!

that's not how it looked in Real Time or Real Life... can we Prove that? YES!!!

as I said Find PROPER Footage, it Exists, watch it and see the truth, these fighter Look Perfectly Normal... Skilled, Fast, Fit and Powerful. NO Difference to today, except of course they did it Every 3 weeks or so, Times years of longevity at the Top - that's the difference.

I'll give you PROPER Film Footage to start with - Archie Moore vs Ron Richards 1938... you'll see when the Footage is Done Right, the fighters ARE Perfectly, as you would expect, Normal, just the same.

and there is plenty of good footage like it too.

so next time you see S_ _ T Footage or none at all, just remember ALL the Top & Good Fighter were just like Moore & Richards too.

 

Basic answer is remnants of old school Boxing styles, adapted to certain rule sets and equipment (or lack of it), stayed. This is prominent in transitional periods. I, and others, have gone into this in depth before so you can find it somewhere on here. Moore for example was taught by Hiawatha Grey who was an 1800s bare knuckle fighter. There is also the topic of things like the Walker Law, which also had a big impact on things in 1920 - how coincidental that this is the decade most people on here say about Boxing 'evolving'. @George Crowcroft had a good post detailing this a while back (Walker Law also lead to the creation of the NYSAC, another big change in how Boxing was regulated). And the simple fact is a more effective fighter will defeat a fighter with better, more aesthetic looking technique (see Victor Rabanales, Moon, Froch, Midget Wolgast among many others in all eras).

For actual purposes of certain techniques (and these are of course related to equipment and rules) I'd also invite you to read this thread below for an actual decent debate on this stuff, and advise looking into the works of Driscoll and other manuals if you haven't already done so.

Rulesets and equipment changes are the two biggest factors in the change of Boxing styles and strategies. It is my opinion that the bare knuckle fighters of the 1880s are 'better' and 'more skilled' than most early 1900s boxers due to being adapted to a ruleset and boxing culture hundreds of years old, where strategies and technique were refined.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-of-jim-driscoll-disgustingly-archaic.635817/

 

Max Baer was just misunderstood genius- he’d have jabbed Ali’s head off.

 

simple cause it wasnt mistakes back then it's all they knew

 

Sticking chin out has always been wrong.

 

Apparently Ray Leonard made Duran quit by sticking the chin out though.