When Fans talk about 'modern technique' and their prehistoric counterparts...

Negative.

 

whatever ya say buddy...

 

JimmyShimmy is an old school nuthugger.

 

I understand Jimmys arguement.

The rules have changed so fighters styles hve had to chnage to adapt with these changes but they would have cross over skills in each era.

For example could you see someone like Winky Wright being sucessful in the 1890s? Just different rulesets that fighters adapted too.

For example i think Bob Fitzsimmons would actually do quite well in the modern era as he was a patient stalking counter puncher. He had a calm head and a big punch and would do well in a shoot out. Or a boxing match but i think his stylistic flaw is a swarmer especially one who uses lots of combinations. This is just an example. (i dont think Fitz H2H is that amazing i think hes about a second tier at MW to LHW/CW. His resume is what makes him great.)

 

To JimmyShimmy; THIS is how you write an objective post:good

 

i think Jimmy does it to take the **** sometimes though

 

That is indeed 100% fact, Boxing is the only sport i can think of that doesnt evolve like other sports. Fighters are fighters, each with they're own techniques and there own training methods and that doesnt change over time. Whitaker and Jones would have been stars in any era as would Jack Johnson and Benny Leonard .... You do have discrepancies when modern day 'Super Heavyweights' sit behind that jab and score they're way to victory as Lewis and the Klitschko's do, using they're size advantage, but nobody is fooled with that.
The older fighters were far better, the amount of fighters that are tired nowadays after doing 8 or 9 rounds is unbelievable, the old timers had everything that modern day fighters had and much much more in the ticker department, tactically and stamina wise .. Im with Jimmyshimmy on this one.

 

I know. It's crazy to think that after throwing punches for nine rounds as opposed to cuddling for 20....how are they so tired?

 

I agree with this to a certain extent.

Modern techniques have been evolving from the very day boxing gloves were introduced, settling out around 1940. Some fighters in the late twenties were pioneering such techniques, such as Kid Chocolate, before Barney Ross, Joe Louis and Henry Armstrong put the final touches on them in the '30s. After that, the old Jack Johnson style fighters had been eradicated, along with hybrids like Tony Canzoneri and Jimmy McLarnin.

It doesn't mean to say the pre-'30s fighters were any less skilled; men have been fighting since their earliest stage of development and have had thousands of years to get it right. Hence, a few decades makes little difference.

But rules do, and so does equipment. Wearing a pair of four ounce gloves, you're going to find it hard to summon the courage to slip punches, because the times they do land, your eyebrows are going to be split open. It was much more economical back then to simply lean back from punches or paw them away rather than duck or slip, risking more serious injury. Then there's the broken hands problem; bareknuckle fighters would need to place their shots on specific soft targets, but a quick flurry might have them hitting elbows and foreheads which could easily crack a knuckle. Wasn't worth it.

The only thing I will say is that nutrition and professionalism have undoubtedly advanced in the last hundred years as science has moved on, although a handful of the top competitors in ye olden days did train hard (but generally not as hard as modern boxers who make a career out of it).

 

Right can I just copy and paste this everytime someone engages me on why I feel modern fighters would do well H2H against fighters from 'back in the day'. Not even saying that's what you're arguing but that's basically what I type every time someone engages me on the subject:good

 

Copy it if you want mate :good

 

Sound, it will save me a lot of trouble. Although I'm more than likely to just say 'look I've been over this before etc etc'