Someone's attempt to defending the Old Timers (sorta?)

Hi everyone

Whilst cruising through tiktok, being bogus as usual, i came across a video that had a particularly long thread of text that consisted on refuting the most used claims used against the Old Timers to say they're worse and lose to modern boxers, i'll copy & paste it for u

My Attempt At Defending The Old Timers

"I see alot of people around not only in this platform but in all forms of media aswell, downplaying Old Timers, simply writing them off just because the sport has "advanced" and that they would be obsolete fighters and summarizing it, not great, in today's era
[COLOR=var(--darkreader-text-000000, #e8e6e3)]
I reject that notion, so today i decided to make this post defending, or atleast trying to defend the Old Timers[/COLOR]

Here are some of the most famous claims:

"Training methods developed"

"Nutrition developed"

"Modern boxers are more skilled than Old Timers"

"Modern boxers have tougher competition"

All these claims are used by casuals, fans and diehard fans to explain as to why boxing has developed, i will try my best to refute them all.

The first claim that i will refute is "Training methods have developed"

The training methods that were introduced more recently:

-Targeted weight machinery (1950-1960s)

-Pads (1940s)

That's it.

These are the only methods that didn't have variants in the 1900-1930s.

Pad work is a good method of training, but it doesn't have better value than sparring, which is more fight realistic and it is the same concept, there is just more room for error in pads, as they don't hit back. So pads don't really develop any other skills that Sparring can't also develop in a more efficient way.

As for weight machines, weighted calisthenics literally do the same thing, boxers like Langford used explosive weighted exercises which develop strenght as well as targeted weight machinery could by getting the body into specific positions and using weights to encourage muscle hypertrophy in specific areas.

Many training methods originating from the early 1900s and widely used, are still used decades later and in modern day boxing. Tree chopping is a prime example, Earnie Shavers used it and said he felt alot more powerful in his fight after it, more powerul than when he was using weight training

The claim also fails to realise that boxers like George Dixon pioneered training methods like shadowboxing, heavy bag etc. And knew how to use them for their best effects.

Another argument people make is that coaches today are more developed, this is false, Ray Arcel coached Benny Leonard in the 30 sand coached many high level fighters in the 1980s, such as Roberto Durán and Larry Holmes, still having success. Coaching has not evolved, there are many aspects to a Coach: Motivation, mental preparation, how hard they train you. Coaching is mostly a mental job, and is used to motivate the fighter, anyone can hold a heavy bag still or hold pads with little to no experience or training in the sport.

This claim is very flawed and is thrown around a lot, and from what i've seen it never comes with an explanation or justification.

The next claim i will refute is:

"Nutrition has developed"

When people make this claim, they are often referring to processing of foods and the lab development to increase nutritional value in foods.

Processed foods, specifically ultra processed foods cause decrease in testosterone levels and microbiomes. Here are some studies to prove it:

(The Conversation, a study on australian athletes)

"Do we know if this impacts health or performance?

Unfortunately. There are few published studies in this space. One small study showed high intake of ultra processed foods compared to low intakes in athletes led to no difference in performance. However a high intake of ultra-processed foods affected their mircobiome negatively"

The microbiome influeces multiple functions that are vital to performance

(Healthline and Pubmed, national institutes of health)

"Some studies have found that diets high in ultra-processed foods and low in nutrient-dense foods may contribute to low testosterone"

Testosterone promotes increase in muscle and bone mass

If modern boxers are eating processed foods, surely it is negatively impacting them. (processed foods came around in the 80s)

Let's take a look at Floyd's diet (RDX Sports Blog Report)

Lean proteins, complex carbs, fiber packed fruits, vegetables, healthy fats and water.

All of these could be consumed thousands of years ago, sweet potatoes, fish, avocados etc.

Boxers like Sonny Liston had nutritionists, but still eat majority meat diets, diet is different for everybody due to everyone's body reacting differently to foods and deficiencies

Overall, another claim which is protected by onet hing only.

I'll refute the most abused claim now:

"Modern boxers are more skilled" or "Modern Boxers are more technical" or "Modern boxers are evolved"

People have a common belief that boxers learn from old timers and build on their style. Now obviously this is an appeal to consensus fallacy

To start off, i would like to express the wide spread use of different techniques in boxing, technique does not equal skill as there are many different techniques that suit different boxers, it is only one aspect of skill. Here are the aspects of skill and ability listed:

Speed, Explosiveness, Combination punching, Counter punching, Footwork (speed, position), Head Movement/Upper body movement, Parrying, Blocking, Ring Generalship, Boxing IQ, Jab, Reflex, Punching overall, Accuracy, Reads, Setups, Distance, Clinch, Power, Chin, Entries, Exits, Cardio, Body Durability, Technique (defensive and offensive), Synergy (how well they combine skills and attributes)

Some of these like chin, body durability, clinch, power don't need much explanation, Old Timers on average fought alot more rounds and fights. For example, Langford fought over 300 bouts while Floyd fought 50 (Talking about confirmed pro fights for both, amateur fights are short and don't inflict as much damage to the boxers, due to the fast pace and mvoement and intolerance of hard shots before a count.)

Langford's body, chin and cardio were superior to Floyd's, due to his conditioning through many more bouts, getting hit hard more often. Taking punches can develop the chin and body, strengthening them. Clinching was also much more tolerated and very competitive, Langford spent alot more time in the clinch, gaining more knowledge of it.

With the styles of Old Timers, there defence was a lot more consistent, people often consider old boxers to have poor defences because the majority of them had their hands down.

Fighting with hands down has many benefits, the main benefit is for counter punching, when the hands are down the vision is increased and the hands are in an unpredicable position. Increased view on the opponent helps see counter punching opportunities. The punches are harder to see coming from the waist or torso.

This defence requires amazing reaction time, boxers of the modern era typically rely on gloves to block punches, but the elites of the past had amazing reaction time to move and throw counters.

Hands down also allows for fluid head movement, an example would be Willie Pep or Nicolino Locche. Obviously this requieres very good reactions and movement of the upper body and head which is clearly evident when watching Locche who fought in the 50s-60s.

Another boxer to watch is Henry Armstrong, there's not 1 boxer you can name who gets on the inside better than Armstrong (Maybe Durán), his movement while coming into range is incredible and his body punching is evidently good, some things are just so evident they cannot be testified against.

It's also strange how there are no posts describing the forward development of boxing skill, so what basis is this claim on? fallacies it seems, since every single person that has argued this claim seems to have no in depth explanation

To further support my argument, let's take a look at what one of the best boxers and coaches had to say about this supposed "evolution"

"Boxing is a lost art, these days it isn't the same game that i knew at all. I'll tell you what i mean. (Rocky) Marciano there, he never could have laid a glove on Jack Johnson. I mean that seriously. They don't have time to learn the fine points anymore. They don't know how to feint, or to sidestep to open an opponent up. They only know how to swing and hook, swing and hook"

-Harry Wills, IBHOF member and the person who made SRR.

The final thing people like to argue is:

"Boxers might have been good but faced poor competition"

Respectfully, what the ****?

This is so baseless, resumes show it to be untrue, you say that all the high level fighters of the time were fighting low level opposition, you are contradicting yourself, as resumes show that the boxers were beating HOFS, Champs and Top rated contenders, who are the high level fighters.

If you say:

"SRR looked good but was fighting bums"

and

"Armstrong looked good but was fighting bums"\

THne you are contradicting yourself as not only did they fight similar competition, they literally faced eachother and performed, SRR winning in this example.

All the top level fighters were fighting eachother, showing who was the best of the bunch.

Here's some examples of fighters who were good in different aspects:

Punching: Sam Langford

Head Movement: Nicolino Locche

Inside fighting: Henry Armstrong and Duran (Duran is starting to be considered as an Old Timer by the media)

Body punching: Bob Fitzsimmons

Reactions: TKD Ted Kid Lewis

Jab: Tommy Loughran

Footwork: Willie Pep

Catching/Parrying: Langford

Rope Use: Muhammad Ali

Combos: SRR

Counter punching: Archie Moore

Synergy: SRR and Langford

Ring Generalship: Langford

Other boxers to watch are Benny Leonard, Willie Pep, Joe Louis."

What do you think?

 

Personally, i think i agree and slightly disagree with some of his points

 

but Pepsi is incredible