HW evolution debate master thread

The availability of video and speedy global communication alone make me not believe technique was better back in the day. People cite some ATG's and say technique was better back in the day. Watch fights from 50+ years ago that do not involve an ATG then get back to me (nobody really does that, and understandably so).

We understand the health issues better today hence far, far less gym wars than used to take place.

And top athletes would become boxers, one of if not the most popular and visible sport back in the day. Nowadays, if you're a top athlete, unless you want headaches and bruises to go along with making less money, you'll pick a different sport.

 

This is your big flaw. If you can't see the technique that Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson brought to the table, you don't know boxing.

You think you do, but you don't. The old school guys were FAR more crafty than guys today.

So much of the skill from the past has been lost. You will see that soon and you will be SHOOK.

Lol. It's okay though. You will recover. Just open up your mind and stop being so stubborn.

 

All referees officiate in a a different manner. But over the years, I've seen many examples where the ref hasn't broken the fighters up straight away, allowing for them to fight their way out of a clinch etc, only for the option to be completely ignored.

I've seen countless fights where fighters have been laid up on the ropes just begging to be hit to the body, whilst their opponent seemingly hasn't even noticed it as an option.

There's been no advancements or new techniques added to boxing for many years.

Having a trainer showing you something hands-on, in-person, is obviously completely different to receiving second hand information.

 

I think Dempsey and Johnson were considered in "some ATG's".

 

Professional boxers have hands-on, professional trainers in the modern era just as they did in past eras.
These trainers have access to all the knowledge learned up to the this point in history and are equipped with knowledge the history of boxing has provided as evidence to help ascertain optimal technique and even style and tactics for their fighter.
If certain aspects of boxing technique are no longer as prevalent today as in the past I would conclude that it is not because the knowledge was lost when certain legendary trainers died but rather they are taught less or not at all because they are deemed relatively unimportant (modern scoring or refereeing??) or unsuitable for that particular boxer?

I realise I am rambling but I struggle with the 'technique of in-fighting died with old guy in 61' narrative.

 

Of course today's guys have hands-on trainers. But learning techniques from someone like Manny Steward, would be completely different from learning them from Jonathan Banks. It's not the same. Guys like Steward, Dundee, Futch and Miller etc, had a wealth of knowledge and experience that can't be replicated.

How can the techniques be deemed unimportant?

Why would you purposely ignore implementing a body shot if there was an opening?

Why would you hold and hug your opponent and look to the ref, if you could rip in some effective shots from close range?

 

I don't understand why Banks can't become Steward given time (probably won't but I imagine Manny shared everything with him as far as technique goes). Look at Anatoly Lomachenko, there is a guy with a great reputation and is described often as "pioneering" so he must have something about him.

I mean some techniques could be deemed unimportant in relation to focusing on techniques which play to the fighters individual strengths. If 'boxerA' has a tendency to get caught when throwing 'punchZ' then he trains to refrain from implementing 'punchZ' altogether because his expected results are better when he does so.

You might hold and hug your opponent and look at the ref rather than rip in effective shots from close range if you are at a stylistic or physical or technical disadvantage in such a situation so you shut things down and look to reset from range where you might have the advantage again. You may not like this and most sane boxing fans who want some action won't but thats the way it is, see career of Klitschko, Wladimir.

 

For a clear example of new, fresh techniques being discovered just check out Conor McGregor and his unique use of ANGLES.

 

Heavyweights tend to be heavier these days, not bigger. There are only a handful of true SHWs in the division. The rest are either obese cruiserweights or muscle bound freaks. Almost every in-shape HW is fighting at CW because the refs are too lenient on clinching and wrestling, which puts them at a stylistic disadvatange. HW is now a matter of size and punching power over skill. The biggest punchers in the division tend to rise to the top when before a smaller, faster HW might have held the title. Skills have been lost because they're no longer necessary. Fighters are also less willing to fight each other in order to protect their records and earning power which leads to less clarity in the division and a general lack of excitement.

HWs as I see them today are not better than HWs of old, nor are they significantly worse. Rather, they've adapted to suit the environment they're in, which favours gigantic, pumped up steroid freaks over sleeker, more skill based fighters. That's all there is to it, IMO.

 

I specifically say "aside from the ATG's." The only fighters from 50+ years ago that anyone ever watches are ATG fighters. You further make my case by citing two ATG's.

I really don't think Dempsey's technique is of a quality we never see today.

However, I respect you for giving the shout out to Jack Johnson. I always rep him. He was infinitely ahead of his time. Surprised you like him, though. He is seen by many who have your preferences nowadays as a boring defensive spoiler... As much as I love Johnson, watch film or read clippings of him and you'll see/read about his wild swinging barrages, as well. Not a perfect fighter, as no one is.