Were the Old-Timers Really Technically Inferior to Modern Boxers? I've been thinking about how we evaluate the technical abilities of boxers from different eras, particularly fighters like James J. Corbett, James J. Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons and Jack Johnson. There is often an assumption that boxing has continuously evolved technically, so that a boxer from the early 1900s must have been far less sophisticated than a boxer from the 1960s, 1970s, or especially a modern boxer. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily true. When I watch footage of Corbett, Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Johnson and some of the other great fighters from that era, I see much more technical ability than they are often given credit for. Their footwork, defensive movements, feints, counters, positioning, combinations and ring generalship can be surprisingly sophisticated. Obviously, their style was different from modern boxing, but different does not necessarily mean inferior. For example, do we really think that if James J. Corbett or Jack Johnson could somehow watch a modern elite boxer, they would be sitting there saying: "Wow! What's that? A right cross? A jab? I've never seen anything like this before!" Obviously, they wouldn't be amazed by the existence of basic punches. They already understood the fundamental mechanics of boxing. The terminology, tactics and emphasis may have changed, but many of the underlying principles were already there. What makes this particularly interesting to me is that some of the people who actually saw these fighters in person did not necessarily believe that the later generations were technically superior. There were boxing writers, trainers, managers, fighters and other experts who had firsthand experience of fighters from the Jeffries and Corbett era and continued to rate some of those old-timers extremely highly even after seeing later generations. There are also examples of old fighters themselves being unimpressed by the boxing abilities of fighters from subsequent generations, including fighters from the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, their opinions should not automatically be accepted as objective truth, but they are interesting because these people had actually seen multiple generations of fighters. This raises a broader question: Did boxing really become technically better over time, or did it simply become different? I'm not arguing that a fighter from 1900 would necessarily beat a great fighter from 1970 or 2020. Modern fighters obviously benefit from better sports science, nutrition, training methods, equipment, medical knowledge and a much larger accumulated body of boxing knowledge. My question is specifically about technical skill and boxing ability. Were Corbett, Jeffries, Fitzsimmons and Johnson genuinely crude compared with later generations, or are we judging them unfairly because their style looks unfamiliar to modern eyes? How big do you think the actual technical gap was between the best boxers of the early 1900s and the top 10 boxers from 1960s to 2020s?
I think they'd be impressed with the purses. On the technique front, absolutely they'd be impressed. Imagine Jimmy Barry witnessing a six punch Gonzalez combo? This content is protected No drying out, 24hr recovery at the weigh in, advanced training methods, for example modern resistance bands, plus 4 months between fights...it all adds up. Not to undermine ye olde techniques because the weakness in feinting and wrestling (also techniques) would probably not impress them but there are modern combinations, in floods, that those guys just didn't execute.
I think that boxing was likely fully evolved by the 1930s/1940s and after that the major changes to the martial arts of boxing came about through the sport of boxing. Glove size, rounds, weigh in rules, more organised structure, increasingly better financial incentives, better sports science, more readily available nutrition, being able to actually study your opponent on film as that technology improved etc. and so on and so on. I do think, however, that the true greats of their day would be sharp enough of mind, technique and physical predisposition to adjust to any era and rules. When it comes to HW, outside of size and punching power, you can't really show me one HW who is excessively more skilled than fighters from the 70s or let's say Evan Fields. PEDs and lowering of rounds and general conditioning has arguably led to HW regression. I do think that Gans would nod to the footwork and technical defensive repertoire of a Floyd. I do think that Sam Langford would smile and nod at the cutting the ring footwork of Frazier and Tyson. I really do think that a Bobby Fitz would golf clap at the punching mechanics of Arguello.
The glove sizes and thumb attachments would certainly sour their views on top of the usual oldhead biases toward the good ol days, however how certain are we that combo ability wasn't already well developed by this point? Boxers had been sparring with gloves for 150 years by the time Sullivan came into the picture. Dudes like Gans, Willie Ritchie, even Johnson throw solid extended combinations at times, the round-set of the period doesn't help them throw at the same pace and frequency as someone like Chocolatito though. I think they'd also dislike how deluded modern boxers are for being purists in how they view boxing v MMA discussions, like how Shakur and Broner think they could just waltz in and outclass MMA fighters without any cross training.
