Interesting. I think otherwise. As an example, Garcia and Haney both made numerous defensive errors in their recent contest that just weren't apparent in some older contests that I've watched. Haney employed a wider stance but seemed terribly off balance and couldn't deliver punches with any real authority or precision. Meanwhile, Garcia's defensive tactics were, to put it charitably, suspect at best. Yet, as flawed as both fighters are, they both would occupy spots in the sport's upper echelon. Like I say...that's kinda interesting.
Some will say that this video game character pad work robotics is the actual “evolution”. that this is how you must fight to get on in the sport in this time zone. It isn’t sophisticated but it works. And the fighters are stronger. But the old stuff is so much easier in the eye. So much more of an art form.
Boxing today is like a steak, a great looking juicy steak, they are better today, the cows, there is a whole science behind how to handle the cows..... but let me tell you, the seasoning gotta be there !! That´s how I feel when I digest Boxing today, I am eating a good looking steak with no salt, nothing.
A wider stance is not better for the transference of weight, that is just fundamentally incorrect. I could go into insane depth and detail on that but let me just say this; the most effective place to place your feet, whatever you are trying to do, is under your shoulders. The foundation of balance, in boxing, is the constant movement of weight from one foot to the other and a wide stance makes that much harder. Something that you may not be considering when watching old fights and seeing the fighters 'off balance' is what they had on their feet; they fought in leather soled shoes. To get traction they sliced the bottom of the shoe with a blade and rubbed the sole in a resin box before the fight. They were also able to slide their feet as opposed to now, when you have to pick your feet up to move. The biggest evolution in boxing footwork was caused by the change to rubber soled shoes. The difference in defensive styles comes down to changes in gloves. Look at a fight from the 1930s and the gloves they wore. Thus the emphasis was on slipping punches and parrying punches. A larger glove makes blocking punches more practical, while the attached thumb makes parrying more difficult. Similarly, so much of the artistry of fighting inside and clinching purposefully has been lost due to the attached thumb- you really can't grab and turn an opponent, or move them around inside like the old time guys could. Going back to the early 70s I was taught things by guys that fought 50 years earlier that have no place in boxing today because, with modern gloves, you can't do those things any more. Let me use modern BKFC fights as an example of 'evolution' or maybe a case of misunderstanding. I am sure that you have seen, and probably laughed at, the real old time guys extending their arms to block punches away from their bodies. Never mind that Ali and old George used these tactics. Now watch the modern bare knuckle guys putting their hands up around their heads- with no gloves- to block punches and get their brains beat out. Watch them catching body punches on their arms. It is stupid. You put your right hand up to block a hook and it doesn't cover much space and your fist gets knocked into your own head. When you catch that body punch on your arm, you are taking the same amount of tissue damage, you just took it on your arm. That is why the old guys blocked punches away from their bodies.
There is no one individual stance though, and most stances nowadays have been around since the early years of boxing. I wouldn’t consider Inoue, Usyk and Golovkin to be that unique in this regard, you can find boxers as skilled as them from the 1910s like Gibbons and Tunney. I just don’t agree here. The men you listed don’t keep their chins sticking out, their hands are positioned well and their defenses are proper by standards of today if not better considering a lot of modern boxers enjoy relying on the glove cushions to protect themselves rather than shoulders or parrying like the old timers did. With such smaller gloves, it’s a much more practical version of boxing. I don’t see the evidence behind your point.
I'd say it's totally devolved since back in the day. Exhibit A: notice the impeccable coordination, slick defensive maneuvers, the silky-smooth combination punching, and the overall artistry of these two top rated Heavyweights of the 30s. I mean, if Joe Louis could defeat the likes of these guys, Lewis, Klitschko and the like have no chance... This content is protected
Exactly! I think the real evolution took place between the two World Wars. in the '20s Leonard and Tunney looked pretty good, and in the late '30s we saw a Louis take heavyweight boxing to a technical level not seen before (and not bettered since) - and then in the early '40s brilliant boxers like SRR and Pep came along. Of course, even today you have fantastic talent popping up every now and then - but, overall, I don't see a clear improvement in boxing skills over the last 80 years or so!
Yes, because Baer and Galento were lauded technicians. For comparison maybe we should use Wilder footage to represent the current era’s technical mastery.
What I meant about the stance was that many older boxers tended to have very narrow stances, such as SRR. I've seen a Russian coach speak about the importance of having your shoulders and feet "on the same plan" as he said. Someone like Devin Haney has his feet too wide imo (the reason he does this is to get full advantage of his reach though so the thinking behind it is sound at least) but he extends too much on his punches when he widens himself moving forward so robs himself of his power (which he also does through his poor punch technique by not rotating properly or by having limp wrists). I've personally always been of the conviction that Devin isn't as good as has been advertised and disagreed strongly with his inclusions on p4p lists though, so I don't think he's representative of the highest level today. But compare some of the true students of the game today (especially those from Eastern Europe, Cuba, and Japan) and among the elite talents here their technical skill fundamental wise is better than the elite talents of the past I think. Golovkin, Kovalev, Chocolatito, Inoue, Lomachenko, Usyk, and Ioka all, imo anyways, have fundamentally strong bases and are seldom ever out of position to punch. I agree that the changes in the conditions boxing matches are fought under and the equipment used have changed the technique significantly but even many of the top talents from the 80s have more fundamental issues than the top talents of today such as the ones I listed earlier (Hagler's footwork or Hearns' defence were both quite poor imo). I also think that the change from unlimited stamina contests to 40 rounders to 20 rounders then down to 15 and later 12 led to a decrease in the amount of inside fighting and how much clinching was permitted as well as how much the audiences were willing to watch of it (refs eventually penalising clinching, wrestling, and holding and hitting more made inside fighting less viable on top of the factors you lists of changes to gloves too though).
Gibbons and Tunney are both very much exceptions to the rule in that they are 2 of the very few fighters from that era to look good on film by today's standard. Langford, Ketchel, McVey, and Wilde all look a bit crude by todays standards for example. Both Gibbons and Tunney kept their hands low. I've seen Gibbons spin himself around when throwing a left hook before. Gibbons had a tendency to square up and Tunney would get out of stance when getting on his bike. Tunney would often be off-balance after throwing and was front foot heavy at times. His feet came together a lot and he tripped himself up a couple times on film. By the standards of their era, all the men listed above were exceptional talents, but you would never find a single gym anywhere using film of any of these guys to teach technique because the techniques just don't hold up anymore in a modern environment because they were found to have weaknesses and ineffective aspects which were ironed out and improved on. The practices were sufficient for the standards and environment of the time, but the techniques they employed simply wouldn't work at the top level of the sport anymore. Ali said so himself when asked who would have beaten him "...Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey were good in their day; I would say a full motor jet - prop plane - that we flew a few months ago was good then but now you like the jets, so you couldn't compare a jet with a prop but still the prop was still good for its time." I think the boxers of today (at the top level anyway) are more skilled than the cream of the crop from more than a century ago. I enjoy reading about that era immensely, but I just can't see how the way the great men of that era fought would lead to them being able to compete with the guys of today (except maybe Gans since I adore Gans).
the 60s is when boxing reached its final form in terms of technique imo. It's like in a video game, they release new characters with different abilities but the game's core mechanics always remain the same, to be a top-tier player you need first to master the game mechanics and your character's abilities.
Just a Galento jab there. In all seriousness, pick any sport...Football (NFL), Basketball, Rugby, or whatever sport you're into, compare the 30s/50s/70s, etc.. eras to today. There's probably going to be a dramatic difference in skill level compared to today. I'd venture to say that a lot of elite NFL/NBA players from the 70s, much less earlier eras, probably wouldn't even make a roster today. Why wouldn't Boxing have evolved as far as skill, technique, speed, athleticism, etc? Maybe it hasn't as much as other sports. Not always easy to tell.