I don´t know what you are watching, but thats the skill level of the two best fighting in the 30s, while the other are boxers below the best in late 80s/90s: https://viewsync.net/watch?v=qs1VaA0SvZM&t=183.38&v=85zgclH5JPw&t=70.5&mode=solo I guess @Pat M is gonna like this
Lol did specifically state late 30s. But alas just look at the technical wonder that is Wilder and Max looks overtly technical.
Gee thanks GOAT, I was going to ignore this thread until you drew my attention to it..., it's your fault, I didn't want to hurt any feelings LOL. Putting those two videos side by side...Schmeling and Baer look like two 14 year olds who got boxing gloves for Christmas while Douglas and McCall look like professional athletes. Douglas and McCall could have knocked Schmeling and Baer out in their dressing rooms to warm up before the fight and it wouldn't have been any more dangerous than shadow boxing. If someone offered me the biggest collection of old fight films in the world with the stipulation that I had to watch the fights before I could sell it, I'd tell them to keep it. I'd rather watch two kids slap box.
Skills are individual-related, not era related. It's that simple - you have boxing technicians in any era but you also have always crude sluggers there. People who act like there were times before we haven't seen any skilled fighter are ridiculous. Joe Gans started his career in 1890s and he's tremendous. There are more examples than that.
I've never had much interest in heavyweights because I grew up watching the lower weight classes; to me, middleweight is the big boys. Historically, heavy has always been acknowledged as the least skilled division. There is a reason the words big and dumb roll so easily off the tongue together. Most boxing 'technique 'changes came about because of equipment changes. The change to rubber soled shoes and away from leather soles and the resin box changed footwork considerably. With the smaller gloves you saw more guys blocking punches away from their body. The attached thumbs did away with the old style parries and changed how you clinch, how you turn a guy and so on. There has been a big change, in my opinion, about what constitutes being successful when you talk about defending punches. The emphasis used to be on drawing a punch and countering it. That was the point behind the low hands, draw a particular punch, see it coming and counter. That has changed. Let me use the example of jabbing and the potential of an opponent coming over your jab with a right hand. Now, you need to understand that, if a guy is intent on landing that punch, it is nearly impossible to stop but he'll tip off his idea to an extent that only a fool would let him do it. In the old days the idea would be to pick your spot, drop your left, then look to time his right with your own. Today, you are more likely to be taught to hold your left hand unnaturally high and to pull your left hand "just as fast as it goes out" (which is absolutely asinine) and the standard for success is if you block the punch. Better yet, if you discourage him from throwing the punch altogether. The mindset has changed; of course there are exceptions of occasion and opportunity, and probably even some by design that I'm not thinking about. But, as a general thing, the mindset has changed and the emphasis on a "high guard" proves it. And it is much much easier to tell 'keep your hands up ' and teach a "high guard" than it is to teach a guy to draw and counter.
We were taught to watch the jab, if the opponent is bringing it back low or slow, to draw the jab, give the top of your head, keeping the left side of the chin behind the left shoulder, and throw the right as the opponent jabs. One of the trainers I had, and who taught this technique told a story of fighting amateur in the late 50s, early 60s. He said there was an amateur fight and one fighter died after the fight. The fighter who won the fight became feared by a lot of guys and couldn't get fights. The trainer wanted to fight the feared fighter because he had seen him fight and knew that he brought his jab back low. The trainer stopped him by drawing the jab and throwing the right hand. Good point about the leather soles on the shoes, the same trainer used to always mention that as one of the biggest changes. He said that he used to use a pocket knife and cut grooves in the leather soles to help get traction.
Heavyweights, at least, peaked in the 60s/70s/80s, and the 90s Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes - the big names Liston, Patterson, Shavers, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis, Lyle... Even guys like Joe Bugner, Buster Mathis... all great fighters. For the 90s, we had Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman (again), Bowe, Douglas, Holmes (again), Morrison, Mercer, Moorer... a lot of great boxers! From 2000s-today, we had the Klitchzkos, Haye, Wilder, Fury, Joshua, Ruiz Jr... Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Leonard... big names for the lower weight classes in the 80s. 2000s-today we had Mayweather Jr, Canelo, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Mosley, Calzaghe, Crawford, GGG, Spence Jr, just to name a few. The heavyweight division was definitely quiet for the past 20 years or so, always consistently been great fighters and competition in the lower weights.
Why don't you look at other Schmeling fights where he looks much better? Against Louis, Sharkey II, Uzcudun, Walker, Foord. There is so much to choose from, yet you picked Schmeling's worst filmed fight. I wonder why...
This content is protected these men look more skilled and theyre decades older. Now a lot that has been mentioned is nice. But I still don’t know what they know “now” that they didn’t do then? Having new equipment or shaping ones fight game around it isn’t a skill. It’s an adjustment for the time.
Charles vs Johnson AND Charles vs Louis are some of the greatest, most skilled chess matches ever. They were at HW, 30 years before Douglas/McCall.
and these kind of fighters fought weekly times thousands of fighters world wide... the TOP Levels among the TOP Boxing Nations was a different level just to be among them, they EARNED their position among them. for me it's always been that simple, you can't argue against numbers, Number of Fighters competing, Number of Fights per year, Number of Fights against fellow Top Fighters, Number of years before getting into Top Realms, Number of years before fighting for major titles, which were much more significant then than now... 17 Divisions 5 Governing Bodies at least. 20-25 Fight World Champions - C'mon.
Is it really a given, that pre-WW2 boxers were at a different (higher) level, because they often had 100+ fight careers? Don't you think, there are other things to consider? Like, for example, that many of today's champions had enormous amateur experience at the highest level. Lomachenko is a double Olympic gold medalist and two-time amateur world champion. So is Rigondeaux. Do you think, they would have become better pro champions if they had first raked up 40-50 fights against no-hopers, before challenging for a world title?
agree, yes your right, some strong considerations yes. but they weren't all no hopers. look at Journeymen and Noted fighters, many, many a fine fighter among them and with Pools Levels in the past, into the hundreds regionally and thousands nationally, i.e Britain, nevermind the world, yes some quality fighters running around there.
You don't see feints? I have no problems spotting them or body work. Fighters like Ruiz, Parker, Joshua, Povetkin and Ortiz are quite complete in the tools they use I think. Wilder of course is very limited. Fury is actually one of the more limited top HWs today as well. Mainly he has a good jab and is very good at utilising his height and reach advantage, but give him Ruiz's height and reach and Ruiz would eat him up. I personally believe that the main change at HW is how big the guys have become while still being effective. I suppose PEDs are a large factor, but it's is very hard to say with the understandable lack of transparency in terms of PED use.
Look at film of SRR and Joe Louis. Heck even Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Durán, Ali, SRL, etc. The main things that have evolved the sport outside of HWs are rules. Whether that be neutral corners after a KD, 3 KD rule, number of rounds, referee advice on TKOs, etc. When it comes to HWs size has certainly made a difference but there have always been monster sized HWs. Most of them have been flash in the pans. The evolution of other sports has impacted on their boxing presence. The first true super HW on the world scene in a modern sense was Primo. How did it turn out for him?
