Good post. Like I said, I think Silver is more right than wrong. But the wrong part seems to ruin the argument completely for many of you. Then again, others here don't get it at all. They think fighters from the 1930s and 40s had LESS skills than those who fought in the television ages.
IMO, that's because Silver's claims have entered the mainstream, which contains two feuding groups: people who want to say modern boxing sucks compared to "back in my day," versus equally adamant people for whom Floyd Mayweather is already a primitive caveman. The "back in my day" people appropriated some bits and pieces of the argument without understanding it. Which is fair enough, since Silver himself created his magnum opus by massively refining a few strains of the "back in my day" tradition as it existed when he first wrote.
You're right, when he talks complete nonsense, it kind of ruins it for me! Like when he claims boxers no longer jabs, like they used to - and then shows os the Arguello vs Olivares fight, so we can all see how superior Olivares' jabbing skills were back then, compared to today's "bums" (in his opinion) like Fulton and Figueroa. Why doesn't he show us a fight like Golovkin vs Lemieux - so we can compare the jabbing skills of Olivares and GGG? And then try to tell us how GGG, the modern boxer, doesn't measure up to the old-timers in that department? Gennady Golovkin vs David Lemeiux Full Fight - YouTube
Yes. That's the problem. People making broad claims about an era based on individual fights. On this forum, I think there are far more people with extreme "modernist" outlook, anti-mikesilvers, than there are "classicists". "Modern fighters don't use jabs" is not something I have encountered many times here, nor is "modern fighters are amateurish brawlers with no skills" but I have many times seen comments like that made and supported many times here, when aimed at "old timers" (esp. pre TV eras).
This wasn't nearly as true 10-15 years ago, when there was much more of a balance on the forum. I wonder whether the current pro-modern tilt comes from superior knowledge (anyone can watch the old fights), growing incompetence (more internet loudmouths these days?), or totally arbitrary factors (more people whose golden age when they were young boxing fans was the 90s).
Silver says Ali would knock out Kiltschko in one round. He's not to be taken seriously. If the fighter is modern he's a hater for sure and simple.
Ali rarely knocked anyone out in 1 round so that is a silly statement, yes. I think Ali had two 1st round knockouts in his entire career. One against a nobody (a Jim Robinson, if I recall correctly) and the other when Sonny took a dive. Wlad would probably last at least 3 or 4 rounds with prime Ali.
My point was with have had several posters here who hold views that are extreme as Silver's but usually they are taking aim at old timers. We have posters who have several times said many world champions of the 1930s would not win a local amateur tournament today, or wouldn't even get a professional licence for a 4 rounder, or wouldn't even last a round of sparring with the boy they have been training in the gym. Seriously. Perhaps trolling. And others supporting these extreme views. Some intelligent posters who should know better. And I don't need to name them. They know who they are.
I can't even begin to fathom the minds of people who think the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Louis, Charles, Moore, Saddler and Pep were not all that. I do wonder whether in the face of those old-timers being OBJECTIVELY more accomplished and proven, some feel the need to bring them down to give other fighters some of the glory. And that has distorted into these extreme iconoclastic positions.
It's weird to take aim at these two, who are hardly the worst offenders of anything anyone doesn't like about modern boxing. Fulton is on a weird "beat them at their own game" kick, he actually has some skills that he's decided to abandon. Could also be trying for a more high action reputation. Where Silver loses me (after being right about a lot of the boxing specific stuff) is his idea about this "dumbed down culture." If the culture is simplifying boxing, favoring style over substance, why are finance and medicine growing enormously in sophistication and substance? What about football, which has exploded in complexity and where teams today are clearly better than their predecessors? Even TV! There are shows with artistic depth way beyond anything on the tube when Arguello was boxing on regularly now. And it's not like Ali was too good for an oddball exhibition, probably would have done them all through the 80s and 90s if he hadn't gotten sick. That kind of shallow thought makes me wonder what else he's wrong about when he's talking about a subject where he knows a lot more and can snow me with that knowledge (namely, boxing).
