How do you think old-school boxers (pre-1950s) would perform against today’s top competitors?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Oct 1, 2019.


  1. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,482
    5,745
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2016
    It still is. So why doesn't the US dominate the way it used to?
     
  2. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft The Cincinnati Cobra Full Member

    7,426
    7,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,022
    Mar 3, 2019
    So J Rock would beat Sugar Ray Robinson?
    Bivol would beat Archie Moore?
    Ruiz would destroy Sonny Liston?
    Warrington would destroy Saddler?

    I highly doubt all of them. And that's just 3 cases. There's more as well.
     
    Rumsfeld, Gatekeeper and roughdiamond like this.
  3. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,482
    5,745
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2016
    Most old school fighters would definitely be a lot less diva-ish than fighters today, at least at first. They'd be closer to the unheralded guys at CW and a lot of the ex-Soviet/African fighters in mentality. Easy money could quickly change that though.
     
    Slowhand and PaddyGarcia like this.
  4. madballster

    madballster Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,565
    5,730
    Sportsbook:
    3,882
    Jul 21, 2009
    The average elite fighter from today destroys the average elite fighter from the 50s, just on athleticism/speed/health/injury recovery alone.
     
  5. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,482
    5,745
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2016
    Malnutrition, widespread environmental pollutants, widespread disease, no PEDs.
     
  6. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,482
    5,745
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2016
    So many old school heavyweights look like crap on film, or just highly underwhelming. I can't say too many modern HWs look any better, but then you're not really comparing the same weight classes in objective terms anyway.
     
  7. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    48,745
    7,671
    Sportsbook:
    1,988
    Jul 21, 2012
    There's more skill on display in that fight than there as in Spence vs Porter.

    I have no doubt in my mind you skimmed through it and based your already made-up viewpoint on the few mines you selectively watched.



    Just here alone Tunny delivers a right and left hook to Dempseys body as he's backing off the ropes. I see many angles being created by in ample lateral movement being used by both guys.
    Don't judge Dempsey for struggling to find his range, credit Tunny with fluid in & out movement and landing pull counters 100 years before Mayweather did.
    A bit context for this fight too. It came at the end of both guys careers , they were one fight away from retirement having racked up about 75 fights each.
    Dempsey was rusty having been inactive for 3 years. Neither were at their best but still displayed quick and balanced footwork and movement. It was also the 1920s and the technique that would peak during the 50's , 60's and 70's was still improving. They'd still outwork , out Husstle and out stamina a lout of guys around today.

    Modern training methods , new techniques , athletes improve etc etc -- such a cliched and broad brushed statement , usually made by people who know nothing or care about boxing history.
     
  8. Belfast

    Belfast New Member Full Member

    63
    45
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 2, 2019
    They are parrying jabs with their open backhands, yes, I have been in a gym, I boxed amateur for the Dockers ABC

    I don't see anything wrong with the technique they are using, Dempsey is most definately using head movement and he even throws a nice shoulder roll in there when he's badly hurt, I don't have time at the minute but I'm fairly certain if I watch more of it I can find someone countering a jab with a jab, considering everything else I listed they are doing, you said they can't counter and I'm seeing plenty of them

    What is this "justification" you talk about???
     
    roughdiamond likes this.
  9. PaddyGarcia

    PaddyGarcia #IrrationalGarcia Full Member

    11,653
    7,206
    Sportsbook:
    3,008
    Feb 13, 2014
    Quite right. So many facets to consider
     
  10. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Bebop Boxer Full Member

    4,888
    6,738
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 25, 2015
    So you can watch this video of LW champ 'Old bones' Joe Brown and tell me he wouldn't be competitive and beat champions today?



    What about Henry Hank, who unbelievably didn't even win a title?



    And these are just highlights. Check out their bouts if you're interested! And lots of other fighters too.
     
    Goose and It's Ovah like this.
  11. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,482
    5,745
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2016
    At the lower weights there've been some absolutely astounding technicians, that's no secret. George Benton, Niccolino Locche, Willie Pep, all those guys had crazy skills that'd translate wonderfully to any era, provided they can master the ridiculous rehydration culture without ill effect. It's at the higher weights, where size and power are so much more important, that we've seen the biggest shift. Fighters who in the past would have been mere sideshows have started to become the norm and move as well as smaller fighters from the past, with a corresponding level of skill. I'm not necessarily referring to the present HW division, which I find quite mediocre, but the HW division over the past twenty/thirty years.
     
    Slowhand and roughdiamond like this.
  12. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,172
    1,111
    Sportsbook:
    5,707
    Jan 4, 2005
    Fair enough, I’ll break it down when I get more time.

    The justification is that because they do it once it somehow justifies the terribleness of it all. For example, somebody doesn’t utilise counters, then they counter once in a fight and that’s proof they counter, when really it’s not done with the same level of varied ness, consistency and effectiveness.

    I those guys were called Tunney or Dempsey and you saw a fight between 2 amateurs doing what they’re doing in the video, I would assume it’s a couple of guys who’s been in the ring for a year. They’re doing something’s right but it lacks in what I described above.

    I mean not once did I see Dempsey just parry that jab, slip to the side, double up his own jab and throw a combination as he gets on the inside.

    There is such thing as the eye test and they fail miserably.

    For a start there’s a reason why you keep your hands up, you don’t need to protect your damm chest.
     
  13. Goose

    Goose Russian oligarch Full Member

    4,915
    576
    Sportsbook:
    50
    Mar 2, 2005
    Do boxing rules count for anything? If marginal improvement in nutrition is that important then glove size, fight duration, and ref interference are also important.
    They fought 15 rounds with gloves that have less padding, and the ref would give you no time to recover, you get up and you are back to getting blasted. No wiping gloves or asking if you are 'ok to continue'.

    To say then that somehow boxers now become more methodical, focused, and skilled. Look at the same Floyd, the cream of the crop of undefeated records. He had very close fights with Maidana and De La Hoya who was already not at his best.
    So Floyd, the guy who gets IVs and uses cryochambers had a close fight with Maidana, as crude and unskilled a fighter as they come. Now pick SRR in place of Maidana, and allow the ref to work the same way they did back in the 50s, he going to let SRR rough him up up close so much that it will be a beat down. I mean Floyd can definitely find a counter shot, but it will not be a one sided beating by Floyd just because he trains with more modern methods.

    It's case by case, there is alot more to it than just modern fighters are better than old school.

    James Toney was very successful in modern era, a fat heavyweight, so throw modern nutrition out of the window. His skills and movement were old school and he had a granite chin.
     
  14. madballster

    madballster Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,565
    5,730
    Sportsbook:
    3,882
    Jul 21, 2009
    Not really. I am not saying some 1950s boxer couldn't land a lucky shot and win a huge upset against a modern day champion. But over all variables the classic fighter would be at a massive, massive disadvantage statistically speaking. In every department he'd be outgunned by his modern day opponent. It'd be an unfair fight.
     
  15. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,548
    997
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 20, 2010
    I'm curious… what statistical disadvantage are you talking about?
     
    roughdiamond likes this.


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement