Has boxing technique evolved since the 1930?

If the sport has improved consistently over time, then Joe Louis should theoretically lose, to the best fighter of approximately the same weight as him, in later eras.

We would expect this to hold true today, ten years ago, twenty years ago, and perhaps even fifty year ago!

 

And the answer is its devolved from the nineties on...perhaps earlier

 

Is there evidence of this that you can point towards? Or is this a nostalgic feeling?

 

His argument is pretty simple.

If boxing has improved over this period, then todays Joe Louis sized fighters would be able to beat Joe Louis, not just fighters with a substantial size advantage.

Though you could counter with
1. Louis was exceptionally good
2. Todays Louis sized fighters are exceptionally bad
3. The improvement is so small competition from before can compete fine

Or some combination.

 

A complete answer is necessarily nuanced.

"Has boxing evolved since 1930?"

The following interpretations of that question are as follows.

1) Has the sport of boxing changed since 1930?
2) Has the sport of boxing gotten better since 1930?
3) Have the technical skills in boxing changed in boxing since 1930?
4) Have technical skills gotten better since 1930?

#1 ) Indisputably. Less people competing in the sport, potential talent diverted into safer and more lucrative sports (on the whole) like baseball, basketball, soccer, and football. Amateur scoring influence, the demise of same day weigh ins and 15 round fights, the value reduction in the term "contender", alphabet titles, adoption of point scoring that replaced round scoring, yada, yada, you know the drill.

2) This is subjective. For me its a mixed bag. Boxing is in a mini renaissance right now, and the rise of YouTube and streaming services like DAZN and ESPN has made boxing more available to the consumer than it ever has before. Nostalgia can corrupt objectivity. While I have a place in my heart for the Liebling smoke filled boxing venues of yesteryear, where contenders were household names, and the heavyweight title was arguably the most cherished title in the world, I would rather be a fan today where technology has enabled the viewer unfathomable access to present and past fights.
But what has been lost is a time when the best fighting the best was more commonplace (racial politics a notable exception), there were 8 weight divisions with one champion each, and ducking the best contenders was harder than today.

3) Yes, in large part due to the points discussed in part 1.

4) I suspect this is what Rez meant. I have mixed feeling on this, but would like to hear someone more qualified to render an opinion on technical improvements and/or deterioration in the sport. For example, SRR would use a right hook with his palm flared out to dig his knuckles into his opponents left kidney. He rarely got called out for this, so why is this not more commonly employed? Other techniques I don't see employed are the left scissors hook by Battling Nelson, Armstrong's use of his head to lift an opponents head into his "blackout" right hook, the mummy defense by Saddler and a young Foreman, the crossarm defense by Moore and old Foreman, the left tap to the head followed by the left hook to the liver by Mickey Ward, and the Tyson right hook to the body/right uppercut.
Are there modern technical developments that have relegated these tactics into obsolescence? And if so, what are they?

 

"The sport in my opinion began it's long decline from the 80s".
"Even in so called 3rd world countries the love of boxing has declined"

As of Jan 01, 2018, these are the number of pro fights that were found in BoxRec's database for the last 5 decades:
1970s 108264
1980s 132609
1990s 142391
2000s 186502
2010s 191569 (with 2 full years to go, this number will eventually go up to around 240000)

I don't see, how these numbers indicate a decline or a talent drain.

Also, on what do you base your claim, that in 3rd world countries the love of boxing isn't what it used to be?

 

Several posters including myself would be grateful if you could share this “indisputable” evidence of the shrinking talent pool. If you would share those numbers with us or point us to a link of this “indisputable” evidence whereby we can also examine these numbers with you.

Since it is “indisputable” I assume you have or know of these numbers otherwise it might not be “indisputable”!

Thanks in advance for your willingness to share them with us

 

I don't know...you sure don't see any Tony Galento types getting title fights anymore. Think that means the talent pool is smaller?

 

That’s just because like Ricky Hatton “there is only one Tony Galento” lol

This content is protected

 

Box rec has been proven wrong on many occasions, especially when considering fights from different countries prior to the 80' s Hell I know of many of local fighters who fought locally in the late 70's early 80's not mentioned in Box rec like the Harp brothers or B.Knowles who I saw fight with my own eyes And they fought right out of Old Verricks gym right their in Miami, so imagine how many fights and fighters have been missed world wide. So the numbers you have are nice , but it doesn't and is pratically impossible to tell the whole story.Where are the champs from Cuba,Jamaica, Korea, South America, Africa. They are becoming few and far between. I'm sure you'd say well they have been replaced by former Soviet Bloc Countries. Possibly. But their have been plenty of defectors who were fighters through the yrs. Is it because they've suddenly became so good, or is it because the competition isn't close to what it was? Most of them don't pass the eye test for me. So yes the sport has declined the last 20 yrs or so in my opnion. But I'm only one man.

 

You're right... BoxRec's numbers don't tell the full story, as they of course are missing a lot of fights. But I think, they at least show a trend. Maybe this becomes clearer, if we look at ALL the decades, where they have recorded fights, rather than just the last 5:

1850s 2
1860s 18
1870s 340
1880s 4652
1890s 21950
1900s 59591
1910s 108737
1920s 313313
1930s 350542
1940s 223981
1950s 161834
1960s 107208
1970s 108264
1980s 132609
1990s 142391
2000s 186502
2010s 191569 (As said, this will likely increase to about 240000 by the end of the decade)

I don't think, that the huge numbers from the 20s and 30s is a result of a more complete collection of fight data, than for later decades. On the contrary, if we follow the logic, that the further back we go, the more fights are missing from BoxRec's database... then there can be no doubt, that those 2 decades saw by far the most activity ever (and likely even more than the numbers indicate).

Then for the 40s, we see a big drop in numbers! Is this because BoxRec suddenly is missing more fights from that period… or is it a real drop, caused by WW2? I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation.

This drop continues through the next several decades - after which activity has rebounded since around the 80s. Which shouldn't really surprise anyone, as many more countries today have taken up pro boxing (BoxRec's database shows pro boxing taking place in 71 countries in 1985 - compared to 116 in 2016). With the fall of The Wall of course playing a major part in this increase.

So why is it so difficult to accept, that after a "slow" period following the war, boxing has now been rebounding over the last several decades? While the numbers are far from 100% correct - isn't there at least a TREND, that backs this up?


As for most boxers from the last 20 years not passing your eye test... well that is your personal opinion, which of course can't be challenged by any numbers. Personally, I believe there have been great fighters at all times throughout boxing history - even in the last couple of decades. RJJ, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, DLH, Lomachenko, Usyk, Ward, Inoue, Golovkin, Rigondeaux, Gonzalez, are surely boxers who would hold their own in any era!

 

I will say the boxing landscape has changed drastically in the last 89 years, and with that change has brought a plethora of new styles .
Mexican fighters have dominated the lower weight classes for the last 40 years for example..
African Americans have gone on to dominate the HWs without opposition since the 30s..
In fact in 1930 the only African American champ we had was jack Johnson. Look at how many have come along since..

 

boxrec was launched in 2000, so it's no surprise they have more fights recorded for the years since then and the decade or so before then.
Those records were contributed in the boxrec era by the world wide editors, reporters, boxers, managers etc. who had a current and immediate interest.
Historical records of long-retired fighters rely on historians contributions just for the sake of history.

 

The thing is with techniques such as the cross guard, is that the lineage of trainers for this techniques have 'died off'.

Not to say it can't be reverse engineered and used by a new trainer, but lineage is important in teaching and developing techniques.

 

So many people here saying, "Boxing hasn't evolved! It's only changed to suit the times!"

That's what evolution means! Not improve, but adapt to changing circumstances. In that case then boxing evolves every era.

As for whether it improves, that's impossible to prove, though you don't tend to see giant oafs like Firpo or Simon competing at the top level nowadays.

Oh wait, Joe Joyce. Might need to rethink that.