Are the Old Timers (X Date-1960s) less skilled than the Modern Boxers?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mandela2039, Apr 7, 2025.


  1. OddR

    OddR Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,936
    2,022
    Jan 8, 2025
    I consider the modern era from the 90s onwards. So by my definition the 60s 70s 80s is kinda old timers by my definition.
     
  2. META5

    META5 Active Member Full Member

    1,487
    2,317
    Jun 28, 2005
    Brilliant post.

    Here's the thing for me - when I watch a Barney Ross and an Armstrong, the clash of styles and the abilities of the fighters is as good as anyone that you'll see.

    How can anyone look at Canzoneri's head movement and reflex and think this guy is unpolished? I repeat what I've said in the past, you cannot judge yesterday's grainy, poor camera footage by today's 4k almost smello-vision standards. The head placement of Joe Louis when he throws his jab and is off centre, Pep's balance and footwork as he slips, slides and spins his opponents, plus the fluidity of his combination punching, double, triple, quadruple jabs, hooking off the jab and then pivot, slide, bounce out of distance and then back in again - up there with anything from Mayweather or Crawford.

    Look at Benny Leonard taking away the southpaw jab, bouncing back and then timing the right uppercut that they're walking into, the educated jab, ring generalship, excellent right hand.

    Fitz knowing where and how to hit a man with a single blow and stop a fight - not by accident.

    Then there's SRR who could do pretty much everything you want a great fighter to be able to do.

    I'm not even so sure that modern fighters are so much more explosive other than juice. In most sports the advancements have been made partly through belief once barriers are broken - think Bannister's 4 min mile, but reality is that most advancements are predominantly due to improvements in technology/equipment.

    If you put most fighters of the last 30 years into the living and training conditions of 1920s - 1950s, I don't see how a Floyd Mayweather's hands hold up under the schedule of the 40s and the more liberal refereeing. However, put an Ike Williams or a Robbi in today's era, with time to train/prepare for a fighter and no restrictions, they'll murder them to death!
     
    Loudon, JohnThomas1, OddR and 2 others like this.
  3. FThabxinfan

    FThabxinfan Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,412
    2,031
    Sep 12, 2024
    This is also a pretty good take somewhat.

    @Mastrangelo had a point because of many different training tech modern fighters use, it's a bit hard to compare em to old schools.

    And while I thought boxing never evolved as a whole sport,the fighter just adapted to the current and some gets a chance to evolve a bit,but maybe not so much.


    Louis's and Mayweather's hook is your perfect example when it comes to "boxers adapting to the meta",while i thought Louis telegraph motion at times were not so bad as he mostly punched it after a setup, Mayweather threw that right hook like that because boxing had evolved into more of a scoring sport,atleast from my observations with recent boxers.


    The wheat being kept with the chaff tossed away is pretty true from what I see too, b-hop liked those low lead hands when he got confident enough,but mostly kept it high first until he secured all is fine,taking notes from his ancestors, Duran mixed Angott's glue holding clinch with Armstrong's strong uppers and got a good vicious style in results.


    Indeed,boxing is a sport where it could adapt,yet not truly evolve.
     
    themaster458, Dorrian_Grey and META5 like this.
  4. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,036
    Jun 30, 2005
    How would we know, though?

    Those of us who coach professional fighters for a living, who were top amateurs, or who were professionals ourselves would be qualified to evaluate the skills of the very best. But most of us aren't any of those things.
     
  5. META5

    META5 Active Member Full Member

    1,487
    2,317
    Jun 28, 2005
    I hear what you're saying and I'm certainly not a proponent of older is better but some of these things are arguable.

    Angle shifting and pivotting has been around for centuries. Fitz used angles and pivots to land KO blows that fighters thought they were safe from, as did Langford. Ali used shifts and pivots to draw leads or open up angles to land the right hand over a retreating jab. Pep used pivots both defensively and offensively. RJJ used very extreme explosive movements to create explosive punching angles that had us all thinking he might surpass Robbi's greatness if he gets the career management right.

    I would expect someone like a Floyd to have tighter mechanics than Louis as he's smaller and diminishing returns rule of physics when it comes to athletic prowess in boxing. That said, I will watch some more Louis tape and look for this telegraphing and if there, it is there. Still, when I watch Joe throwing in combination, I can't think of 5 better punchers than himself. That's not what you expect from a HW fighter as the better everything should theoretically come from the lower weights.

    Robbi likely struggled with these fighters on the inside in the same way that most taller, longer reach fighters struggle - leverage on their shots is negated somewhat and they are much closer and playing percentages in favour of their opponents. When you're taller why would you give up reach/when you're not as physically strong/robust, why would you get into a wrestling match? Robbi found a way - he had that wicked right hook to the body and fought back viciously in combination to body and head when dragged into the trenches.

    You rightfully say, every fighter has their flaws and whilst today's fighter has the benefits of standing on the shoulders of giants and fixing mistakes, the lack of relative competition, good trainers, other sports for gifted athletes to gravitate to, even the rise of MMA means a) are you seeing as deep a pool of talent compared to yesterday? And then, b) no matter how good your sparring or training is, nothing beats the experience of having a proper fight. Greb did more in 18 months than most fighters do their whole career - the experience and honing of skills that this makes for is invaluable.

    Boxing is like any other martial art, the more elite the competitive nature of your practice the greater that you become and also the more likely that you suffer down the line health-wise for your greatness.
     
    Mehmet, Loudon, Greg Price99 and 2 others like this.
  6. Melankomas

    Melankomas Prime Jeffries would demolish a grizzly in 2 Full Member

    7,006
    8,678
    Dec 18, 2022
    At the top level? No.

    But there are more top level fighters, and your average journeyman has gotten more skilled.
     
    slash likes this.
  7. META5

    META5 Active Member Full Member

    1,487
    2,317
    Jun 28, 2005
    Yes and no.

    When you've watched enough film, have shared the ring/cage with fighters who have been good enough to compete for titles or come from a family that has several boxers in it, you know what you're looking for.

    I would hope that at least some of us Classic forum fans have eyes to see what is there and hopefully mouths to speak truth to what it is.

    Floyd Mayweather, for example, shows the greatest skillset of defence on film as he's consistent with all four facets of defence. However, I wouldn't argue that he's top of the tree outside of maybe 130lbs H2H and think there's a few that he would lose to from 135 - 147 lbs especially.
     
  8. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,036
    Jun 30, 2005
    "Watched enough film," I'm skeptical. Thanks to the glories of YouTube, all sorts of people have watched film. I've watched tons of film. Still DKSAB.

    Yeah, if you've sparred with fighters who were good enough to compete for world titles, and have a family full of boxers, I assume you probably know what you're looking for.

    I'd be curious to know what the actual professionals and coaches think is the minimum knowledge base to intelligently decide, for example, how good Floyd Mayweather was as a technician compared to Pep or Duran.

    @Saintpat, @greynotsoold, if I recall correctly, both of you gentlemen have trained professional fighters. (And I'm sure there are other people on this forum who also did; plus some who are no longer with us, like Witherspoon.) What type of background and experience does someone need to make good judgments about the skill levels of elite boxers?
     
    Journeyman92 likes this.
  9. META5

    META5 Active Member Full Member

    1,487
    2,317
    Jun 28, 2005
    Watched enough film is an oversimplification.

    I suppose that I mean studied film to the point where you've analysed a fighter's career, often slowing film down to anywhere between 0.25 - 0.5 of real speed to understand what you're seeing. There's no benchmark of what constitutes sufficient knowledge but I feel like I can generally tell when the person I'm speaking with knows something of what they speak or when it's not worth my time going back and forth as they speak from a place of ignorance or are so tied to their belief that it's not worth showing them alternative perspective/evidence.
     
    Loudon, JohnThomas1 and cross_trainer like this.
  10. FThabxinfan

    FThabxinfan Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,412
    2,031
    Sep 12, 2024
    Did Witherspoon get banned/lost his acc's password?
     
  11. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,036
    Jun 30, 2005
    He just doesn't seem to post here anymore.
     
    Journeyman92 likes this.
  12. FThabxinfan

    FThabxinfan Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,412
    2,031
    Sep 12, 2024
    Out of the alphabet boys he was the easiest to contact with,had plenty of socials.
    I think he's just been busy,same to his yt channel at times.
     
    cross_trainer likes this.
  13. Dorrian_Grey

    Dorrian_Grey It came to me in a dream Full Member

    2,883
    5,006
    Apr 20, 2024
    The point about shifting that I'd like to make is that there's now a better understanding of how to cut angles and how to use angles defensively and offensively with the added understanding of how these angles play out in open-stance match-ups due to how southpaws have becoming more acceptable and well-taught. Fewer fighters are less up-and-down or straight forward in their approach nowadays then there was a century ago. The pioneers who had some grasp on angles were outliers for their times for the most part. But these skills then proliferated and have been developed. Roman Gonzalez, for example, uses angles on the inside just about as well as any older fighter I've seen with subtle changes in posture, foot and hand positioning, and the physical pressure he applies in the clinch are mostly the same techniques you might catch glimpses of Langford doing from the scant film we have of him.
    And to the point about Louis, he himself was one of the first HWs to really throw combinations. Even plenty of lighter fighters before him became off-balance after single shots due to them putting to much weigh behind their punches, the canvases they fought on, and the shoes they wore among other reasons. But nowadays you'd struggled to find a single world-ranked fighter in any division who can't throw a 4-punch combination on a heavy bag with proper balance and technique. Again, with passing down of techniques (and thanks to the internet), we see a proliferation of the techniques which were once the rarities of an era's pioneers. The jab wasn't even all too in fashion or well-understood until about the early 1920s or so after Gans, Corbett, Leonard, and Dixon made it more well-known.
    And with a growing population that is more international and interlinked than ever, there are in fact more professional boxers than there has ever been in history. And more than ever, these fighters have readily available footage of the champions and trainers of yesteryear and today to learn from. As well, it's become more fashionable for fighters to have extensive amateur careers for them to develop their skills and ring IQ with hundreds of amateur contests for them to ply their trade. Amateur boxing itself has become more organised and focused on as part of careers in recent decades as well. While it's not the same as professional bouts every fortnight, it does mean that fighters get to learn a lot and they probably learn more fighting multiple times in a week at national and international amateur meets than older fighters leant fighting guys with losing records on a regular basis to keep the lights on and drew crowds. Admittedly, it means we get to see fighters less and it makes it more likely that their skills regress or possibly don't develop fully, but for the sake of fighter safety I think that's a more than acceptable trade-off. It should also be remembered that these older fighters fought in no-decision fights where their reputations and records couldn't be damaged unless they got KTFO, so it was an easy way to make cash against club fighters without any real stakes for your own career. It's also much harder to organise these events than it was in the 1910s.
     
    OddR, META5, themaster458 and 2 others like this.
  14. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,132
    44,905
    Mar 3, 2019
    Well, it depends on how far back you wanna go and what you class as average. When I said average, I'm really not talking about average in regards to the general population, but to those who are/were professional fighters. I'm also saying this in respect of the other group I mentioned, those being the very best in the world now and the very best of all time.

    I think when you include the sheer number of guys who went pro in the US back then, then the average fighter has to be a little bit worse but the best a bit better, if I'm remembering my statistics classes right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2025
    cross_trainer likes this.
  15. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,132
    44,905
    Mar 3, 2019
    I disagree with these parts, mate.

    The things fighters learn from previous generations is basically a non-factor imo, as if they're learning from the previous generation, then the previous generation could obviously do it as well. And while the rules remain the same, I fail to see why those techniques would need tinkering with after they've come acclimatised with the ruleset. Techniques aren't tinkered with to improve their effectiveness on the whole, they're tinkered to be improved for the individual fighter.

    Boxing getting more efficient as you put it, it a bad thing imo, not a good thing. It's not getting efficient in the sense it's creating new, better ways to accomplish the same goals; it's simply losing other methods of accomplishing those goals - which would indeed be a good thing.My examples would be:

    a) How Jim Driscoll spoke about the decline in what he called the straight lead - a punch thrown as a power shot, different than a jab. Almost like a cross from the lead hand.
    b) how the infighting in the modern era isn't remotely close to what it was say 50 years ago.
    c) how the prevailing wisdom now is to counter the jab with a cross, but it used to be to counter it with the left hook.
    d) how when fighting southpaws now, we are taught to go to the outside to better align the cross; rather than moving to the inside to better align the lead hook and jab.

    These things aren't 100% gone, and probably never will be, but their prevalence in the modern game is gone and it'll probably take another loop round the cyclical nature of the sport before they come back.

    Also, I actually think how modern sports science works in the pro game is a bad thing, not a good thing. It's also not really new, as it was truly researched properly by the soviet union's masters of sport for Olympic weightlifting. But it's really been around since then, and there's ample evidence of fighters from prior to this following advanced practices such as overcoming isometrics, training the stretch shortening cycle, serape effect and how to import their force through the floor with ankle stability work.

    The real difference now and then, is A) information. Obviously now we know how it all works, not just that it works. And B), boxers today do long periods of peaking their strength and conditioning. This is an advantage in a lot of ways, for sure, especially as the sports promotional side likes to drag out the build ups, but imo, it's worse for the overall development of an athlete over the course of their career.

    They spend months peaking their athleticism for one event, and the week after, all of those adaptations to the nervous system are gone, and being in such a big caloric deficit with the water cut, just guarantees that their athleticism doesn't improve. It just gets as high as it can be for one event, then falls back to what it was (or sometimes, even lower than what it was). The additional downside of this is that it takes time and regimen to peak, time which in all honesty is not needed to prepare for a boxing match. If a fighter didn't spend 8-12 weeks peaking for a camp, they could fight more often, and if they fought more often, their skills would improve.

    The proof of this being a less effective way to train is also extremely simple, as you just have to look at the amateur systems. The way that's done in the amateurs, instead, is to gradually improve their athletic base and no time is wasted with peaks because they have to fight often. Sure they'll peak for the Olympics, or tournaments but it's handled very differently than to a single pro fight.

    Anyway mate, I'd love to see a break down if who you think is the most skilled fighter from the past.
     
    Loudon, META5, Greg Price99 and 2 others like this.