Have boxing skills progressed, or have they regressed?

Eric cantona · Jun 26, 2013

janitor said: ↑

Not realy.

Some prety limited fighters break the rankings in every era.

In some eras, limited fighters become lineal champions i.e. the 1990s.

This dosn't happen when Joe Louis is guarding the title.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about a limited fighter. We are talking about a guy that makes pavaroti look athletic

janitor · Jun 26, 2013

Eric cantona said: ↑

We aren't talking about a limited fighter. We are talking about a guy that makes pavaroti look athletic
Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Eric cantona · Jun 26, 2013

janitor said: ↑

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Click to expand...

He nearly beat Louis.....there was a slow count

janitor · Jun 26, 2013

Eric cantona said: ↑

He nearly beat Louis.....there was a slow count
Click to expand...

Joking aside, he got his 15 minutes of fame.

Incidentaly, that phrase was based on Johns L Sullivans offer of $1000, to anybody who could last four rounds against him.

janitor · Jun 27, 2013

Tommo said: ↑

First off, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, George Foreman were the champs of the 70's and were somewhat chubby boxers for most of their careers.
Click to expand...

But they wern't in their prime.

I sometimes wonder if you have any radar for what is going on at world level and what is not.

More importantly a boxer is a highly trained athlete. It doesn't really matter if they are a bit fat performance wise so long as their cardiorespiratory system and muscles are conditioned enough to be effective at that weight. Not obese of course but somewhat chubby boxers DON'T gas as often as muscular ones in actual fights! And also fat can confer other benefits like increased chin and punch resistance and still contributes to total power via added mass.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that a fat boxer is not putting in the training he should be, to fight at world level.

The 3 boxers you mentioned happen to fall under this category. During prime Sam Peter who is a whale now was six packed and built like a tank!
Click to expand...

Not when he held the WBC title.

All 3 are great boxers who Louis doesn't really stand a chance against. If your gonna pick a fighter from the modern era that Louis could beat with any serious probability it would not be a contender.
Click to expand...

At least Louis always turned up to fights in imaculate condition, and so did most of his opponents.

This in itself suggests thatthe fighters of his era took their careers more seriously.

Personaly, I think Louis would have beaten all three in the same night.
Click to expand...

Loudon · Jun 27, 2013

Tommo said: ↑

Considerable double standards from Janitor.

Cantona, this guy wrote me on another thread claiming a fighter like Morrison should never be decked by a guy like Bentt even if he is a hard puncher, and THEN goes on to claim here that it's excusable for Louis to be decked for a virtual KO by an emporer penguin, despite the fact he is not what we would today regard as one!

Where were Louis's superior skillset to save him this time?

I find it funny how both fighters who are claimed more than any others from the past to be successful because of superior skills (Louis and Ali) OUTSIZED their opponents more often than the Klitschko's, Lennox, Tyson AND Holyfield! Clearly if the modern guys are competing with guys on average their same weight like Wladimir or much bigger than themselves on average like Holyfield then it points to better skills right!

But apparently SIZE IS OVERRATED or means little according to these guys. When apparently, this is what their old heroes mostly relied on it would seem!

And as another sharp fellow said on this forum already, those guys having enough skills to dispatch the giant unskilled fighters that best describes those guys without being rude of their generation does not translate to beating a giant of the skill and athleticism of Lennox Lewis!
Click to expand...

I specifically altered the thread from asking has boxing progressed, to have actual skills progressed?

Because each division has gone up and down over the years.

But it's my opinion, that certain skills have been lost.

If you put the best guys of today up against the best guys from the past, the guys of today would have no chance as a whole in my honest opinion.

Ali v Wlad
Ali v Vitali

Holyfield v G. Jones/Lebedev/Huck/Hernandez/Wlodarczyk
Qawi v G. Jones/Lebedev/Huck/Hernandez/Wlodarczyk

Spinks v Hopkins/Clev/Bute/Dawson/Stevenson
Foster v Hopkins/Clev/Bute/Dawson/Stevenson
Moore v Hopkins/Clev/Bute/Dawson/Stevenson
Charles v Hopkins/Clev/Bute/Dawson/Stevenson
Qawi v Hopkins/Clev/Bute/Dawson/Stevenson

Roy Jones v Ward/Kessler/Froch/Degale/Groves

Marvin Hagler v Martinez/Golovkin/Chavez Jnr
Carlos Monzon v Martinez/Golovkin/Chavez Jnr

Mike McCallum v Mayweather/Alvarez/Trout
Tommy Hearns v Mayweather/Alvarez/Trout

SRR v Mayweather/Marquez/Bradley/Alexander/Pac/Khan
SRL v Mayweather/Marquez/Bradley/Alexander/Pac/Khan
Hearns v Mayweather/Marquez/Bradley/Alexander/Pac/Khan
Duran v Mayweather/Marquez/Bradley/Alexander/Pac/Khan

Chavez v Matthysse/Peterson/Garcia/Rios/Judah
Pryor v Matthysse/Peterson/Garcia/Rios/Judah

Duran v Burns/Gamboa/Vasguez
Benny Leonard v Burns/Gamboa/Vasguez

Yes, I've cherry picked some of the greatest of all time, and obviously I've had a lot to choose from. Again, some of today's weight classes may have more strength in depth overall, than yesteryear. As mentioned previously, some era's were strong and some other era's were weak, and it will continue to go up and down over time.

But here I'm just making a point.

If skills progress every decade, then that must mean that today's top fighters are the best ever, and they would beat their predecessors?

Today's MW's must be the best of all time?

Today's WW's must be the best of all time?

Today's fighters must be the greatest fighters we've ever seen?

But they're not.

Tell me what you think would have happened in the above fights?

janitor · Jun 27, 2013

Tommo said: ↑

Considerable double standards from Janitor.

Cantona, this guy wrote me on another thread claiming a fighter like Morrison should never be decked by a guy like Bentt even if he is a hard puncher, and THEN goes on to claim here that it's excusable for Louis to be decked for a virtual KO by an emporer penguin, despite the fact he is not what we would today regard as one!

Click to expand...

You do understand the difference between getting decked and knocked out right?

The latter is far more damaging to your reputation.

Louis was never decked by a guy like Bentt because everybody who ever dropped him was a ranked contender at the time, but even if he had been it would not be nearly as damaging as being beaten by him.

Not a double standard, but a clear difference between the situation.

I find it funny how both fighters who are claimed more than any others from the past to be successful because of superior skills (Louis and Ali) OUTSIZED their opponents more often than the Klitschko's, Lennox, Tyson AND Holyfield! Clearly if the modern guys are competing with guys on average their same weight like Wladimir or much bigger than themselves on average like Holyfield then it points to better skills right!
Click to expand...

Not necisarily.

They could just be fighting big mediocre opponents.

Being big does not automaticaly maek you good, you seem to have some trouble grasping this.

But apparently SIZE IS OVERRATED or means little according to these guys. When apparently, this is what their old heroes mostly relied on it would seem!

Click to expand...

You overrate size, because it seems to be the only variable you place any value on, except in cases where it contradicts your argument.

And as another sharp fellow said on this forum already, those guys having enough skills to dispatch the giant unskilled fighters that best describes those guys without being rude of their generation does not translate to beating a giant of the skill and athleticism of Lennox Lewis!
Click to expand...

It sure as hell translates to being able to beat a guy like Morrison or Peter.

Lets start with that.
Click to expand...

janitor · Jun 27, 2013

Tommo said: ↑

Considering Louis very nearly lost this fight because of it himself and that this guy would likely drop dead at the sight of Morrison, I think it's a very valid comparison.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely not a valid comparison on any level.

Geting knocked out looses you a fight while getting dropped dosn't.

It is also a bit of a stretch to say that Louis nearly lost the fight because of it. It might just have been a flash knockdown.

I also have to point out that limited though Galento was, he was an order of magnitude above Bentt.

But you've tried to say Louis victories over such guys was testament to his skills previously and that they were somewhat comparable to modern big guys? Unfortunately those guys didn't fight too many "mediocre" opponents even in regarding their own eras!
Click to expand...

I can asure you that fighters in Louios's era were matched much harder than those today, and fought other top fighters more often.

We can dispute the relative strength of the contenders, but there is no question that the top fighters of the 30s and 40s fought each other more often.

I merely acknowledge size for what it is. The mere fact a fighter outweighs another gives them the greatest single attribute advantage, skills aside and statistically favourable chances to win.

A bummy+heavy opponent can be more dangerous than a skilled+light one and weight is a directly measurable thing where skills are subjective. I acknowledge size along with skills when I compare.

Click to expand...

I think this is the biggest falacy you are falling into.

Size is an importyant factor, but it would be a masive stretch to say that it was the biggest single advantage a fighter can have.

A world class cruserweight will beat a superheavyweight who is a fringe contender, and a world class ligh heavyweight will beat a superheavyweight who is a tomato can.

You masivley over value size in this argument.

You however accuse me of relying purely on size and then try to tuck under the rug that the main reason for Ali and Louis being successful is because they outsized their skilled opponents and outskilled their heavy ones.
Click to expand...

You realy think that the main reason why Louis and Ali were sucesfull was their size?

The main factor in Louis's sucess was his finishing ability.

The main factor in Ali's sucess was his speed.

While these guys did have a size advantage over some of their opponents, it was generaly not big enough to be a decisive factor.

Unfortunately today the heavy guys are also the skilled ones which Louis and Ali never really fought. The advantage they relied on the most is now a disadvantage. It's not their fault, there were none really around!

Seems to me the size thing has contradicted your own argument!

Click to expand...

You don't even seem to understand who Joe Louis or Muhamad Ali were.

You are obsessed with size to the extent that it is the only thing you can see, in two fighters for who it was not even a significant asset.

See Morrison vs Ali for him... And Peter LOL Ali struggled 3 times with Joe Frazier and was even beaten once.
Click to expand...

I can asure you that neither Ali nor Frazier would have strugled with Morrison opr Peter.

Peter is similarly styled but 30lbs heftier, hits twice as hard and can take a 3 times harder shot!
Click to expand...

Peter is certainly heavier, but he is not a big heavyweight, he is just fat.

In terms of speed, work rate, defence or ability to apply pressure, he isn't in Fraziers class.

Do you even understand boxing technique?

Ali couldn't keep Frazier off of him, his supposed skills were worthless! Peter would almost invariably knock him out every time. He is both overpowering and a stylistic nightmare for Ali!
Click to expand...

The same guy who couldn't put away a fat midleweight?
Click to expand...

Koba · Jun 27, 2013

This thread's just gonna run and run innit. The oldest argument in history - is the old better than the new?

Gonna buy shares in popcorn. (long term investment)

Eric cantona · Jun 27, 2013

Janitor........tommo and myself could just say nothin and you will win the argument for us...
The fact you say divito was a contender in his era and bentt was a nobody in his era proves that boxing skills have got better....
I urge everyone to watch this wee guy crouching about the ring...its laughable...but what's more laughable is how the GREAT Louis struggles and gets decked by the mighty galento

janitor · Jun 27, 2013

Eric cantona said: ↑

Janitor........tommo and myself could just say nothin and you will win the argument for us...
Click to expand...

Then why don't you?

The fact you say divito was a contender in his era and bentt was a nobody in his era proves that boxing skills have got better....
I urge everyone to watch this wee guy crouching about the ring...its laughable...but what's more laughable is how the GREAT Louis struggles and gets decked by the mighty galento

Click to expand...

You might want to factor into the argument, that Louis got up and destroyed Dany DeVito, while Michael Bentt walked away with Morrisons title.

I fail to see how Bentt being a champion, could be seen as a good argument for any era.
Click to expand...

janitor · Jun 27, 2013

Koba said: ↑

This thread's just gonna run and run innit. The oldest argument in history - is the old better than the new?

Gonna buy shares in popcorn. (long term investment)
Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

madballster · Jun 28, 2013

Skills are better than ever. In all departments. Also let's not forget preparation: Training, recovery, massage, sparring, nutrition is leagues and bounds above what was possible 50-100 years ago.

dinovelvet · Jun 28, 2013

Eric cantona said: ↑

Janitor........tommo and myself could just say nothin and you will win the argument for us...
The fact you say divito was a contender in his era and bentt was a nobody in his era proves that boxing skills have got better....
I urge everyone to watch this wee guy crouching about the ring...its laughable...but what's more laughable is how the GREAT Louis struggles and gets decked by the mighty galento
Click to expand...

That Galento moved faster and had more stamina than Sam Peter, who is one of Wladimir Klitschko's best wins and who knocked Wlad down not once but THREE times. At least Louis got up and said enough is enough and blew Tony into oblivion, Wlad had to go into survivial mode and run for his life.

janitor · Jun 28, 2013

Tommo said: ↑

Which happened to be true statements Janitor LOL and likewise apply!

Coming back to Louis, think about it. I am basically claiming skills and size have equal importance. The more skilful a boxer becomes, the more size can be nullified. But the reverse is also true, the heftier an opponent becomes, the more skill can be nullified.

You cannot argue such a simple truth because the boxing commissions since the beginning of boxing have determined it to be true and introduced little things called weight ranges for a reason!

Bentt was no stellar champion in the modern era agreed. But compare him to Tony friggin Galento and suddenly Bentt is elite!

There's no shame in being reasonable Janitor, Louis was a great champion, he was tough and skilled enough to beat his smaller opponents AND those his own size too which he deserves his merits, and he was skilled+tough enough to beat the big oafs too which also has merit. But it is what it was! Nothing more!
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you base everything on what you think would happen if two fighters from different eras met head to head, and place no value whatsoever on what they actualy proved in the ring.

Given the difference between your predictions about how these fighters would fare head to head and mine, ity is safe to say that one or both of us is very badly wrong. That in itself tells you all that you need to know about the value of head to head prediction.

So yes I do place a much higher value on Louis's record, than anybodys opionion of how he would fare against other champions.

I think that you over value size to an extent that is absurd. Indeed it seems to be the only thing you value. You dont even seem to look at how to fighters match up stylisticaly.

This content is protected

Log in or Sign up

Have boxing skills progressed, or have they regressed?

Eric cantona Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

Eric cantona Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

Koba Whimsical Inactivisist Full Member

Eric cantona Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

madballster Loyal Member Full Member

dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

janitor VIP Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Have boxing skills progressed, or have they regressed?

Eric cantona Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

Eric cantona Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

Koba Whimsical Inactivisist Full Member

Eric cantona Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

madballster Loyal Member Full Member

dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

janitor VIP Member