Decent Quality of Sam McVey vs. Battling Jim Johnson video

THE SCHOLAR CONSIDERS:
An Interview With Boxing Historian

This content is protected

By Katherine Dunn


[SIZE=-1]NEW VS OLD

KD--What about the general quality of the new guys vs the old guys? Many fans believe that old time boxers were infinitely better than modern boxers.

This content is protected

-- Well, boxing historians are traditionally, I think, expected to favor the old-timers. I’m not of that make. I do believe that there’s been an evolution in boxing styles. You can almost trace it, in fact. I do not, for example believe that Jim Corbett would beat Joe Frazier. I do not believe that Joe Walcott or Mysterious Billy Smith would beat Tommy Hearns.

I believe that boxers definitely have evolved into better athletes. There’s been an increase in skills, certainly in combination punching. See, in the old days the main requisite for being a fighter was that you were tough. And there’s no doubt these old time fighters were tough. But for example, if you study the films, we don’t see sustained combination punching, really. George Dixon, .to break off for a moment, seems like a very skilled fighter, up on the balls of his feet. And there were, definitely, talented, skilled boxers in the old days. However, we do not see sustained combination punching until Benny Leonard, circa 1920.

There have been generations of trainers who have profited by their associations with each other. Each generation of trainers, although owing a debt to the preceding generation, has kept up with the times.

One thing I have to emphasize is the increasingly potent influence of amateur boxing on professional boxing. In the old days, say 1910’s and so forth, most fighters turned pro with no amateur experience. These kids were turned pro at 16 years of age and sometimes less. They would gather their experience as professionals. Today boxers of note gain the vast bulk of their experience in the amateurs, where you have bouts limited to three rounds, necessitating sustained action. There is no such thing as feeling-out your opponent in an amateur bout. You go out there and you throw combinations to the head, as quickly and fanatically as you can. And the emphasis is on sustained combination punching all the way through. As a result your skills improve. This has led to professional boxing of a very similar nature.

KD -- I understand that Sugar Ray Robinson, Jake LaMotta, others of that period had some amateur background.

This content is protected

-- You’re talking about the 1940’s. I mentioned the 1910’s specifically. There were amateur tournaments such as the national AAU starting in the 1880’s this country. And you had some prominent amateur boxers go into professional boxing. Jim Corbett for example. But after Corbett there was an interesting turn-around away from that again. You did have Amateur stars such as Jimmy Britt going into the pros, Augie Ratner and a few others. You had Olympic stars in the early ‘20’s, Frankie Gennaro in 1920, and in 1924 Fidel LaBarbur turning pro and becoming world champions. But basically, the vast majority of professional boxers gained their experience as pros.

The first step away from this, by and large, was the formation of the Chicago and New York Golden Gloves Tournaments in the mid 1920’s. The participants were drawn from the poor and working classes. The Golden Gloves Tournaments were used as stepping-stones to the pros. Increasingly you had kids gaining their experience in the amateurs from that point. However, The way it was done is that the kid would gain a certain number of amateur bouts, maybe he spent a year or two or maybe three in the amateurs and then turned pro.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]When the kid turned pro they would bring a new trainer in to adapt him to a professional style. Get him to work the body more; teach him more about defense, about fighting in stages and so forth. This is the way it was. So he would fight so many four-rounders, six-rounders, eight-rounders, and finally they would say OK, Kid, you’re in a ten.

Now today you don’t have that many professional fights. Usually you’re not going to have a kid having twenty-five or more fights before he’s in a ten-round fight. The economics do not allow that. Boxing has become smaller, there are not as many fights promoted. So he has to gain his experience more and more in the amateurs. And the amateurs have become that much more important, chiefly because of the Olympics and the increased televising of the Olympics, and of course because you don’t have as many pro fights.

So the kid gains his experience in the amateurs and the amateur style has crept into the pros. One thing that has encouraged this is the shortening of the distance of professional fights. For instance there are no pro fights today longer than twelve rounds. And increasingly, instead of bringing in a pro trainer to adapt kids’ style to the pros, the amateur trainer turns pro with the kid. So increasingly this amateur style of combination punching, working almost exclusively to the head, has become the pro style. And it’s a style where skill has replaced stamina, smarts and guts to a very large extent. The kid who makes it to the top in the pros is an experienced amateur boxer, with great skill at combination punching.

The question is, would this prevail against a fighter of the old school? Well, let’s put it this way, I believe that for the most part, this style that has evolved would really cut most of the old-timers (I’m talking about the early 1900’s) to ribbons. Because they did not have these kinds of skills. However, in a longer distance fight the old pro style of stamina, body punching, planning a fight, would of course come into greater play. A classic example of a fighter with a classic pro style beating one with a classic amateur style was Marlon Starling over Mark Breland. Starling went to the body, really forced Breland as the fight went on, weakened him. The pro style beat the amateur style in that fight. But increasingly you don’t have as many fighters with the pro style as I’m defining it. And the top-flight amateurs are dominating the game. I’m talking, you know, Floyd Mayweather Jr. Very few of the top professional fighters do not have extensive amateur backgrounds with top honors gathered as amateur boxers.

I remember a terrific bantamweight of the 1980’s named Jeff Chandler. He had two to four amateur bouts. That was all. He was one of the last terrific fighters to gain most of his experience in the pros. And he was one of the last of the old guard, and a beautiful boxer to watch. But he was one of the last exceptions to that rule.

If you want to develop a fighter today—you’re a multi-millionaire, you want to be an independent boxing manager, and you’re serious about it, my advice is scout the top amateur tournaments including the Olympics and try to sign one of these kids. Because this is where the Champions are coming from.


[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]KD -- So in this light—would someone in that middle period, who many of us regard as "The Greats" the Sugar Ray Robinson, Tony Zale, LaMotta, Joe Louis…with their relatively professional style, how would they fare against the modern style?

This content is protected

-- Sugar Ray Robinson, without a doubt, was a great fighter and would have been a great fighter in any era. Again, he had a fairly extensive amateur background in the Golden Gloves, and was actually a very watched fighter even when he turned pro. In those days you didn’t get a fight on any Garden card unless you had a number of fights before that, a good manager, and so forth. Sugar Ray Robinson turned pro on the undercard of a world title fight in Madison Square Garden. True, it was only a four rounder, but still he would not have gotten that berth had he not been a top-flight amateur.

As to the others…Jake LaMotta, tough as can be. Joe Louis, certainly you can’t deride Joe Louis’ abilities, but I don’t believe Louis would have beaten Ali. I don’t believe Jake would have beaten Roy Jones, Jr. And Sugar Ray Robinson, again an exceptional fighter, but I don’t believe he would have a piece of cake with some of these modern fighters.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

But what I’m saying does not mean that every modern fighter has it all over any fighter of fifty years ago. That’s not true. However, there has been, nonetheless, an average increase in skill. Even in the forties and fifties you had a greater percentage of fighters who relied more on guts than on anything else. That’s not to say they had NO boxing skills, or no training. But some of them relied more on strength and courage than you have today. Also remember today they stop fights sooner.

Paul Pender made the observation that Carmen Basilio fought with his face, and after a while you’d get so worn out punching him in the face that you’d be fair game for him. Basilio had guts to burn. But he would be very pressed to beat a lot of these fighters of the last 25 years. I don’t believe Carmen would do anything against Sugar Ray Leonard, for example.

And that’s not to deride Carmen Basilio, it’s not to deride any of the guys from the pre 1960 era. Or the pre 1975 era. But I don’t think there’s any denying that the modern boxer has an arsenal of devastating skills at his command, and relies more on these developed skills than he does on strength or courage or stamina.


SOME OF THE BEST MODERNS

KD -- We discussed your controversial stance that Roy Jones Jr is one of the greatest boxers of all time. Would you care to mention any other of today’s fighters who you consider to be among the best?

This content is protected

-- I don’t think there’s any denying Naseem Hamed. Now here’s a small featherweight, when you look at him. He’s 5’3. He was European bantamweight champion. I think if he moved up to Jr. Light or Lightweight, he’d be very hard pressed because of his size. I would never put him in with Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I think Mayweather would just…unh! Would really knock him flat and give him a terrific beating. But at featherweight I don’t see anyone today capable of beating Naseem Hamed.

Fighters of today develop tremendous reflexes, they learn to punch from all angles. This is the new style. It’s replaced even the Muhammad Ali move-and-jab style. It’s not just Hamed, it’s the same basic style you see from Roy Jones, Jr. –shooting these punches from nowhere. The way Roy Jones can turn a straight jab into a hook is something I’ve never seen any fighter do. When I was watching boxing as a kid I used to imagine fighters who could do that, but I never saw anybody do it until I saw Roy Jones. I think that’s part of my fascination with the man. This is a new development. By the way, one fighter of the old days who really, to a large extent, fought like that, was Jimmy Wild, the greatest flyweight of all time. I mean traditionally regarded as such, a Welshman active from 1911 to 1923.

Oh Floyd Mayweather, Jr. My god! Ability like nobody’s business.

Another man-- a shame what’s happened to him, and I’d say the only man who could have beaten him eventually did beat him, and that was himself—Mike Tyson. Now Mike Tyson’s style—talking about a boxer learning from boxers of the past—and it’s amazing that more has not been made of this. Mike Tyson’s style is Jack Dempsey, completely. The way he comes in quickly with a bob and weave, ducks down low and comes up with a smashing left hook to the larger man’s head and face, that’s Jack Dempsey. When Tyson turned pro he even came into the ring with the sides of his head shaven in emulation of Jack Dempsey. There is no doubt about this. No socks, low shoes, black trunks. This was a young man who studied old fight films like crazy. And he found that the style of Jack Dempsey was more conducive to his own abilities than any other style. And that’s what he developed.

KD -- I always felt that Tyson was a small heavyweight and he was often misunderstood and under-rated in terms of the level of genuine skill that he brought into the ring.

This content is protected

-- That’s right. A lot of people did not understand what they were watching when they saw Mike Tyson. He was not some slugger as such.

KD -- He was not a super-power in terms of his physical strength

This content is protected

-- Oh no. One thing about Mike Tyson that I don’t think a lot of people understand because of, let’s say his psychological-social problems, a lot of people think he’s some kind of stupid brute. He’s not. He happens to be, as far as I can see-- and I don’t know the man but I have had a couple of conversations with him-- an intelligent young man. He’s probably one of the most intelligent fighters, certainly in terms of boxing, that we’ve seen. His emulation of the Jack Dempsey’s style. His knowledge of boxing history is considerable, by the way, and when you listen to him, this is not a stupid man. He’s a very misunderstood boxer, and people also do not understand that his skills eroded after a certain period. People will say Ah he was never anything,. They start to question him all the way back. No. He peaked when he knocked out Michael Spinks in the first round. But beginning about a year after that he really started to go down hill.

KD -- That was a period when he had separated from Rooney, his remaining D’Amato trainer, and he no longer had a real trainer who understood his style.

This content is protected

-- Right. Tyson was a fighter who needed a certain edge. He needed to be on edge. And when he lost that he lost a tremendous amount. He still has too much power and over-all ability for ninety or ninety-five percent of all the fighters out there. There’s no question about that. But at his peak I can’t imagine—and I say this with all respect and deference for Evander Holyfield—but at his peak I can’t imagine Tyson being defeated by Holyfield. At his peak he would have been a terrific fight even for the peak Muhammad Ali.

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w42x-kd.htm

©2001 CBZ Media, Inc. -- All Rights Reserved



LONG INTERVIEW AND THIS WAS JUST A PIECE/CUT




_____