Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Samtotheg, May 6, 2021.
Boxing was in a decline since the late 40s , Who were these juggernauts of boxing technique!
Then you don't know sh1t
Haven't seen or heard or any new techniques. The trainers I know teach the same techniques that were being taught 40 years ago, and the techniques that were being taught 40 years ago were the same ones the old guys back in 1980s had been taught way back in the 1930s.
I've spoke to and observed dozens of real people on this, so it's funny that some guys on the internet insist otherwise.
Knowledge of strength training and nutritional advice and drugs have all advanced though.
At the same time, I've seen top professionals who don't even eat right and don't even lift weights correctly, and they are fine.
Boxing hasn't evolved, it's changed. The Walker Law made things more modernised, and that's why post 1925ish, things start to drastically look 'better'. Technique changes to suit the rules it's needed in, and more people get access to it, but it doesn't actually evolve per se. It adapts. Y'know how I know it doesn't evolve? Because you can count on one hand the fighters more skilled and crafty since Archie Moore, and that was 75 years ago.
I do have my own personal opinion not meant to insult anyone but to me fighters fought more often. They watched their weight, they were disciplined in and out of the ring. They were a good example to the youth of the world. They respected each other, were humble, had humility. They had their own identity, they were their own person, not a carbon copy of someone else. They used to be more mature. But as I have often said in the past, they are like the professional wrestlers, they do need assistance in the growth of their bodies, in the form of artificial means. The modern heavies today do not really interest me, too many divas, who fight every election cycle. Tyson Fury is a classic example. Blaming Covid 19. Strictly my own personal opinion as others are entitled to theirs. If I wanted to see a hefty athlete, I could go to the nearest bar, to see an out of shape beer bellied individual.
Can you elaborate on how the 1920 Walker Law rules changed techniques ?
There have always been know-it-all "historians", who decry the present and long for the "good old days".
Joe Choynski's opinion on the 1918 boxing scene:
"I tell you they're a bunch of ham and egg fighters. Too bad they weren't around In the old days. They would have made good punching bags for real fighters."
The best fighters of today would do very well in any era.
Not on account of having "evolved skills" though, but simply because they are very good at boxing.
I think that the advent of shorter fights, more safety procedures and less foul tolerance led to things like bigger gloves made of different materials. Bigger gloves obviously translates to more blocking rather than parrying, but doesn't allow of as vicious grappling. Stances changed to accommodate for the lower need to protect your body, as bigger gloves meant you didn't need to block with your arms. Shorter distances can also influence style and brings the skill level up by the virtue of making stamina and endurance less valuable. Lots of different things ended up influencing others IMO.
I think once the sport became more modernised and everything followed suit, it hasn't looked back. If anything, it's gotten worse. The average top fighter today isn't as skilled as the average top fighter in the 40s.
An all to seldom voice of reason!
Moore being so ring savy was simply a product of his life style being so different then the modern boxer.
He was fighting so often at the highest level against every style imaginable. If a boxer was served the same conditions today we would lose the status of countless ATGs.
Yeah but bigger does not mean better.
I 100% agree with your take, but that's the point - evolution is an adaptation, not progression. A lot of people don't understand that evolution is just a process of changes caused by environmental changes. People who believe that evolution leads to progression are wrong, so in a way boxing indeed evolved, but it doesn't mean it got better.
We'll never get anywhere with this. The same things have been said for decades. Nobody is bringing anything new to the table.
Boxing was much more popular 70 years ago. That's a given.
More good fighters, but more rubbish ones too. More good trainers, but more rubbish ones too. More of everything, good and bad.
One mistake people make is that they focus on a Louis, Charles or a SRR and assume that they represent that's how all fighters were back then. No, these were marvels who had the physical tools to allow them to do what they did. Who else punched like Louis back then?
People can't point to specific fighters and apply it to an entire generation.
@Kamikaze pointed out Moore's ring savvy which being that experienced, he must have had in spades.
Yet, where was all that savvy against Marciano? He stood right in front of Marciano, getting battered round after round until he fell down. No attempt to tie up, smother, get off the ropes, nothing.
It was a clueless display on his part, at least there. (It's just an example, no need to take it further than that.)
Also, not every fighter in the good old days had 100, 150 fights under their belt. Those were exceptions, even then.
I do agree with @Richard M Murrieta that the top guys just aren't active enough. It's frustrating. Wilder hasn't fought since losing to Fury. Fury hasn't fought since either. It seems today that no top fighter fights more than twice a year, if that.
In 1987 Tyson had 4 title fights in a single year. It wasn't THAT long ago.
I don't know why specifically it takes so long to get a fight signed these days. It's like a soap opera now.
On the flip side, to be fair, in the good old days a fighter was often regarded as shot at 33. Finished. Maybe today, fighting less often and looking after yourself better allows for better preservation, has allowed guys to stil be in good form at this age.
Anyway, I'm rambling a bit now. The past wasn't necessarily better. Today isn't necessarily better.
As said, it's adaption to changed rulesets. Good point, that.
At the end of the day, it's two guys with two fists in a ring, trying to best each other.
It's highly technical yet awfully simple, too.
I forgot more boxing than you know!