Picking out the technical shortcomings as compared to modern boxing - McFarland-Welsh

Yes it is but one your opponent does know this too and two fighters back thenknew this too, if you read boxing manuals of the time you see that straight punches are the ones that are recommended. There was a sticky once where some manuals were lunked but sadly it´s gone. Perhaps Janitor can help out on that one.

 

Gans's opponent wasn't much, but a nice display of straight punching nonetheless in a very early film of boxing:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML5WLvrc0P8[/ame]

 

Well they didnt follow those manuals. Wouldnt you agree there are more fighters fighting less squared and throwing straighter shots?

You can do the test yourself. Stand in a boxing stance with your hands up. Now square your upperbody and throw punches. After that turn your lead shoulder more in line with your lead foot and throw punches. Tell me which creates a bigger target, and which allows you to punch straighter with better power and leverage?

 

I believe the rules and conditions then called for more toughness and determination than skill or speed. As a result there were less technicians, not that there weren't any. The techniques were there, but weren't necessarily implemented by everyone as you could get away with mistakes if you were simply tough and strong enough to outlast the opponent.

 

There were plenty of fighters around who followed those manuals but the game was different. You weren´t going 12 or 15 rounds but 20, 25 or more. Stamina, toughness, strength in the clinches, think of Jeffries, were more important thus fighters who´s strength those things were were more successful than technicians. They were simply outlasted and out-toughed. Of course there were some fighters who combined both, like McFarland, like Gans, like Corbett and others. And look how well they did.

Actually it´s a bit similar today. Back then it was stamina, toughness and strength, today athleticism is perceived as beeing more important than technique - I disagree - and thus you see a decline in technique over the last 30 years - of course there are exceptions just like back then.

 

Maximizing your punches and making yourself a smaller target has nothing to do with that, it only enhances everything.

 

Again going back to my video, I wouldnt consider Shane Mosley much of a technician, yet he utilizes some of the more modern day techniques to make him less of a target and get more out of his punches. He may have fought exactly like these guys had he been in their time.

 

Depends on what you are doing. Ever fought under the rules of then? Clinching was as if not more important than punching, with everything they did they hat to keep in mind that they will enter a clinch and had to seek a better position when entering it. beeing squared up gave you an advantage there.

btw. do you notice that squaring up is a becoming a trend again over the last 30 years?

 

Information is much more wide-spread nowadays though. Mosley sparred all the greats and learned a lot from them. Many of the fighters in the early 1900's didn't have that option, but they could still get by with sheer toughness which was called for in a fight to the finish, and even a 20 round battle.

Some of today's athletically most gifted boxers can barely go 12, and crude fighters have been able to upset them. Even in Mosley's case, tough as he is, his nervous movements and over-exerting could wear him out if he had to go 15 or 20 rounds.

I believe we should acknowledge that the early rules of boxing simply called for different attributes than today's 12 round bouts, not that the techniques wouldn't have helped, but they weren't necessary. This doesn't mean the techniques suddenly appeared as boxing "evolved", it's just that they became increasingly important and thus began to be utilized more.

 

I dont know about that, just the overall fighting style was different. If you matched a guy from then with a guy from now the fight would look a lot different.

no but I notice laziness is in the last 10.

 

That´s kind a my point. You just can´t come by with a book of today´s techniques and tell those guys what they do wrong by it. It was nearly a different sport, it does not work that way.

Wheny you put a fighter of today and a fighter of then in one ring, I would ask under which rules they fight and pick the winner accordingly.

You don´t pick a marathon runner over a 100 meter sprinter in a 100 meter race and neither are you taking a 100 meter sprinter over a marathon runner in a marathon. Same here.

 

yes I think you are correct with alot of this, but again, I dont think improving your stance and technique inhibits a fighter physically in anway. They can still clinch, and square up and punch on the inside. I simply think technique has evolved and improved a bit over time.

 

Yes but the more evolved fighter technically speaking is going to have an easier time exploiting his old timer opponent in my opinion. The target is bigger the delivery takes less time, comparably speaking. You may not agree but that is my opinion.
Of course an old time fighter used to going 20 rounds is going to have the advantage later.

 

The orthodoxy on stance has shifed from backfoot to forefoot and back again since 1900.

Thge macean school boxers fought with the weight on the back foot, and criticised fighters like Jack Johnson for fighting with the weight on the front foot.

 

I don´t disagree, I just don´t think it´s the whole story. When it goes into the clinch the old timer will f*ck up the newer guy even more than the newer one does the old-timer on the outside - under his rules.