Old Timers Argument

He won't have meant that. It's definitely not true.

 

i think he means the technical aspects of the game have progressed. this is a very complicated subject. it some ways it has. In benny leonards era they were just starting to punch in combination and if he fought like that against mosley, he'd probably lose. some aspects of the game evolved over time but the skills of the fighters themselves haven't. nor have they devolved.

 

They used combinations even before Benny Leonard. Watch Johnson-Willard for example.

 

There's "progress", and there's also the timeless x-factor that is human (mental) frailty to consider in these "plucked from the continuum as-is" fantasy matches. Presumably a fighter using the archaic "crouch" would be considered technically to be several generations behind a more modern, "advanced" fighter.

However, if you threw a halfway decent pressure-fighting practitioner of the crouch in with a moderately skillful prospect today, the prospect would **** their pants. They would be stylistically stymied, as it just isn't something they've ever been confronted with. Meanwhile, the old-timer, who carries far fewer if any assumptions about what to expect from his opponent having not had to train for a set number of techniques (because they didn't exist yet) - would have an easier time ad******g, even having never seen a modern pure boxer before.

So there's that.

 

true but it still wasn't common. footage from those eras, especially the jeffries/johnson eras, show single punching and frequent clinching. it was a part of the time but they were not throwing with the fluidity of today. it's not a judgement call but the number of punches thrown per round (or 3 minute interval) was SIGNIFICANTLY less

 

The way this question is worded is confusing to me, but I voted no, as in (with everything else being equal) modern fighters have no edge over the old timers.

 

Well, what is skill? Was Ali more skilled than Frazier? I don't hink so. They had different styles that needed different skills. Both had the skills they needed to be great with their styles.

Personally, I think the skills developed from the early days to the 30s, more or less stagnated for about 40 years and then started slowly to degress.

 

Well, but they fought not for 12 rounds but 20, 25 or more. Of course they punched less per round. And you were talking about the Benny Leonard era. When in the Johnson era combination were already used, you may assume it was even more common 10-15-20 years later.

 

i agree with your argument that it's often styles rather than skill but to say there is a degression is just as false as saying that there has been an evolution. fighters fight differently based on the era in which they compete. each era has their great, good and bad fighters.

 

still wasn't nearly as frequent as today, even in the benny leonard era. you simply did not see fighters with 4-5 punch combinations often, if at all. again, it's not a judgement and like you said, a product of the time. partly because they fought much longer fights at the turn of the century.

 

Well, I see it a bit different. There are many techniques not used today even so they would be effective and those who do are among the very best nowadays or recently: Hopkins, Mayweather, Toney.

 

Of course there are arguments. Whether or not they're good ones is the question. And you can't really assume same rules for different eras. A lot of current fighters would probably be one or two weight classes higher if not for prior day weigh-ins. 150 pounds today does not equal 150 pounds 50 years ago.

On top of that, depending on how old you're talking, there have been actual progressions in the sport, as well as progressions in fitness, how often someone fights, too many other factors to name here. So there are LOTS of arguments that modern fighters would have an edge. There are also lots of arguments that the old timers would have the edge. It's just a matter of which arguments you're more prone to believe.

 

this is true and toney and hopkins have rightly been referred to as old school fighters for this very reason. i'm just of the mind that no era got it all right and certainly things that were done then should be adopted, the same as certain things that have arisen over time would have served previous generations. otherwise, no fighter from the modern era could possibly surpass previous generations.

 

i remember a ring article back in the day where holyfield said there is no way boxers from the 1950s had the same level of fitness and training as today as modern techniques have evolved so much.

what is silly about that is that holyfield himself, at heavyweight, didn't have anywhere NEAR the stamina of someone like marciano did. and he would have fared far worse, heart condition or not, if his post cruiserweight career had been in the 15 round era

 

There is an argument, yes. I peronally do not agree with the argument and I do not think it is a very solid argument.