Did the change from 15 rounds to 12 rounds usher in the era of super-heavyweights?

I believe this is true.

Some years ago I showed an ex-girlfriend proficient in judo Ali's KO of Foreman. The first thing she said was, "Boxers then did not hit each other as cruelly as they do today."

My translation: someone accustomed to seeing today's fast-twitch performers would see yesteryear's fighters as less concussively powerful...because they were.

With modern sports science influencing conditioning in all sports today, boxing too has changed to more concentrated--and more effective--effort punch per punch.

The 12-round limit has facilitated--not ushered in--this transition, as boxers today can focus training on speed and power, without undue concerns with stamina. Somebody like Saúl "Canelo" Álvarez can succeed by bulking up and improving speed, while by and large foregoing the longer stamina-building morning runs of yesteryear. Against pedestrian opposition at least, on fight night, he can pick his spots, punch with great effectiveness, coast the rest of the round, and become a world champion. Over 12 rounds, it is a winning formula.

The older fan knows, however, that Rounds 13 to 15 bring other factors more forcefully into play: strategy and generalship, endurance and heart--the ingredients of true greatness--that are considerably undermined by the easier 12-round route.

The 12-round distance was ushered in--at least party--to protect fighters, well before the advent of pervasive performance enhancing drugs. Together, these two factors have helped make boxing--for better or worse--what it is today.

 

Its okay. If you fought John L. With a time machine, you wouldn't taste a right hand because you'd see it coming a mile away... You'd simply step back or to the side and he'd fall on his face. Youd become the heavyweight champion by way of gravity knockout!

 

Flab / Fat = Oxygen = Stamina = the ability to fight for a period of time.

Look no further than Bruno who looked like an Adonis, but after 6 rounds slowly dropped both his arms and his workrate, and then became vulnerable.

Conversely look at " prime " Tyson, Holmes, Lewis, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, who all carried that " film " of flab about them.

I am not talking Jameel McCline here, just guys who kept enough fat about them to keep up their workrate.

 

Not all new ideas are GOOD ideas. The corect training balence for a heavyweight went out of the window once newer ways to build up a fighters weight began to be borrowed from other sports. Compromises were made and we lost the organic, natural athletes who were sharper punchers conditioned exclusively in more sport specific boxing training.

I think the wrong ballence was struck. Obsession with size, mass, interval training took away gym time from proper boxing training. Call it old school, it was developed over hundreds of years exclusively for boxers to condition a fighter whilst he practiced techniques. It worked. Then along came some scientists who out of the blue from the world of bodybuilding invited themselves into championship boxing with so called sports science and began to apply this to a tried and tested training formulas that already worked.

Bottom line?

We got bigger heavyweights but we did not get better heavyweights.

 

thanks fist of fury for the interesting test of gloves and bare knuckle

 

I do believe the 15-round distance makes a difference.

And your words say it well.

Sugar Ray Leonard would not have knocked out Thomas Hearns in 12. Over 15, Marvin Hagler would have probably finished Ray, who negotiated his way out of the longer distance, by the way.

On the other hand, Ray would have probably again done away with a fading Hearns over 15 in their rematch.

Imagine the Thrilla in Manila going only 12 rounds. Or Holmes-Cooney. Or Walcott-Marciano. Or Louis-Conn. Or Pryor-Argüello. Or Argüello-Mancini. Or, of course, Mancini-Kim.

Yes, it is a matter of stamina: physical and mental.

With a championship at stake, many also-ran teams in many sports have held the lead before dramatically falling apart and losing to the eventual champ.

In any competitive activity, those last few inches many a time separate the men from the boys. In boxing, all the more so.

I wouldn't say today's skills are better--just better suited to today's focus on power over 12.

By and large, I believe today's fighters punch harder, but, head to head, I would still take several of the best fighters from yesteryear over the best modern (mid-'90s to present) fighter in every corresponding division.

Personally, I prefer the old-school--basically because in the past it was just you and the road, you and the gym, you and your diet. You didn't have to mess with putting foreign substances in your body to be competitive.

Technique-wise, I am convinced boxing trainers of yore knew everything there was to know about being the best boxer; if anything, I believe today's emphasis on fighting in powerful spurts has undermined overall mastery of the Sweet Science. I see too many beefcake performers today not jabbing enough or working off the jab, not using proper ring movement or applying effective pressure.

The reason is evident: too many sports scientists as trainers; not enough trainers steeped in first-hand knowledge of the sport.

 

x 1,000,000.

 

A sign of feather fists?

Could it be that it was a sign that it was an evenly matched skilful display of boxing between two seasoned fighters where neither man had the dreaded manufactured 20-0 record against nobody? Then in the championship rounds an advantage was realised?

I think you see boxing as a power event. It's not pulling trucks and rolling tractor tyres. It's a martial art.

 

Mike Tyson and Razor Ruddock threw everything but the kitchen sink at each other and they went the distance, are they feather fisted?? It's all about levels, they become contenders and champions for a reason.

 

Yeah but there is a lot more to boxing than brute force and power. Magnanasaki who was (is?) a poster here and a professional heavyweight who had sparred Wlad, Foreman, Holyfield and others said that power is one of the most overrated aspects to a fight, and I totally agree.

Going the distance in a slugfest or an action-packed fight usually means that the combatants are well matched; it does not mean at all that the boxers are lacking in skill or are featherfisted.
Would you call Ibeabuchi or Tua featherfisted in their slugfest? Or Morales and Barerra in their three wars?

 

Great debate this one

 

When two guys are "slugging each other back and forth" without scoring knockdowns it is absolutely nothing to do with feather fisted punching. Ever!

It's all about the levels.

If the level of one man's defensive anticipation matches the speed of punch as the hardest hitter of all time he is not going down. Why? Because it is the punch you don't see that knocks you out. Even when contact is made the abilty to ride the blow and prepare yourself for impact at the last moment can be the difference between the exact same punch knocking you spark out or merely getting your attention.

So much has to do with positioning, distance, travel of the punch, follow through and establishing the perfect impact with the right part of the glove. It was far, far less to do with strength itself. A great fighter can walk onto a jab and go down if he is unlucky enough to put his chin in the way at the wrong angle, moving in the wrong direction at just the right moment during the travel of the punch where it gathers its maximum torque at just the wrong moment.

I don't care if it is George Foreman, Mike Tyson, David Tua or Crazy Ike Ibeabuchi and all his muscles.... if they spend all night only tagging you with the tail end of their punch and you are good enough to react to each and every movement they make anticipating and predicting everything they do then they could hit you a hundred times and not hurt you.

There is no such thing as a Feather fist!

I guarantee the punches you think you "could take" from ANY profesional heavyweight boxer that you decide are "feather like" because they did not knock someone over would put you in a very sorry situation if you did not have the right level of instictive anticipation or experience.

 

What I would give to see that happen

 

It would be cruel.:good