Do you think technique evolves?

Great post.

All of the techniques were mastered many moons ago.

We just have great fighters of all eras, all with different styles to complement those skills.

And every fighter is going to have a few flaws or stylistic issues against certain opponents.

 

Only if you apologize for being a patronizing ass who acts smarter then they really are. Address the argument instead of being butt hurt that I challenged your dogmas

 

Sure there is top fighters build up from what worked in the past to improve themselves that's how sports work. It's why any athlete today is better then athletes in the past idk why Boxing is the exception to this rule. Look at MMA top MMA fighters are WAY better then in they were even 10 years ago.

 

We like to forget that the champion from 2023, the real champion..... lost (or won by 1 round, same thing) to a MMA fighter that had zero nuance in his boxing ability.

 

The sport matured in training methods and how to combine all things. But there was no new discoveries in how to wrestle or how to kick, the fundamentals are not new.

 

Dorrian_Grey,


I’ll address your previous post, after I’ve said the following things:


First of all, I have given you plenty of opportunities to rephrase what you have written.

And the reason I’ve done that, is because if we follow your statement, where we take it literally, then you are just flat out wrong, where it’s easily provable.

Now you could have said a few different things.

You could have worded it in a different way.

But what you have said, is that each new generation is more skilled, with better technique, than the previous ones.


But again, that simply CANNOT be the case.

It cannot be a continuous cycle, where every new generation of fighters are superior to their predecessors.

That does NOT happen.

It cannot happen.

It is simply illogical.

And the proof is staring us all in the face, just simply by looking at each weight class.


Now you are cherry picking a few of your favourite fighters as examples.

But that is not objective.

Again, look at each division. Look at the 10-20 best fighters there, before making comparisons and analysing their skill sets to all of their predecessors from previous decades.


Now please read this next part very carefully:

If you are right, where we take your statement literally, for a literal interpretation of it, then that would mean that this current generation of fighters as a whole, would be so far advanced of anyone from decades ago, that any comparison between the eras, would be a laughable waste of time.

It would mean that today’s group of WW’s would be LEVELS above the group of WW’s that fought in the early 80’s, to the point where a comparison wouldn’t even be worth anyone’s time.

It would mean that today’s group of 2024 fighters would be the greatest fighters we’d ever seen, across each weight class.


Now do you understand that that’s what it would mean, if we were to take your comments literally?

For you to be right, where each generation keeps becoming better, in a continuous cycle, it would HAVE TO MEAN that today’s LWW’s were the best ever, and head and shoulders above any LWW’s we’ve ever seen in past generations.

It would have to mean, that today’s HW’s, SMW’s and JMW’s, were the best and most skilled of all time.

That’s what it would have to mean, in order for your theory to be right.


So: Unless you’re completely and utterly delusional, you have to realise that you are flat out wrong.


Yes, skills and technique have evolved.

Of course they have.

But the techniques and skills were mastered many moons ago.

There have always been great technicians.

We just have guys with different styles to complement them.


We have great Euro fighters with great technical skills, with that Euro style, like Usyk, Loma, Beterbiev and GGG.

We’ve had Floyd Mayweather and James Toney with great technical skills, with the shoulder roll and the Philly shell.

We’ve had guys with great technical skills, but with highly unorthodox styles, like Roy Jones, Muhammad Ali and Pernell Whittaker.

We’ve had Mike McCallum, as well as the great old school technicians like Archie Moore, Roberto Duran, Joe Louis and Benny Leonard etc.

Guys of all different sizes, all from different divisions.

And every one of them have had a few flaws, where ALL of them have had stylistic issues with certain opponents.


Again, the sport has clearly evolved. But it does not keep continuously evolving, to the point where we know how good the next generation of WW’s and MW’s etc, are going to be. We cannot know how good they’re going to be. Because the sport ebbs and flows. The next generation of WW’s maybe the best we’ve ever seen. But they’re just as likely to be nowhere near as good as today’s current crop.

 

And yet striking today is LEAGUES better then it was people actually know how to jab how to set up punches how to double up etc kicking is still not at the best but it's getting there.

 

Boxing has had much more time to straighten things out and find out what works and what doesn't. The sport reached that stage since the 80's, nearly a decade before MMA's archaic roots of one martial art against another, weight mismatches and a vale tudo ruleset.

 

Those things were discovered in the last 10 years ? Freddie Roach was trainning MMA guys back in 2008.
The talent pool for MMA today is much much bigger, that, and the way coaches matured in how they combine stuff in training camps is why you see this.

 

Name me a single fighter from 2008 who's as good a striker as Volk, holloway, Yan or Edwards

 

@Dorrian_Grey I am making a lot of assumptions in this post but I think everything you’ve said here is likely very silly. Watch more boxing.

 

This is not what I am saying. You didn´t get it;
I´m not disputing that there are better fighters in MMA right now, I am discussing the reasons for that. It´s not due to techniques evolving.

 

Dorrian_Grey,


Now I have read everything that you have written in your previous post to me. But I wasn’t able to quote it, due to it exceeding the limited number of characters.

But let me tell you something:

It’s one of the worst, most disingenuous posts, that I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading.


1. You haven’t answered the questions that I kindly asked you in my previous post.

2. This is not objective analysis, across a handful of fights.

3. This is cherry picked garbage to suit your agenda.


I don’t really know where to start.

What a complete waste of your time.

You haven’t answered my questions, but have taken all that time to write rubbish.

It’s absolutely baffling.

Normally, I’d respect the time and effort that has gone into a post like this. But due to the content, I absolutely can’t.


Now you have taken one Danny Jacobs fight, where you have listed many positive things, where you’ve then took one Hearns fight, where you’ve listed many negative things, and without factoring in many things, such as the stylistic match ups etc.

Now what on earth do you think that the footage proves??

Start a thread, and do a poll, asking who was more skilled.

Now, I could give you many examples of where Jacobs struggled in bouts, and where Hearns showed amazing technique, in fights against the likes Leonard and Benitez etc.


Regarding the rest of your BS:

I can also show you lots of footage of Lara struggling, and I can also show you lots of great footage of McCallum setting traps and boxing beautifully, against the likes of Toney, in one of the most skilled fights of all time. I can also show you him systematically breaking down a prime Michael Watson. I can show you his great technique against Sumbu Kalambay. I can show you him breaking up Julian Jackson. I can show you him fighting the extremely elusive Graham.

I too can show you footage, and give in-depth, detailed breakdowns with lots of analysis.

Again, start a thread and do a poll, asking if Lara is more skilled than McCallum.


A fan video of Golovkin-Marvin?

Brilliant.

I can make an edited video of where Amir Khan looked superior to Ray Leonard.

I could literally do that.


No jab?

That’s why you suspect that Marvin wouldn’t fight Benitez?


What planet are you on exactly?

I can show you Marvin’s jab.

I can show you his smooth transitioning from orthodox to southpaw.

Benitez was a genius. But he got bashed up by Hamsho in a horrible stylistic match up for him up at MW.


Golovkin is great. But I can show you how easy to hit he is, where a WW in Kell Brook, was bouncing combinations off of him like a speed ball. I can show you flaws of his, where he struggled to beat Jacobs and Derev.


Chisora? Wow.


Now let me just simplify things for you, as you’ve really gone way past any form of objectivity:


Look at today’s group of WW’s. Not just Crawford. But today’s top 5-10 fighters.

Then go and compare them to the guys of the early 80’s, such as: Hearns, Duran, Leonard, Kalule and Benitez etc.

Compare their skill sets.


Then compare today’s WW’s to the top 5-10 WW’s of the 90’s, such as: Oscar, Whittaker, Mosley and Tito etc.


Then do the same with the JMW’s, comparing those same eras.


Here’s a laugh for us all:

Go and compare today’s top 10 MW’s, with the ones from the early 90’s, such as: Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn, Toney, Johnson, Jones and Hopkins etc.


You go and look at those fighters in their primes. Go and analyse their skill sets. Their technique and their skills.

Go and do that, and then come back to me and tell me that skills and technique CONTINUALLY IMPROVE over time, where today’s guys are superior.

Those guys of the early 90’s, from THIRTY YEARS ago, were on another level completely. So much so, that’s it’s a laughable comparison, in favour of those OLDER generation of fighters.


So: You are talking absolute nonsense, and just cherry picking a few examples, whereas I can compare a huge number of fighters, from many different divisions and eras.


Now the only thing of value what you’ve written, is your very last line:

“I don’t get why saying that boxing knowledge improving overtime leading to more skilled fighters is that controversial really”


Yes, that has happened.

But again, it does not happen in a continuous cycle.

 

Great post.

This is all that needed to be said really.