Sam McVey v Jim Johnson video adjusted for real time

I agree with the intangibles....the training, the hard times, it could be the film...oviously they were great for there time and the film is old...modern style is what we are used to but its not to say we could have beaten the old timers.....no one(not Me) would want to get hit by my Grandfather when he was 80...he was solid and came up hard and serious

 

Then getting into comparisons with boxers of the modern era is a fool's errand; that's a point I've tried to drive home many times on here, but with no success apparentely.

 

Have you watched Joe Gans, Gene Tunney, or Benny Leonard.

These highly skilled guys fought in 1890-1930. Trust me, you can compare the above guys to fighters of today.

I also suggest you watch Corbett vs McCoy sparring for world war 1 bonds. An old Corbett is still jack rabbit quick, with serious feints. The film is up close and clear.

 

I've seen quite a bit of footage of that period, although not as much as I'd like. I'm not saying that there is no comparison because boxers of that era were less skilled; I'm saying that their skills had evolved to deal with a very different period of the sport. The skills and attributes necessary to make it in the post-bareknuckle era were DIFFERENT from those of today, but that doesn't mean that they are INFERIOR at all.

Sportsmen develop skills to deal with the unique challenges that they face. Boxers in the 1910s, for instance, had to deal with a ridiculously punishing fight schedule; their gloves were still small and had limited glove-blocking capability; mouthguards were not a feature of the sport yet; decisions, where there were any, were highly unpredictable; purses for individual fights were tiny by the standards of today; attitudes towards clinching and hitting/holding were different etc. etc.

Boxers in every era adapt to the particular rules of their time. Since the late 1930s, for a number of reasons, there has been unprecedented stability in the rules of boxing. Even then, I'm unconvinced there has been "progress", so much as every era has been a mixed bag of talent.

A lot of people think there can be no comparison between 100 years ago and today because of "evolution". I don't think that: I think there is no comparison for the same reason one shouldn't compare Pride with UFC, or Rugby League with Rugby Union, although it's even more the case than in the latter example.

PS. My video of Corbett-McCoy is one of my favourite in my collection. :good

 

I think McVea tended to act as a counterpuncher when he might have achieved dividends by pressing the fight.

Looking at this footage I can see how he caught many of his oponents out. He was only 5' 11'' tall but he had a 78'' wingspan. After he stepped backward some of his oponents probably walked into that left hook thinking that they were out of range.

 

I would also make the observation that fighting styles were far more diverse back then.

You could get a man employing a style which would not be out of place today fighting a man with a style which was esentialy from the pre glove era.

Also the availability of fight films gives modern boxers a template to work to while a fighter in 1910 might have had to develop his style from scratch. Even if he arived at something similar to a modern fighter there would probably still be key diferences.

 

Isn't that exactly what evolution is, though? Adaptation to a changing environment that promotes new properties (high guard, more explicit combination punching, glove blocking, boxing behind a jab) while it suppresses others (marathon-like stamina, wild swings, infighting combined with a degree of wrestling, white champions hiding behind the color line :yep)... to name a few.