Is there an argument that the great boxers from the past...

...who fought as regularly as 2-3, or even 4 times a month never quite reached a 'peak', or even their 'potential', given the amount of preparation that goes in to a training camp nowadays?

Training camps nowadays cover everything from fitness, to studying the opponents strengths and weaknesses, to gameplans, etc...and can regularly take place over 6-8 or more weeks (for the top boxers, anyway).

Or, is the fact that they fought so regularly what made them so great and capable of reaching such 'peaks' and 'potential'?

 

Both.

However much weight one puts on either arguments explains why they feel the way they do when comparing eras of the past to recent ones.

 

:happy This thread was a success :happy

So you believe that the ATG boxers from the past who fought very regularly could have reached a higher level of in ring performance given more time and specifics in a training camp. But what made them so great was their familiarity with a boxing ring, and this allowed them to reach the level of performance they did. That's fair enough.

Have I got that right?

 

Anthony, you deserve so much better.

It's kind of a tricky question to answer as I think there are pros and cons to both. To keep it concise, at the end of the day I think the old timers (sort of eyeing the 30s-50s in particular) were greater and reached higher levels due to almost constantly having to challenge themselves against the best opposition available while being in almost perpetual fighting shape. These days, just having two top rated fighters get in the ring is looked at as treat where as back then this was the norm, and there were far fewer divisions in which to be 'rated' without any easy-out trinket straps to stage **** 'title defenses' for. The downside is that when you are learning and honing your skills and ability on the job, fighting name opponents regularly, you're going to pick up a few losses for your troubles especially fighting on the type of schedules they did to earn a living. W-L ratios it would seem have gradually come to be ever so significant in the recent modern climate.

 

Boxing IS experience. There is only so much to learn, actually: How to punch, how to move, how to block and parry, and when to punch. The rest of it is comfort, awareness, presence, conditioning, and all that lovely stuff that 99% of men can only get through rounds. Sparring serves this purpose some, but ultimately, to get a true comfort level and a solid identity as a prizefighter, you need to prizefighter.

Archie Moore, as an overall athlete, doesn't look all that impressive on film. But he is a perfect technician; He dictates fights in every sense. That is experience, grit, and a steely mind that people still talk about. I've heard old timers say that when you sat ringside at a Moore fight, you watched his eyes, his feet, and his waist, and you saw artistry.

This is, in fact, what boxing is actually about, and this mindset is dying out.

 

Yes and No

 

Quality posts. Can't say I disagree with any of it. :good

 

Thanks, Jane. I can safely go to the gym with my mind at rest now. lol:

 

Great post, but its not your own. You just copied it from this thread in the classic :-(

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435244

post #15

 

Oh, Dear.

 

Skittles, 0/10 for effort

10/10 for the audacity of plagiarising from the actual website you are using the content on

That's some oceans 11 type bravado

 

:rofl

When reading that from Skittlez I was actually thinking: why can't he post like this more often?

 

You can train for everything you need to do, but once you get in the ring it's a completely different ballgame.

Having multiple fights, although a higher risk for injury and shorter career, will be the one that will provide the necessary experience for a pro to truly excel.

 

Busted. :rofl