Do you think technique evolves?

Also Activity has fallen of a cliff which is a big part of it imo. I haven't seen that been mentioned yet. If you only have 20 fights and are brought along to fight once a year then there is only so much you can do in advancing your so called "improved technique" . And frankly see if it even works when its for real and it counts. Less experience is less opportunity to make adjustments and go with a plan B if things aren't working. As you said , you can be selective and there are outliers across the board. . I think overall technique in boxing probably has suffered over time as Activity has fallen of a cliff and losing the great teachers of the sport

 

I got a kick out of the assertion that Hagler doesn't have much of a jab . I mean, watch the way he works the jab almost exclusively in the first couple of rounds against Hamsho, using it to set up the hook or rear hand to the head and the hook downstairs. And, this was against an awkward guy who had a knack of smothering or nullifying guys with good jabs like Benitez, Czyz etc.

GGG's great to watch, but even at his best he didn't use the jab as effectively as Hagler did.

 

I have to respectfully disagree.

Frazier was harder to hit than Chisora. Chisora gets tagged more than Joe did. It doesn't matter that Frazier was repetitive. He was hard to hit. Look at how many jabs he made Ali miss.

Frazier cut the ring vs Ali better than Chisora did vs Usyk. Frazier was a better body puncher than Chisora and he could keep it up in the later rounds. Chisora cut the ring vs Usyk for 4 rounds and then got dominated. Frazier cut the ring against Ali throughout each fight.

Chisora isn't better at cutting the ring than Frazier. He is easier to hit. What good is Chisora's less repetitive defense if he gets hit more? How is his cutting the ring vs Usyk for 4 rounds more impressive than Frazier successfully cutting the ring vs Ali in 3 fights? A 29 year old Ali is quicker than heavyweight Usyk.

 

Simply doing more stuff doesn´t mean you are more skilled overall. Chisora´s level is one of a journeyman, it is common for journeymen to be jack of all trades.

 

Gotta say, the opinion that "Dereck Chisora is......more skilled than Joe Frazier" is one of the most off the wall and quite hilarious I've read on this forum, in recent memory.

If it was meant as a joke, then well done - it hit the spot!

 

Technique evolves and plateaus in cycles. Boxing technique plateaued in the 80s for me and hasn't come back since because the money is less and less and less, so there is no reason to continue advancing the game. Talent pool smaller, fighters less active, no free TV fights to build your name off of. To say the game couldn't progress seems a bit shortsighted to me. It is clear that early 20th century boxers did not have adequate technique to compete without updating. I would say that by Joe Louis, punching technique had gotten really crisp, and by the 60s there were 'modern' fighters with really nice footwork, fundamentals etc. I think the TV era of the 80s had the deepest talent pool for me. I believe the quality of fights and fighters has declined overall since.

 

Because everything you’ve critiquied from short clips of Hagler’s fights or Hearns’ fights can also apply to quite literally any modern fighter. Every fighter has a select few instances in some fights where they underperform, or get wild, or take a few rounds to get started. Golovkin isn’t immune to disregarding defense himself.

With respect, the YT channrl Fight Fan isn’t exactly great at analyzing past greats. He often uses cherry picked cases of flaws to “prove” his point. It’s like trying to get a balanced take on modern fighters from Nat Fleischer, it just ain’t gonna happen. I remember seeing this terrible video he made about Sam Langford and he literally just picked out the instances where Sam is battering a helpless Jeannette as if that’s how Sam always fought.

It’s also important to not mistake versatility with skill either, Chisora may have had more tools than Frazier but he wasn’t nearly as effective as Joe at executing their respective tools against top competition. Frazier’s timing, defense and IQ are on a different level to Chisora. With this logic you can also call Jerry Quarry more skilled than Frazier due to being much more versatile.

The evidence for the evolution of boxing occurring in recent times just is not there. Even if we accept the idea that Golovkin and Lara were more skilled than Hagler and Hearns, I wouldn’t think it was proof of such evolution because Golovkin and Lara are generational talents. Do I think they’re so good that they’re just on a different planet than the likes of Hearns, Hagler, or even the likes of Gibbons, Tunney, Benny Leonard? I don’t see the case for that.
I’m not even sure I’d call Gennadiy more skilled than Gibbons, and GGG is one of my favourites.

 

People get confused between new and improved.

 

And, the "new" is often a fresh face doing their version of something old.

In other words, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

No they don't

 

That’s the main thing here, I don’t see modern boxers doing things that Benny Leonard or Joe Gans weren’t doing themselves.

 

Don’t apologise to me.

Apologise to yourself for typing things that you clearly have no knowledge of.

 

Bingo!

It ebbs and flows.

Yes, it absolutely does.

It’s your best post of the thread.

That’s literally what happens, where it has done for decades.

There is no continuous improvement, where the newest generation become better than their predecessors.

 

It should be pure common sense to any boxing fan with even a modicum of knowledge.