Do you think technique evolves?

Welcome to the nut house.

 

They exist, sure. They are good..
But nowhere near what it was. In the mid-late 70s Argentina had the two best LHWs in the World in Galindez and Miguel Cuello and Ahumada somwhere in there too. While they had Monzon as the MW champion, many contenders like Miguel Angel Campanino and Locche still active. And almost at the same time Hugo Corro being a champion
Italy had so many fighters, Colombia had Rodrigo Valdez and Cervantes at their prime, Ricardo Cardona being a champion. Venezuela had Betulio Gonzalez, Leonel Hernandez, Antonio Gomez, Alfredo Marcano, Luis Estaba. Brazil had Jofre becoming the FW champion and Miguel de Oliveira being a ranked contender and winning a belt too.
France seem to reach its peak way back in the day, but it was pretty good, dozens of top 10 guys were french... etc

 

My mistake then. I guess there are a higher number of active people now, especially if we are counting female boxers but... anyway...

 

Okay, I'm gonna answer this in parts. But I'll clarify what I mean when I read the word fundamentals, and clarify that I'm not thinking about guys from before the Walker Law. So same rules as now, more or less. I believe the word 'fundamentals', means plain and simply how to do the basics. How to throw a jab; how to parry; how to step in and out without messing your stance up; how to move laterally, etc. The stuff you learn before you're even allowed to spar. It's just a matter of how good they get at it.

In terms of if I think it's better today; on the whole, I'd say, yeah. Pick pretty much any ranked fighter today, and compare him to some of the guys in similar rankings from the past; and I do believe today's would come out better more often than not. In terms of understanding what makes these fundamentals sound, I'd say yeah, the average coach does know better, now. But I think the real difference is made by having tons of amateur fights, and starting a lot younger.

I think the average fundamental proficiency in boxing is directly tied to the quality of the grassroots/amateur system, not the coaching. Just look at how great the some the fundamentals of fighters from Eastern Europe are. Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan are producing tons of incredible boxers; and so is Cuba. These guys don't all have the same coach; but they do all compete in similar amateurs systems. Whereas places like Mexico produce tons of fighters who've fought loads of pro fights, but don't have the best technique (although that's a trope which is changing with Eddy Reynoso and Nacho Beristain, before him). If the amateur system keeps on improving; then I believe the fundamentals of the average fighter will keep on improving.

Now, as to your examples; I can actually see myself agreeing with two of three, as long as we're talking about fundamentals and not technique on the whole. But my question is, what is it about Louis, Hagler and Jofre that you think needs improvement to reach the level of Usyk, GGG and Inoue?

I would also ask:

What defines a generation? Is there a visible improvement to you between say, the 70s to 80s? Or 2000s to
2010s?

 

I'm a boxing layman, but I've never seen anyone protect their head by holding their shoulder up like Floyd Mayweather Jr:

This content is protected

So I think that the technique, or at least the defense - evolves.

 

Boxing is like all sports, the best just do the fundamentals better. Fundamentals, like you mentioned are what you should learn before sparring the first time, things like stance, movement/footwork/weight shifting, punching correctly, parrying, slipping, rolling etc. A fighter who has a coach who works on fundamentals IMO will have the advantage over a fighter who has a coach who wants to be "innovative."

I remember Nacho Beristain in a special, watching JMM workout and telling JMM to keep his shoulders level when throwing a hook or uppercut to the body. Basic instruction for an advanced fighter, but the good ones always work on fundamentals.

 

It's really not. A wide base only makes you feel more stable due to the lower center of gravity, but your balance and movement is compromised as a result, and you can't either attack or defend properly for long that way. The rear heel should be in about a straight line from where the lead toe ends, with the lead foot being at a roughly 40 degree angle. Mayweather had his feet the same way, if we go by modern fighters. And come on, don't be dishonest, Robinson is clearly showboating there and isn't taking himself seriously, since he already won the round with a KD. When did Robinson ever put his weight on his left foot while hopping when he was in a serious situation ?

Usyk also pivots, hops and squares up, so why is Napoles wrong for doing the same ? Also no, Napoles's defence isn't based on athleticism, not even close. He slips, moves, weaves, pivots and sidesteps just like Usyk does today, except he was just plain and simple better at it than him. Usyk's is more teachable because he relies on a high guard, which is the easy way out to avoid getting hit, that doesn't mean it's more effective or more skillfull.

Fury is not a good infighter. Being good at clinching is a different thing. Look at Duran for example, he would rest his head into his opponent's shoulder to take away their left hand, would then put his own left hand to his opponent's right bicep, and would uppercut him with his free hand, while leaving his foe with no hands to use. He would set ups shots to the body by securing underhooks, by exposing the opponent's ribs and preventing them from doing literally anything, he would utilise overhooks to control his opponent's head and balance while also creating further punching opportunities. He would change head slots to neautralise both hands right when his opponent would change tactics. Since he couldn't see from up close, he would use his head, forearms, shoulders and elbows to literally feel his opponent's movement, in order to react accordingly and punch on the resulting opening. He also kept the necessary distance with his feet to be able to freely get away from the inside when the situation required it, with his head being further away from his waist and legs, which made his opponents misjudge distance and fall short on punches. He didn't just invent that stuff either, many older fighters utilised suchs skills and tricks.

Infighting is one of the most complex and intricate aspects of Boxing, and nobody can do most of the things I mentioned above. Quality infighting being lost to time makes Boxing a very *******ized art. There is nothing new that is being added, only re-worded and re-branded. Do Loma and Usyk take any new angle nobody has taken before ? Does Inoue punch in new and better ways than anyone before ? There is nothing new under the sun. I again suggest you read the Edwin L Haislet book from 1940, nothing shown today is missing from this 85 year old book.

 

This is absolutely bizarre.

There hasn’t been noticeable differences in technique.

The differences have been in the styles that the fighters have employed.

Hagler wasn’t as versatile as Golovkin?

He was a switch hitter.

And the funniest things in your posts, is this fascination with Golovkin.

A guy who struggled against non great fighters, and a guy who has a poor defence.

If you’re analysing a fighter’s skill set, then you’re looking closely at every aspect.

You’re looking at their offensive skills.

And you’re looking at their defensive skills.

So both you and Master have convinced yourself that Golovkin is the most skilled MW fighter of all time, despite the fact that he has many flaws defensively. He has little head movement and he’s very easy to hit.

So he isn’t overall more skilled than guys like McCallum and Toney etc.

Now let’s see if you can explain to me logically, why there’s many fighters and divisions today, that are inferior to ones from DECADES ago.

 

I'm not understanding this either TBH Golovkin's best win is vs Daniel Jacobs which was a very close fight BTW.

The only so called great fighter Golovkin fought was Canelo and whilst the 1st fight was controversial, I thought Canelo won the other 2 fights without controversy.

I've never seen Golovkin have a stand out performance against an upper echelon fighter unless you count Brook who let's be real is not a Middleweight and fought primarily at Welterweight hence it was a mismatch.

So if Golovkin doesn't have a stand out performance over a upper echelon fighter it seems frankly quite bizarre to claim him as the most skilled Middleweight of all time.

 

Absolute lunacy

No, because we can actually look at boxing and see that technique has actually not evolved since probably the 80's. Athleticism I would argue most assuredly has but not technique.

I think if you put up a poll asking who looks fundamentally better between Golovkin and Hagler, your position would be humbled. Hagler ws phenomenal from both stances, great right/left cross, great right/left jab, great uppercut, great hook, feet and balance were better, defense was tight, he moved his head and held his guard up and parried, I shudder at the thought that Golovkin (who is good fundamentally) was fundamentally better than Hagler. Unless you're someone who only watched Hagler's last 3 fights (which is where the aura that he's a brawler as opposed to an elite boxer puncher came from). I can take boxers from the 70s that never even grabbed belts and can argue they were fundamentally better (Ronnie Harris for example). Let alone if you add in fighters like Moore, Charles, Walcott, Benton..............hell you can argue even the yesteryear brawlers were better fundamentally than damn near all of the elite boxer/punchers of contemporary times.

As for Inoue who I'm very high on, he's not even the most fundamentally solid in the lower divisions today let alone compared to guys from the past. The best, yeah. The most fundamentally solid, no.

If anything, it's regressed. There's so many subtleties that aren't even used these days that were commonplace historically.

 

But hold on a minute doesn't a fighter have to atleast have standout performances against upper echelon names so you can actually make a judgment on how skillful they are ? especially when you're making such a bold claim how Golovkin is the most skillful Middleweight of all time.

Yeah Golovkin did look good beating up the likes Geale, Macklin, but when he stepped up another level he didn't like this unbeatable monster vs the likes of Canelo, Jacobs, Derveyanchenko.

As for Hopkins wasn't Felix Trinidad the P4P number 2 with a 40-0 record aswell as being the favourite over Hopkins ? not to mention Trinidad actually destroyed William Joppy at Middleweight proving he was certainly legit at Middleweight.

Infact Hopkins vs Trinidad & Canelo vs Golovkin is actually quite similar both Trinidad and Canelo both moved up to Middleweight. And both had only 1 at Middleweight prior to both fighting long reigning champions. Except Trinidad was more impressive destroying Joppy in 5 rounds in his 1st fight at Middleweight where as Canelo went 12 rounds with Chavez Jr in his 1st fight at Middleweight.

Bit different than Brook who to my knowledge had never fought at even Jr Middleweight prior to Golovkin fight let alone at Middleweight so yes Brook jumping up 2 weightclasses was certainly a mismatch.

Also Hopkins has a one sided win over Tarver at Light Heavyweight who is considered one of the better Light Heavyweights of the last 20 years or so. Hopkins win over Tarver is better than any win on Golovkin's resume.