Do you think technique evolves?

Good post.

And I absolutely don’t doubt your data.

I don’t doubt the actual, factual numbers.

Yes, it’s a more international sport.

But I’ve been watching the sport for over 30 years now. And although the sport is in a great position with lots of great fighters, the talent pool is noticeably smaller to me, than what it was in the 90’s. And there’s less big fights. Less fights per year for the majority of the top fighters. Less shows. Less boxing gyms in most areas. Less shows on mainstream TV. Less of an interest than what there was back then. It’s just not as popular as what it once was.

 

World population doesn´t matter here, because it counts people born today and people born in 1941.

The baby boomers (40s and 50s I think) were the biggest generation ever in the West (I believe) and especially in USA, when Boxing was a big sport and nothing else too interesting was avaliable. Today we have the smallest generation ever, you see. Sure if you add up every person alive it is a bigger population today but someone is not becoming the HW Champ with 54 years old ! What counts here is the amount of young people born... and our parents and grandparents, you probably know that, were quite good at making babies.

The big decay happened in american boxing, and is one of the whys that the non americans are looking so good (IMO). How can anybody dispute that ? That american boxing today is the worse ever !
And they are, historically, the best at it, by hard numbers. It is like if american basketball players suddenly went downhill...

Now, non-americans are not something new, at all. Like I said, where are the italian, french, koreans, colombians and others today ?

The best Boxing country in the world, in the early 70s, was Venezuela. It seems to me that Australia and Canada have seen better days too !! The best guy p4p in the 60s was a brazilian and in the 70s you can say it was Monzon.

 

We can do that.

But if you think that GGG is the most skilled MW, then you simply can’t be familiar with all of the other great, technically skilled MW’s throughout history, where many of them have been within the last 30-40 years.

 

Skills and techniques revolve around specific rulesets. The sport changed as time went on, going from bare knuckle to gloved, from several dozens of rounds to only 15 and then 12, the invention of the neutral corner rule, the change of shoes, the ways the gloves are made etc. For example, bare knuckle fighting was dangerous for the hands, so body punching was more valued back then, hence the low guard. Fights went way longer with the amount of rounds they had, so clinch work and infighting were key in order to last the amount of required rounds to go the distance, which is why early 20th century fights have so much holding.

The rules were ideal for the complete development of skill by the time the 1920's hit, after that it was just a matter of adjustment, which is why you see some fighters look like night and day despite being from the same decade. Refs allowed infighting, unlike today where use of the head, forearms and shoulders seem to scare both the refs and the fighters. The amount of rounds (15 to sometimes 20) were perfect for volume, activity and aggression, while also still retaining the skills for going the distance. The gloves were smaller, so a good defence wasn't thought of just being a fighter holding his hands up like today. Back then a lot of these guys had to master how to slip, duck, weave and sidestep to get their desired openings, and knowhing when to use them. Today's guys are much more passive and impatient than that, just relying on volume and activity to overwhelm the other guy.

Go and watch Jose Napoles, you'll notice he rarely gets hit despite always having his hands low, guys like Usyk or Canelo today would not be able to pull that off. Watch him pivot while simultaneously throwing his jab to avoid any possible counter. Watch how Duran would set up his hooks to the body while employing underhooks on the inside, which would expose the opponent's ribs. Or how he would take away a fighter's ability to throw with an arm by being in advantageous positions, forcing him to throw with his other hand prior to countering it, leaving his foe with no idea of what to do. Watch how Robinson would telegraph the ever living hell out of his shots in the pocket, yet would get away with it because he knew how to set them up from positions where the opponent either couldn't see the shots coming or couldn't do anything to prevent them. Watch him throwing the jab in an angle where LaMotta can avoid it by bending down to his waist, basically forcing him to do so, so that he could then pound the exposed side of his body with full force.

Those guys were forced to learn all those things, they wouldn't have made it to the top otherwise, yet most fighters today can't even think of such things. We've gone from that to considering an active lead hand and the shoulder roll as the pinnacle of Ring craft. Today's game is much easier.

 

What is an example of a "new" technique? That goofy looping right that Canelo throws that looks like he's going to hit with his thumb?

The fab 4 would see that nonsense coming from a mile away

 

Jose Napoles didn't get hit much? He got knocked out 3 times lol. Duran was great on the inside sure but it didn't stop him from getting completely outboxed by Benitez and losing to mediocre fighters, and you mention Robinson and his jab but fail to mention how he got outjabbed by a smaller brawler in Jake LaMotta. Past fighters were great don't get me wrong but they weren't perfect and made mistakes that fighters today don't, fighters today have much better fundamentals because sports improve over time and they have more time to hone their fundamentals in the amateur.

 

Lead hand fighting is pretty new since southpaws were very rare in the past but now they're much more common and much better then southpaws in the past.

 

Literally all of them were on cuts due to his easily cuttable skin. Good job exposing how you don't know anything about Napoles. Go watch Napoles vs Cokes 1 and tell me how hittable he was.

You know Duran was never the same after No Mas, right ? He had lost his fire and would only perform well when the stars alligned. He never lost to a mediocre opponent in his prime.

What kind of argument even is this ? Getting outjabbed by LaMotta in stretches means Robinson wasn't all that, now ? What about Usyk repeatedly getting hit by uppercuts against Fury or scrapping by Briedis ? Oh no, he showed he is not an all mighty God in the ring and got hit. I guess neither Robinson or Usyk are what everyone says they are.

What are those mistakes the old fighters did that the new ones don't ? Like, specifically. What do guys like Robinson, Pep, Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Napoles, Arguello and Chavez do wrong that most modern fighters do correctly ?

 

Great post.

A pleasure to read.

 

In 2023 these 4 countries staged a combined total of 622 promotions.
40 years ago, in 1983, the total was 587.

So what is your point?

 

Cuts because of what? Punches if you're getting cut by punches then you're not unhittable like you claim he was.

Cope how come fighters even past their best don't have the losses and bad performances Duran did? Just a bad excuse to justify his bad performances instead of admitting that he was a flawed fighter.

Strawman you said he had a good jab yet a shorter brawler was out jabbing him maybe his jab wasn't as good as you claim. Not need to blow a gasket over pointing out basic facts

Funny how you put different fighters from different era as one. You'd have to go step by step which I have neither the time nor patience to do but can we admit that all those fighters had some sort of flaws or are you going to pretend they were all flawless and perfect fighters?

 

So you completely dismiss the BoxRec numbers - according to which there are far more active boxers today, than in any year during the 1980s decade?.

 

themaster458,

Another extremely poor post by you.

The guy made many great comments, including great comments regarding the great Napoles.

And your comeback?

“He was knocked out 3 times!”

What a joke of a comment.

Zero context applied.


It would be like me saying that Roy Jones was incredibly elusive and hard to hit, and then you coming back with a sarcastic comment, saying something like:

“But he lost 9 times?”

It’s such a disingenuous post, just like the ones from Dorrian.


Look, James Toney was a great fighter. He had great technical skills. But like Duran, he could sometimes struggle with lesser fighters, due to not being motivated and fighting so often.

To analyse a fighter skill set, you have to look at their full body of work. What they did at their best.


Let me enlighten you on something:

Today’s best fighters also make mistakes, where they struggle with lesser fighters, due to a number of factors. And if we look back in a few years, when all of today’s current fighters have retired, I’m sure that some of them will have had negative performances, and more than likely the odd loss. And I could pretty much guarantee that that would happen had they have had the same number of fights as what those past greats did.


Terrence Crawford couldn’t go undefeated if he fought prime ATG’s, where he fought over 100 fights into his 40’s and 50’s like Duran did.

I can show you mistakes that the great Loma has made. We can also look at his losses.

We can look at where GGG struggled with non great fighters.

We can look at where Usyk barely beat Brieidis.


I can go and edit clips to make all of your great fighters of today look poor.

I could make them all look poor if I cherry picked certain negative footage.

And that’s what you’re doing.

You’re cherry picking and making assumptions.

The best fighters today aren’t the greatest fighters of all time. And again, if you think otherwise, then you’re just exposing your lack of knowledge of the sport.

Everything newer isn’t better.

Again, all of today’s great, unbeaten fighters would suffer a loss or 2, had they have fought higher level opposition more frequently, and especially when past their best. It would be inevitable.


Your whole arguments are based upon assumptions and BoxRec type data.

Very poor from you both.

 

And your whole argument is based on narratives and dogma about how much better the good ol days were. Anyway you can keep yapping since that seems to be all you're good at.