Do you think technique evolves?

You can’t believe these guys can you.

 

Let’s agree that Usyk is the most skilled HW of all time.

Then what?

Even if we all agreed that, how would that make Dorian right?

What about all of the other fighters, in all the rest of the divisions??

Common sense should dictate that each newer generation can’t be better than their predecessors.

It can’t be a continuous cycle.

Otherwise there’d be no fighters or divisions from the past, that could even compare to today.

Yet, if you look across the board, many of today’s fighters and divisions are simply inferior to many from decades ago.

So, he can’t possibly be right.

If his theory stacked up, then every division today would all contain the best fighters in history.

All of the best fighters today would be the best of all time.

But not only is that not the case, again, we have whole divisions full of guys who weren’t as skilful as guys from over 30 years previously.

So each newer generation cannot be more skilled with better technique.

Otherwise it would be laughable to compare today’s WW’s with the ones from 40 years ago, as the gap in talent would be so big and noticeable.

 

Sorry but besides his combinations everything else wasn't as impressive hot take ik

 

I was talking mostly the top fighters but pool of fighters ebbs and flows welterweight was pretty stacked 10 years ago when you had Floyd, Pacquiao and their competitors

 

People never take that argument to the hyperbole though because it would mean their favourite fighter has been supplanted.

For example Wahid is greater than Floyd etc

 

Well, I can believe that, true to much of what appears to be a General 'Modernist' Theory (and mentality), it relies almost entirely on sweeping opinions with little explanation as to their basis.

I can get on board with individual adaptation and innovation from one generation to the next, i.e., each generation will produce exemplars of applied fundamentals uniquely tailored to the practitioners in question - but the blanket idea that the sport of boxing as a whole "evolves with each generation" just doesn't scan.

 

I think it depends on your definition of evolution.

Ever upward and superior, no.

Adaptive to fit its atmosphere, yes.

Rules, equipment, audiences, change, physics and the human body do not. The way fighters fight adapts, or evolves, to the rules, money, and, and infrastructure.


Sometimes I see advances in technology presented like as if we are now super humans compared to the past, that's silly and if that were the case biological evolution wouldn't be a theory.




Ancient Greece made a sport out of punching, one can only wonder for how long prior man had mastered the physics of the punch, but, there is no mystery as to its perfection. Has been done a long time ago, every pro boxer you watch knows what perfect is, physics does not change, kinematic chains do not change, angles do not change, triangles do not change.

The mystery of what is idealistically a perfect punch is not a mystery at all, no one is going to find a new angle, new foot placement, or new math to make for anything more superior than kinematic chains.

So, if you don't know perfect, look up some 3rd grade physics and learn it. Start with a Newton's Cradle. I'm not trying to be condescending, we as adult forget some basic and easy to follow stuff. 3rd grade physics isn't meant to be an insult but rather an invitation to try, because it isn't difficult physics you're being asked to learn.




So, what is perfect, for a hook, for a situation, for a step, whatever, is not a mystery and it is relatively simple physics. How long man has known perfect form is a bit mysterious but a very safe answer is archaic ancient period. Why 1780s paintings and side-by-sides and such depict men who fight very differently is because the rules had changed.



These days the fights end. When fights did not end pacing was a much bigger factor, this changed the style of the fighters, but does not make them superior. They are superior in their ruleset as are more modern fighters. The best styles per rules, money, audience, are the styles recorded. Floyd in 1780 gets mob rushed.

 

It seems, to me, that you are talking more about your taste for Boxing rather than what is really better.

I personally prefer guys that fight with their distance judgment rather than a guy that puts punch after punch, very quickly, and a lot of fast movements.
It seems to me that this is what is being lost, actually. Fighting through distance judgment vs fighting putting volume and quickness/explosiveness. In the latter we are talking about a lot of physical effort. And in the first one, we are talking about ring experience in actual fighting.
(all the guys you mentioned were great amateurs, and in the amateurs, especially back in the early 2000s, you do fight through combinations and quickness rather than by distance judgment, and vice-versa in the pros, for obvious reasons)

 

I agree, new techniques will always have to be done with correct body mechanics. A guy can invent any technique but if the technique doesn't incorporate correct body mechanics it won't be effective and probably will leave the user vulnerable. The only possible exception...some fighters punch harder than their technique should allow.

I suspect PED usage and strength that is out of proportion to their size is the reason they punch harder than they should. There are not a lot of examples, but occasionally it happens. But even when that happens the fighter is doing most things right. Athletes are going to always be limited in how much they can advance technique, technique has to incorporate correct body mechanics. Strength, speed, and power can be enhanced and I suspect that strength, speed, and power are allowing some fighters to get by with less than perfect fundamentals/technique.

 

Derek Chisora is not half as skilled as Joe Frazier.

Chisora would never in a million years be able to cut the ring off vs a 29 year old Ali. Nor would Chisora be able to make Ali miss so many punches with his bobbing and weaving.

Chisora is slower and far more hittable than Frazier ever was. And Chisora isn't beating Ali even once.

 

GGG isn't more skilled than Hagler. Hagler could effectively fight out of 2 stances. Even though i believe that GGG beat Canelo in their first fight, you could tell how GGG was nervous to attack Canelo's body. When GGG had Canelo up against the ropes, he was too cautious to go for it. Hagler wouldn't have made that mistake. When Hagler has you up against the ropes, its game over.

 

Joe Frazier's Defense (youtube.com)

Chisora couldn't pull this off in a million years.

 

I think you will always be able to focus on individuals to prove your case both for and against,all you need to do is be selective.
Personally I don't see any bantamweight better than Jofre.I don't believe there has been a better featherweight than Pep. I don't see these wonderful technical advances .
What specifically are fighters today doing that the old guys didn't?
GGG was a fine fighter,but was he more advanced technically than older middles,would he beat functional, workmanlike Monzon?Robinson? Jones? There are modern ATG's, Pac Man is one imo.
I see modern fighters,champions some of them ,that don't slip punches,that have no head movement,that rely on their gloves to block punches,I see some of them that have no idea how to parry a jab,hook off a jab,work the body,and counter off the ropes.There are excellent fighters in all eras, boxing has always ebbed and flowed.
I don't think boxing will continue to improve,there are only so many punches and only so many ways of delivering them.Right now we have Usyk,Lomachenko ,and Inoue, all excellent fighters but that doesn't mean that, imo they would automatically prevail over men their weight from several decades earlier.