How am I a brick wall? I have given you many things to ponder. Many examples to back up my points. I given you facts and logical opinions. I’ve asked you genuine questions which you haven’t answered. I’m here for an objective debate. You are the brick wall. You are cherry picking and being disingenuous. Come back and debate. Answer the points that have been set by me and the other members. Come back and try and refute them. It’s your thread. You instigated the debate. We’re all here open to it. So let it continue.
No, he is better at cutting the ring off. Go watch Frazier-Ali 1 and you’ll see that all Frazier does is walk in straight lines towards Ali. That isn’t actually cutting off the ring, not really. When you cut off the ring, you’re supposed to go where your opponent will be not where they already are. Frazier did the latter and Chisora did the former. Chisora moved laterally to cut off Usyk then threw hooks in either direction depending on which way Usyk was going to block off his exits. Chisora fought a far more mobile and aggressive opponent than Ali and cut the ring off better than Frazier did. The reason him being so repetitive is problematic is that when you fight in the same rhythm it makes you very easy to time and therefore counter. Watch Tanaka vs Ioka to see this action. The reason being front foot heavy like Frazier was is problematic is because it made him a sucker for an uppercut. It’s why Foreman was so successful and Ali wasn’t , because Ali never had a strong uppercut game and Foreman did. Foreman was also able to land punches at will on Frazier. He had something like 90% accuracy with his jab alone so I don’t think Frazier is quite the defensive maestro you’re making him out to be. Just watch the film and pay close attention to each man’s technique and it becomes pretty clear that Chisora is both more skilled and better skilled than Frazier judging on the evidence of what we have on film of both. Sure, it seems outlandish to propose that a glorified gatekeeper like Chisora was better than the sacred lamb of the ATG Joe Frazier but the film clearly shows this to be the case imo.
This thread was cool, and this subject is fun, and you may have a point here and there, but ****ing Chisora is not more skilled than Joe Frazier just because he showed off some jabs and moved laterally against Usyk.
You are no doubt right... the further back in time we go, the more fighters are likely to have gone "under the radar", and have therefore never been registered anywhere! How many we're talking about, is of course impossible to say - but it's hard to read the numbers, and not conclude that the worldwide talent pool has grown conciderably over the last 40 years! Does this mean, that today's boxers are automatically better than those back in the 1980s? No, of course not... that's a whole different discussion!
Population numbers ? I feel like I talked with you this before, B, but keep in mind that the world never had such a small generation of young people than the last 15 years, in Europe especially, young people are nowhere to be found.
Far more mobile? Ali is considerably faster than Usyk. I guarantee you if we did a poll on this, most posters would rank Ali as significantly faster. If you showed non boxing fans or people who have never seen Ali or Usyk fight, i promise you most people would rank Ali as significantly faster. How did he cut the ring far more effectively when he only did it for 4 rounds and then got dominated? Foreman was able to land punches so easily as Frazier needed to get close to do any work and Foreman's power was too devastating when anyone tried to get close. Chisora has never been in the ring with a Foreman and if he did get in the ring with George, he would get stopped in 2-3 rounds like Joe did. Besides Foreman was the only one who could land easily on Frazier. No one else did. While virtually anyone Chisora has fought has found him to be an easy target. Chisora is defensively worse than Frazier. Much worse.
That's funny, I was at the beach earlier today here in Denmark - where I swear, I saw several young people!
Boxing is pretty big in the UK these days, - as is the case in Mexico as well as Japan (where world-class boxers in the lighter divisions are created on a regular basis). And then of course we have the many eastern European fighters, who are now being able to turn pro - in contrast to back in the '80s, where they weren't allowed to. Surely the huge influx of boxers from the former communist countries has greatly changed the boxing scene. Just look at The Ring's world rankings by the end of last year (2023): The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2023 - BoxRec Now compare this with the rankings 40 years earlier (1983): The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1983 - BoxRec Almost like two different worlds, where boxers from all over the world are now taking up the high rankings, that earlier seemed almost "reserved" for US fighters. This is of course most obvious in the higher divisions. At HW, for example, 8 of the 11 men ranked in 1983 were Americans... A number that in 2023 had shrunk to just TWO (in 7th and 9th place!). Does this prove, that boxing today has gone to ****? Or is it an indication, that there's much more international competition than before?
I'm not sure I understand the question. What defines a generation? By evolution, do you mean improving, streamlining, or just changing? Even the phrase 'boxing technique'? Do you mean all techniques, do you mean nuts and bolts fundamentals, or do you mean just the high level stuff? I'm not trying to be a massive pain in the arse, I just wanna understand the question you're asking. It's probably my favourite question in boxing.
But we are seeing countries that once were good having nothing today, like Italy, France and South Korea. And may I say Canada too.
I myself never thought it out that profoundly when I first asked it in all honestly. Part of me just wanted to see what the reaction would be from the old-heads on the forum. I suppose if I were to try and elaborate on the original meaning of the question, I might phrase it: “Do you consider that the concept of what makes sound boxing technique and fundamentals as we understand it today is an improvement on how that technique was understood in the past and do you believe that as time progresses we will also see a progression in the improvement of these fundamentals as we understand them when training and coaching techniques become more streamlined and collectivist?” If that makes sense. Evolution has a lot to do with the environment as well I’ve realised so once championship fights began to have accepted distances at 15 rounds and once glove sizes and padding increased in the late 30s or so the environment most boxing matches are held under, by and large, haven’t changed significantly for the last 80 or so years. During this time, can it be said that the average technical ability of fighters across the divisions can be thought to have improved in the way we currently perceive technical ability and good fundamentals? Technique encompasses all boxing skills but the main focus I have is on nuts and bolts fundamentals really since comparing the high level skills of different fighters is a harder comparison and less meaningful to the question. I hope I haven’t rambled too much and have cleared up some things.