Classic vs. Modern Boxing

Does this apply to divisions other than heavyweight?

 

Older was better. Could it have something to do with the frequency of fights? How do you expect to become great at what you do when you ply your trade only once or twice a year? But, I think the reason goes even deeper than that.

There was a time where every city had a dozen boxing gyms populated with great trainers. Today boxing is on the decline. The best athletes are entering other sports and great trainers who used to be everywhere cant be found no where.

Lack of talent pool. You go from eight weight divisions and one sanctioning body to seventeen weight divisions and four “major” sanctioning bodies, most of which won’t even recognize fighters from the other groups, much less let allow them to fight each other. Then you add on top of that, the fact that most of today’s fighters simply do not put in the time in the gym, much less fights, so the activity level alone is a major factor in their lack of development.

Meaningless records. We don’t have the fight clubs anymore, so the only way a fighter can make any money is to get on TV. The only way to get on TV is to have a perfect, or near perfect record. The only way to have a perfect record is (A) be a Superman, or (B) fight a bunch of nobodies. Guess what? Most records are built up by fighting far less than qualified fighters, which may get you on TV, but helps a fighter learn nothing! “Old School” fighters and trainers were more concerned with having their fighter face different styles, even if it meant a loss or more, so that they could learn and progress, because they knew there would be another fight next month, because fights didn’t depend on protected pugs with undefeated records. Thus the “Old School” fighters learned.

Corners without a clue. If I have heard it once, I have heard it a thousand times in a corner during a fight. The scene goes something like this. The fight is lopsided in favor of the other fighter, the camera follows the beaten up fighter back to his corner. The guys imitating real seconds jump into the ring (usually 10 or so seconds late), throw water everywhere except where it’s needed, and then give the following words of advice, “This is it! You’ve got to go for it all.” Then they jump out of the ring, usually forgetting to even put the mouthpiece back in.

But the big reason why “Old School” was better, is while you have people today who train boxers, who teach fitness and nutrition, there is no one around teaching the finer skills of the sport. I was taught, and a lot of fighters I’ve seen on film used their whole body to box. They carried their left hand a little low, they used their right hand to block or parry punches (You don’t even hear anyone use the WORD parry anymore!).

“Old School” knew how how to use their shoulders, to keep their left shoulder in front and forward. They knew how to stay balanced when they punched.

And how many fights have you seen lately stopped on cuts? Old School fighters were taught that an orthodox fighter should always keep his face turned slightly to the right when he jabs, so when heads do collide, the side of your head get hit, and you don’t get busted up around the eyes.

And “Old SchooL” fighters knew how to throw a left hook. You do not extend your arm when you throw a hook! When you hook, your left foot and hip has to turn with the punch, all with the same motion. That’s where the power comes from. But today you see hooks flailing out like kites in the wind. And I won’t even get into the art of timing a punch, because if you ain’t Old School, you won’t have a clue, and if you are, you already know!

 

......i liked little red's question about the new fighters being bigger and stronger and heavyweights are always given as examples. red's comment begs the quetion "what about the smaller weights." this brings up the counter i always give.....147 pounds was 147 pounds was is and always will be 147 pounds.....135, 160.....etc. these fighters have to make these divisions and there won't be any nearly seven feet tall among them.

 

I think there's something to this. As I get older, I find myself nostalgic for all sorts of things from my teens and twenties (music, television shows, etc.), so why wouldn't this happen - at least to some degree - with boxing?

Now, this said, there ARE demonstrable things, as has been detailed in previous posts, that WERE done better in earlier periods, and this should not be entirely dismissed where there is evidence for it. Neither, however, should advocates of the superiority of old timers ignore the advances that have happened in recent years.

 

IF boxing is greater now than ever it was it must have been absolute ****!!!

Fighting IS different from ALL other sport, the more you fight the better you get and the better your constant opposition the better you get... key words being constant & opposition.

a Golden Age in anything means just that, there were/ARE times in loads of different things that just meant More, Better or Turning/Changing.

I am a younger person who has No Problem understanding this and certainly recognise this about Boxing, it was simply better at different times, and likewise todays age is among some of the worst periods the sport has ever known!

 

Spot on! You'll get people slating you and telling you all sports have improved so boxing must have, but boxing IS an exception because of the issues you have highlighted.

Talking of the left hook; I watched a guy in his thirties showing how to throw one on youtube. He explained the mechanics of the punch very well and actually said "most other sports are progressing, but boxing is regressing", with regard to boxing technique. This guy was quite a modern thinker, too.

I see good skills in fighters from all eras. I am not saying all today's fighters are unskilled by any means. I just hate the opposite view that fighters are fitter and better now and old timers couldn't compete. One guy I know, a complete non-boxer, commented once saying "They are so much fitter, now".
I replied "Fitter than Ray Robinson or Marvin Hagler?" . He had no comeback.

To all the newbies, I say this: In 50 years, how many of today's champs will be talked about ? I can think of Barrera, Pac Man and Mayweather off the top of my head, then I'm struggling.

 

Morales, Ward, Wlad.

 

I couldn't agree more Houdini nor really add anything to what you've already said. A couple of points: The economics of the old times dictated MANY more fights per year to, quite simply, put food on the table and pay the bills. Let all of these post-90 'badasses' fight 8-10 times a year and their W-L record is going to take a beating. Also, nutrition, training, etc, have given the 'moderns' more body mass and fluidity. To trowel out my endless mantra, you just can't compare fighters from vastly different eras.
The Klits in the 20's-30's would have been leaner, less powerful men around 200-225 with less skills. Patterson in 2000 would have been a 205 whirlwind. Dempsey in 2000 would have been a 210 wrecking machine. Joe Louis in 2000 would have been a 210 Cobra. Tyson wouldn't have been the total anailator he was in the 20's -30's. A bigger Langford maybe?
Total BS, and, as you said, you've now got champs at every 4-5 pounds with no 'sanctioned' body recognizing any of each others 'contenders. So we now have 30-40 "top ten contenders" in every division. Absolute BS which is why I go only to the classic forum. Sugar Ray (the real one) in 2000? Gimme a $#%&* break. I total ball-breaker. If someone wants to start a thread like this let them go the the "general' section and have it out with the other 20-30 yr. old somethings!

 

Morales, yes. Not the other two imo. Short list, though?

 

Absolutely. I would never say none of today's fighters don't match up....A few do.

When I hear the Klit brothers with their stand up very Olympic robotic style being thought of in the same vein as Louis and Ali something is wrong. Neither brother exhibits a fraction of the skills that would be expected of an all time great. Just laughable.

 

It's not the best age and it's not the worst either. I was thinking about the middleweight division yesterday. Sergio Martinez and Bernard Hopkins might not be able to take Robinson, Monzon, or Hagler but they could probably hold their own against the likes of Randy Turpin, Paul Pender, Terry Downes, Billy Soose, etc.

And while Floyd Mayweather isn't in my top 10 welterweights, I think he'd do well against past champs like Billy Backus, Curtis Cokes, Virgil Akins, Marty Servo, and you get the picture. The past has it's weak links too.

Also, I think a lot of fighters peak before their 100th fight. How good was Robinson just starting out? A lot of athletes look to have about 80% of what they are going to have just as amateurs. And a lot of them show signs of greatness in their early fights. These boxers had careers around 30-40 fights: Floyd Mayweather Jr, Pernell Whitaker, Andre Ward, Miguel Cotto, Ray Leonard, Aaron Pryor, Salvador Sanchez, Joe Frazier, Carlos Palomino, Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Azuma Nelson, Alfonso Zamora, Wilfredo Gomez, Jeff Fenech, Rocky Marciano, Joe Calzaghe, Michael Spinks, etc. You might argue that fighting less often let's them focus on major opponents instead of getting injured and worn down constantly fighting bums every week.

A lot of the old guys didn't fight every week to 200 fights either. Rocky Graziano only went to 67. Gene Fullmer had 64 fights. Jose Torres had 45. Johnny Saxton had 66.

 

Feast your eyes on Guillermo Jones, 6' 4" spent half of his career as a welterweight. http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=7532&cat=boxer Recently had a pretty nice dust up with Denis Lebedev. How the hell did he manage to get so low for so long? He must have looked like an Auschwitz prisoner!

 

Well, everybody knows that boxing can't actually regress generally, it's about if you want to accept it or not. But some people are trying to discredit the old times by any means, it's equally funny to people trying to discredit present.