Do you think technique evolves?

I know - and, at this point, one has to wonder whether this thread has been the trolling effort of the century!

 

Here's the clip with the quote

This content is protected

Ali looks young here, early 1970s, late 60s so he hadn't been beaten by Frazier and Norton yet, neither of these two guys displayed technical skills that were superior to the guys of previous generations.
Norton for example was destroyed easily by power punchers who weren't that skilled themselves, so how can you call him a leap forward if all it took to bring him down was a crude puncher the kind of which many old timers could have dealt with?
If you then want to say that it's just Ali who is an example of evolution but not his entire era, then you have to content with the fact that "non evolved" fighters could beat him so the whole evolution thing becomes pointless.

Considering that this was the same Ali who said Frazier would be easy pickings, why would you take his word for how boxing evolved? Of course he wouldn't say that anyone from the previous era or his own could have beaten him.

By the way Ali said he saw films of Sullivan fighting which is something I doubt was true either.

A question for you, do you take Ali's logic to its conclusion, do you think that by entailment, the heavyweights of today are more advanced and use more robust skillsets than Muhammad Ali himself?

 

People are confused alright Georgie.

Just read the thread.


I know you like your history.

But are you aware that Nick Ball is technically superior and on another level to the likes of Sanchez and Arguello etc.


Ha!

That’s the kind of ridiculousness that’s getting thrown at me.

 

I shut the argument down ages ago.

You haven’t challenged my dogma.

You have just made ignorant assumptions, and nothing more.

 

They must have forgot to update some of the 1960s gen because I could swear I saw a 1940s guy beat a couple of them.

 

MMA is only 30 years old.

You cannot compare that to boxing.


Yes, boxing skills and techniques have improved over time. But again, it’s not in a continuous cycle.


Yes, the top MMA fighters today are better than they were a decade ago.

Yet in boxing, the MW’s of THIRTY YEARS ago, were BETTER than the guys of today.


And that is why there is no CONTINUAL progression, with each new era.

 

Ha!

Possibly.

With these bizarre comments, I honestly wouldn’t mind if someone had said that they’d reeled me in. I would be amused by it. And it would be much better than believing that those comments were genuine by someone.

Where’s No Neck?

I was thinking of commenting on the recent Floyd-McCallum thread.

But some of the comments just gave me a headache.

And I still don’t know if that guy trolls or not.

I actually get the impression that he’s been genuine. But I really hope for his own sake that he is just having a joke.

 

You’re going to leave the thread alone now?

It’s YOUR thread.

 

Having looked at the boxing instructions from Gans you posted, they did not look modern to my eye. Just my opinion though.

I don't disagree that boxing can progress further technically. Access to training, more and better footage etc, but the money isn't there in the training these days. A boxing gym is not a moneymaker rn

MMA is a comparison that in this circumstance can bolster the oppositional view as it is such a recent sport. When I began training in the mid-late 2000s, there were no MMA facilities in my area. You had to go to a boxing gym, go to a muay thai gym, go to a BJJ gym, find wrestling mats. And less practical martial arts had 10x more schools than fighting arts. Now there are gyms that have more qualified teachers in multiple disciplines and it's relatively common. It is incomparable. Development in the first few years of MMA would clearly outplace current development in a sport that is 100+ years older than MMA.

If modern boxing "began" in the late 1800s, I could apply a similar time schedule to its development and it would have hit the 1920s as being relatively evolved. To my eye, I would say fighters were fully modern by the 1960s-1970s and peaked in the 80s and 90s in terms of technique, toughness etc. since then, boxing has become more about creating a record to get a big payout rather than fighting often and learning ringcraft. The 0 has got to go. That's also why MMA is outpacing boxing in development, the best guys always fight the best and there is very little ducking. Popular MMA fighters are accepted to lose fights. And they grow from that. Modern boxing feels stalled out in comparison to its development during the mid 20th century.

Don't wanna dogpile just wanted to talk about MMA since the opportunity doesn't come along often

 

That might have been true in the past but not really anymore UFC matchmatching has become really bad lately top fighters just wait around for a title shot or fight a bunch of guys without getting a title shot and champions sit around for the UFC to pick the right opponent for them or they go to a different division which ties down the division. UFC is just a mess lately Boxing has been way better in terms of matchmaking last 2 years or so. Boxing has also been much better at actually developing talent with boxers being given room to grow and mature while in MMA they get thrown to the wolves and sometimes really good fighters get locked out of the top ten because they fight other really good fighters without ever being given a chance to crack the top ten. So overall I would say UFC has plenty of problems lately that many don't bring up

 

Jones and Aspinall is one of the first ducks I've seen been watching since 2004-5. Boxing sucks compared to MMA in matchmaking these days

 

Colby? Welterweight in general? Lightweight top ten refusing to fight anyone below them? Jones refusing to move up to Heavyweight until Stipe is old and Ngannou left the divison? People refusing to fight Islam while he was rising up the ranks? I think maybe you haven't been paying attention last couple of years lol

 

Love how you can't address any of my points sorry that you have 0 knowledge of MMA besides the superficial but glad we got that straightened out I'm sure your knowledge of boxing is just as deep lol.

 

I addressed all your points. You need to learn to read. You are a stone cold new jack in all aspects and trying to project on me and use your limited MMA knowledge to flex on guys that don't follow the sport. Well I do, and I know way more than you do and I would be willing to test that theory in any venture. Your analogy was so bad that I had to chime in and you didn't read anything, just got offended that the value of your limited knowledge decreases when I'm here.