Dominic Breazeale vs the following

I thought, everybody agrees, that Wilder has tremendous power - but little else. So if he has come as far as he has, without learning much about the finer points of boxing, why would he be any different in a different era - where he also would learn nothing?

So you're asking the wrong question. What you SHOULD be asking is this:
If Usyk and Lomachenko were born 100 years earlier (1887 and 1888, respectively), would they have developed into the fighters they are today?

 

Now that is a very interesting question.

I suspect that there would have been significant differences in their styles.

They would probably both have been converted to an orthodox stance among other things.

 

This. Breazeale presented absolutely no challenge to Joshua. I don’t see how Breazeale can be given much credit for taking a one sided beat down. Joshua kept landing the same check heck round after round. Breazeale’s performances against both Joshua and Wilder say more about Breazeale’s terrible defense that it does about Joshua and Wilder.

 

Maybe...but then again you probably think 25 is an old man.

 

Yo, are you actually watching these videos before you link them? "slightly forward". Look at Wladimir's stance. That's not squared bruh. Sharkey DID NOT use the same stance as Louis. He stood tall and squared. I've seen the video on the two stances. I understand what an off-center stance is. Sharkey did not use that stance.

Exactly. Just the way the C grade doctor today knows a lot more than the A grade doctor from hundred years ago. The C grade basketball player today is a lot better than the A grade player from hundred years ago. Breazeale has better fundamentals than Sharkey. He keeps his hands up and knows how to use his jab. He knows the basics of ring-cutting and pressure. He has better offense than Sharkey, Carnera, and Baer. He'd knock them all out.

I have no clue what this means. What gap in class? I said tenacity and heart can overcome skills. Marciano wasn't a better boxer than Walcott, Charles, or Moore. But he beat them all. This is nothing new. Froch was outboxed by fighters who were technically superior than him.

Yea, but Wilder doesn't have the worst fundamentals in the history of the heavyweight division. You think Jeffries had better fundamentals lol? Watch Wilder vs Stiverne I where Wilder won the WBC title. Tell me that's the worst jab and the worst right you've ever seen. Just because he lacks composure and goes berserk when he has someone hurt, it doesn't mean he's the worst technical fighter. Go and watch Lennox Lewis vs Tony Tucker (round 9). Lewis dropped him and look at his follow up. Just like Wilder lol. Lennox gassed himself out and let Tucker back in the fight. Tucker was teeing off on Lewis in round 10. Doesn't mean Lewis wasn't technically sound, he just wasn't composed. Watch Fury vs Wilder. Wilder fought a good technical fight. He threw a lot of good right hands but Fury was too slick. People act like he telegraphs every right hand. He showed good ring cutting skills as well. Wladimir couldn't cut Fury off but Wilder did.

Wilder is not a technically sound fighter but he's not a bum either. He has a good jab whether you agree or not. His right hand is very versatile. He fought Stiverne who used a good high guard and look at how Wilder works around it. He used his jab to set up the right hand. He was throwing straight rights, overhand rights, and right hooks to work around that guard. That's technical ability. Overcoming a form of defense.

Wilder fought a guy named Szpilka who was surprisingly good. Wilder fought patiently behind his jab and waited for his openings. He ended up scoring one of the most brutal knockouts in recent years. Look at how he got Szpilka (a southpaw). Szpilka was trying to get in and land an overhand right. Wilder kept his right hand low and kept pawing with his jab. Szpilka gets under the jab, gets inside and throws an overhand left. Wilder was hit with the same overhand right earlier in the round. Wilder used a pawing jab as a bait because Szpilka was trying to counter off the jab. Wilder sees him coming in with the overhand left and counters with a short right hand. That's technical ability. A perfectly timed counter.

Watch his knockout against Washington. He arguably lost the first 4 rounds of the fight. It was a slow fight. Neither fighter was doing much. Washington was bothering Wilder with his jab. Watch the 5th round of that fight. Wilder comes out and he's only throwing his jab for the first half of the round. He has Washington along the ropes, he throws his jab and then he pauses. Watch what he does with his left hand. He used it to pull down Washington's left arm so he could land a clean right hand. It was a 1-2 but with a pause. He made it look like it was just a jab by breaking down the 1-2 into 1 and then a 2. Big difference. That's versatility. When you really watch Wilder, you can see he's a lot more technical than you think.

If Wilder can set up Tyson Fury and Luis Ortiz, I'm not surprised he landed his right hand on Breazeale. Breazeale is nowhere near as good as Ortiz and Fury.

Keep attacking the strawman. "You obviously don't think that a guard or defense are very important in boxing, if a guy with no guard, can be better technically than the man with the best defense from another era!"

I said "He (Froch) was still more technically sound than the middleweights of 20s and 30s." When did I say he had better defense than the best defensive fighter of that particular era (1920s/30s)?

Froch lacked a guard and he didn't make up for it with good head movement. How is that any worse than the fighters who fought a hundred years ago? The ones who fought with their hands down and didn't have much head movement. You're acting like one element defines a fighters technical ability. He fought with his hands down and he had shi-t defense. Walker wasn't any better. Froch was a better offensive fighter than Walker, had better footwork and was a better counter-puncher. Froch had better offence than almost every fighter that fought in the 20s and 30s. Now, I wanna repeat myself here. Carl Froch, similar to Wilder today, used to get shi-t on for poor technique and sloppiness. I've never seen a single person call Froch a technically sound fighter. You can imagine how high the standards are today. Froch is more technically sound than the fighters from a hundred years ago. All you need to do is watch Froch vs Abraham.

Did Froch have a successful career? Yes. So did Iran Barkley, Ricardo Mayorga, Marcos Maidana, Trevor Berbick, Kelly Pavlik. None were technically sound fighters. Think about it. If we made a list of all the champions, how many would be technically sound and how many would be technically unsound? For every Carl Froch, I can name 5 Jermain Taylors. And you say my argument is ridiculous lol. You're literally hanging on to one fighter, one flaw and making an argument that fighters haven't improved. How long would it take you to find 5 modern fighters who fought with their hands down and were known for having poor defense? And then you'd continue to ignore other aspects of their game. Because those things don't matter.

 

Yes they did. Don't you think their stance had to do with their style? It's much easier to bob and weave when you're squared up. It allows for better side to side head movement as well. If you ask Frazier to bring his rear foot back, he won't be squared up no more. They simply had different stances. If one foot is behind the other, your body will naturally rotate (depending on how wide your stance is). Frazier and Tyson kept their feet close. That's not the fundamental stance. Not that there's anything wrong with their stance. But your average fighter doesn't have that stance. Everyone is taught some kind of a trick to determine their stance. Usually you kneel down (right knee if you're orthodox), stand up and turn you feet inward. That's basically your stance. Fundamental stance is a narrow one and doesn't allow you to square up. Unless you intentionally rotate your body forward. That's why I said no one fights fully squared up.

 

"How come everyone else is improving except boxers? "
They're not, in the sense that you seem to be suggesting. Most of the seeming improvement, especially in track and field, is most likely the result of rapidly expanding talent pools, improvement which has largely plateaued as growth of the talent pools did.

Basketball is a far more popular sport than it was n the 1960's. Tell me, how easy do you think it would be to even find a publicly accessible basketball hoop within a three mile radius of any given residence in 1950, even in a major city?
Why do you think the United States doesn't dominate what the rest of the world calls football, despite having one of the largest populations of any "first world" nation?
Because it's not popular here, but all the equipment that's required to play and practice for it anywhere in the world are a ball and an open field.

As for supposed scientific training and nutrition, this this utter nonsense -unless of course "nutrition" is a euphemism for PED's.

 

So that would imply there were tons of people who could have beaten Sharkey at the time. The only problem is they weren't boxing cause the talent pool was smaller. They were probably farming or working in a factory.

Now a days tho, the talent pool is larger. So there should be tons of boxers actually boxing today that could beat Sharkey and his ilk!

 

Ten years older than me

 

I wouldn't say that's especially true either of Sharkey's time or the sport of boxing. Something like this principle applies to literally any field whatsoever.

And it's far from clear that the talent pool in boxing is larger.

 

Marciano and Dempsey bobbed and weaved fighting less square.
But it yes, it was part of their style, and they did what they had to to fight like themselves.

 

There are more people today. More big people to become athletes.

 

I personally think boxing peaked in the 70s and 80s.

The biggest fight of the 1920s was the rematch between Dempsey and Tunney (1927). The fought was carried by 74 radio stations and broadcast to a worldwide audience of 45 million.

Muhammad Ali era:

1964- Ali vs Liston I: 65 million viewers in Europe alone. 950,000 buys in USA

1965- Ali vs Liston II: 80 million viewers worldwide + 50 million listeners on the radio

1966- Ali vs Cooper II: 200 million viewers worldwide. 21 million viewers in the UK.

1971- Ali vs Frazier I:The fight was watched by a record 300 million viewers worldwide.

In UK, this fight was viewed by 27.5 million people on BBC One. For comparison, the 1966 world cup final between England and Germany was viewed by 32.3 million people (most watched TV Broadcast in UK history).

1974- Ali vs Frazier II: 200 million viewers worldwide

1974- Ali vs Foreman: 1 billion viewers worldwide. 26 million viewers in the UK (BBC One)

1975- Ali vs Frazier III: 1 billion viewers worldwide

1976- Ali vs Norton III: 900 million viewers worldwide

1978- Ali vs Spinks II: 2 billion viewers worldwide. 90 million viewers in the US (ABC). For comparison, the police pursuit of OJ Simpson in 1994 was viewed by 95 million people (multiple networks).
Also, Ali-Spinks I was only viewed by 70 million people around the world.

1980- Ali vs Holmes: 2 billion viewers worldwide
____________________________________________________________________________________________

1955- Marciano vs Moore: Marciano's final fight.

The gross gate was $948,117.95
Theatre Network Television drew an estimated $1,125,000 from some 320,000 buyers (PPV)
The radio receipts were $35,000
Marciano received $482,374 and Moore got $241,187

1980- Sugar Ray Leonard vs Thomas Hearns

The fight grossed over $35 million. The live gate was $5.9 million, and the revenue from pay-per-view was $7.5 million
Leonard made over $11 million, Hearns got $8 million
300 million viewers worldwide

1980- Leonard vs Duran II

Gate of $3 million. TV Revenue= $38 million.
Duran made $8 million, and Leonard made $7 million.

1987- Leonard vs Hagler: Generated $78 million.

Let's combine Leonard-Hearns and Leonard-Hagler revenue= $113 million. You wanna know the revenue of NBA for the entire 1982-83 season? $118 million.

Let's see the revenue for 2013-14 NBA season. $4.6 billion. Revenue for Mayweather-Pacquiao? $4.3 billion.

Ray Leonard was the first fighter ever to earn $100 million.
Mike Tyson earned over $300 million.
Floyd Mayweather earned over $500 million.
Manny Pacquiao earned $300 million.
Evander Holyfield earned $230 million.
Oscar De La Hoya earned $200 million.
Lennox Lewis earned $140 million.

Canelo Alvarez just signed a 11 fight deal where he's guaranteed to make $365 million (73 million/year)
Tyson Fury signed a 5 fight deal with Top Rank where he'll make $80 million ($16 million a fight)
Wilder made anywhere between $12.5 and 18 million for fighting Breazeale.

Don't you think kids look at all the money Floyd made and all the money these boxers are making and get inspired? Boxing has a way of attracting the unfortunate. That was the case back in the day and that is the case today.

Even if you adjust these revenues (inflation), fighters made more money and generated more money as time passed. To me, that's a sign of growing popularity. Muhammad Ali took boxing to another level. His fights were some of those most viewed broadcasts in the history of television. And that was in the 70s. Ali vs Spinks II was viewed by 2 billion people in 1978. World population at the time was 4.3 billion. If you combine the viewership of the 2014 and 2018 FIFA world cup final, you get to 2 billion. World population during that period was 7 billion.

Think of how many fighters Ali inspired. You really think the talent pool would drop after the world witnessed a champion like Ali. Then we can move to the 80s. Boxing had Leonard, Hagler, Tyson, Hearns, Duran, Chavez. In the 90s, there was Tyson, Holyfield, De La Hoya, Lewis, Foreman, Trinidad, Whitaker, Toney, Roy Jones, little guys like Carbajal/Gonzalez. In the 2000s, we had Mayweather, Pacquiao, Morales/Barrera, Cotto, Marquez, Mosley. Now we have Joshua, Canelo, Golovkin, Wilder, Lomachenko, Crawford, Spence, Fury. Look at the top 10 boxers today (3 American, 2 Ukranian, 2 Mexican, 1 Japanese, 1 Filipino). A diverse group. World population in 1927 was almost 2 billion. Today it's 7.7 billion. Even if boxing doesn't have the same appeal it once had, population has increased almost 4 times. There's no way anyone can convince me boxing has a smaller talent pool today. Maybe in America, the talent pool was bigger back in the day. But worldwide, it's bigger than ever before.

People say Klitschkos weren't popular. But they say that because the Klitschkos didn't fight in the US. That's the difference between then and now. You wanna know about the drawing power of Wladimir Klitschko? His fight against David Haye was viewed by 500 million people in 150 countries. His fight against Kubrat Pulev was viewed by 300 million people.

"They're not, in the sense that you seem to be suggesting. Most of the seeming improvement, especially in track and field, is most likely the result of rapidly expanding talent pools, improvement which has largely plateaued as growth of the talent pools did."

This is not true. You don't think basketball players today are better than 1960s or 70s? On average, they are much better. They are better athletes and better players.

Go and look at the athletics records at the Olympics. 20/25 records were set in the 21st century.

Long Jump record was set in 1968. It was broken at the World Championships in 1991.

Hammer Throw record was set in 1988.

400 Metres Hurdles record was set in 1992.

Triple Jump and High Jump record was set in 1996.

In 2000, Maurice Greene won gold in 100m. His time was 9.86
In 2004, Justin Gatlin won gold. His time was 9.85
in 2008, Usain Bolt won gold. His time was 9.69

Usain Bolt set the world record in 2009 with a time of 9.58 seconds. Did the talent pool increase over those 9 years? Or was Usain Bolt simply better than the rest?

We can go all the way back to the first Olympics in 1896. Every athlete has improved since then. No one holds any record since the 1920s or 30s. Athletics have always been popular. Carl Lewis is arguably the most famous Olympian ever. He was active during the 80s/90s. He inspired a whole generation of athletes. And those athletes broke all his records.

"As for supposed scientific training and nutrition, this this utter nonsense -unless of course "nutrition" is a euphemism for PED's."

You don't think nutrition today is better than 1930s? Fighters have nutritionists who tell them what to eat and when to eat. You can monitor your calories and macronutrients. You have supplements like Whey, Creatine, Amino Acids, Glutamine etc. With the help of a nutritionist, you will know when to eat certain foods. With enough research we've found out how important it is to eat protein and carbohydrate (simple sugars- dextrose) post-workout. The sugars promote glycogen synthesis and the proteins promote muscle repair. Fighters can cut weight a lot safer and easier now by managing their fluid and carb intake.

You can't even argue training isn't better today. Look at Anthony Joshua and compare him to Primo Carnera. He's as big as him but so much more agile. Go and look at Cryotherapy and how it enhances an athlete's recovery. Fighters today include plyometrics into their workouts to become more explosive and quicker. Sports psychology is another aspect that is still developing. Fighters have workouts which help them train their aerobic capacity to the max. Not just long runs and roadwork. There has been studies that show high-intensity interval aerobic training significantly improves VO2 Max than a slow long distance run. Just because the old-school fighters trained a certain way, it doesn't mean it's the best way to train. You should also look at some of these wearables we have nowadays. You can put these gadgets in your gloves and monitor your performance. Your punching speed, the force of your punches, retraction time. You can throw 10 punches, record yourself throwing those punches and then look at the findings. You can see why certain punches were weaker or slower (poor form/technique). It tracks your whole performance throughout the workout. If you were sparring, you'll know when your punches starting slowing down and had less force. So you know how hard you need to work on your cardio. Or maybe you simply lost focus. All in all, boxing has gone to another level since the 1920s. If you believe it is still the same, no problem. To each their own.

 

Breazeale is crap.
He couldn't beat Kassi really, and he wouldn't beat the top version of Jack Sharkey.
Max Baer would KO him.
I dunno about Carnera because Carnera was kinda crap too, so who knows ? and who cares ?

 

It makes little difference. I reckon Marvin Hagler had the old school diet of steak (and occassionally fish) and vegetables and look at him.
I reckon Roberto Duran probably ate like a pig, terrible diet, and is usually rated one of the best pound-for-pound fighters of any era.
These were the guys of your peak era, '70s and '80s.
They had old school diets and old school trainers who were stuck in the '30s - '50s mentality.
Muhammad Ali probably ate pretty badly too.

They didn't have cutting edge nutritional supplements. They didn't have fancy "modern training". They trained old school. Skipping rope, cutting wood with an axe, spar, hit the bag, don't lift weights.