Boxing Strategies and Tactics - Did it evolve ?

In the sense of the promotion itself, I was reminded while recently watching the Derrick Gainer - Robert Garcia fight and Gil Clancy was ringside. The fight was a stinker with Garcia chasing and Gainer running and Clancy mused how back in the day Teddy Brenner would have approached the corner during the fight and told all involved that if you don't pick it up and engage, that you wouldn't be asked back. And that really sums up fighting before an audience who expects to see some action and a matchmaker/promoter who wants to put on a good show and fighters who stay active as opposed to todays brand of boxing that is all pot-shotting from the outside/don't engage/no body work/fight once a year.

 

I think basketball would be even a better example. Look how the game change due to the analytics. Great thread by the way, can't wait for the replies.

 

If anything Boxing has devolved over the last 40 years. Sometimes when I see fights from the 70s/80s, it is so much better that it almost looks like a different sport. There were flashes of brilliance through the 90s, and early 2000. But, it has been a fairly steady decline since then.

 

100% there was a good post here about how Usyk was training for Fury and he had a bunch of nutritional scientists and other experts working with him to get into the best shape possible for the fight, back in the day boxers didn't have those kind of people to work with they just did normal boxing stuff and adapted on the fly. Also since they fought more frequently they didn't have as much time to prepare for their opponent whereas today they have much more time since they fight maybe 2-3 times a year.

 

I'd certainly say it has evolved. Having potentially hours worth of footage going into a fight against any given opponent is a massive advantage compared to having to go off of newspapers or spying on your opponent's sparring sessions like what used to happen. Fight camps are also much longer than they used to be as well, so it gives a trainer and his fighter more time to structure a game plan to work out on how they will approach an opponent and refine the techniques that will be most useful against said opponent. Take Crawford-Spence as an example, because of the film study and preparations Crawford did for Spence him and his team were able to identify and capitalise on such weaknesses (Errol leaving himself exposed when he jabs or telegraphing his back hand and using this information to jab with Errol and know when to counter him).

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I do agree that there is better technology to potentially prepare a fighter better than in the past. But, information is only as useful as the brain that processes it. And, with a dearth of actual boxing skill with the majority of people who pass for trainers these days, I am not sure this extra information leads to better strategies and performance with the majority of today's fighter.

 

Real question. How many HW fighters are actually in good enough shape to go 12 at Usyks pace? So far we’ve found none w all their modern training.
The top tier boxers all had cooks and diet plans and all made game plans for whom they were fighting. Not all eras had film. I like the idea of using as much info as u can though. I think Usyk used every advantage he had and knew these big bodies just couldn’t handle a particular pace.

 

Because its hard to go the distance at that pace when you're a superheavyweight, part of the reason Usyk is able to do it is because he's smaller and lighter then other heavyweights. Most heavyweights end by knockout and that tends to be the case for most of the divisions history.

 

Has science evolved since Einstein? Yes, there are a lot more scientists nowadays, but which scientists are truly capable of deep understanding of the concepts and presenting new ideas like Einstein did? And not only that but putting that deep understanding into practice

No trainers or fighters today have true master skill, you could say Lewis/Steward was the last real example, by and large they are apprentice level operating on theory, which is a big tangible as to why guys like Robinson, Louis, Ali would absolutely shred modern competition, not only were they operating at a much more master level, they were anomalies at that master level as peak performers

 

It's a strangely put question, and it seems its oddity is being reflected in the replies and the OP's counter-replies.

On the one hand, it appears the OP is asking whether boxing tactics have evolved. On the other, the focus and implication is on the methods used to develop tactics and how these have evolved.

While the two are related they are not the same thing.

A change in the planning methods does not necessarily mean that the plans produced using these methods are more evolved than those that came before the change.

In the days before competitive scenarios could be analyzed in advance, tactics would be deployed during the competition itself. And, in truth, that's how it should be since "tactics", in the strictest sense of the word, are typically deployed in running.