Recently unearthed, have scientists found the first demonstration ever put to celluloid of actual boxing skill? No, these rudimentary practitioners could never compete with the Don Jordon's, the Gene Fullmer's, the Alan Minter's, the Jorge Castro's, the Hugo Corro's the Quincy Taylor's... the true skilled middles of modern times. But do we see the first primordial bubble, the veritable lungfish striking out for land and air here? Is this boxing skill? This content is protected
Before people rag on Burley for having a Conservative style, note that his opponent is a top fighter with nearly 15lbs on him. And this is good bait Seamus. I know you're a Canzoneri fan.
Tony was pure rubbish, as were Leonard and Gans. I think we can agree that the earliest that skill was ever being exhibited is Meldrick Taylor.
It is worth noting, and very much a part of this ancients v moderns discussion, that for all his technical brilliance Burley couldn't draw flies. Even well into the 1940's this was not what the majority of the paying public wanted to see. Never forget that boxing is not primarily a sporting event. It is a business of show.
But I think that helps explain why some of the cruder old-school fighters who were able to beat more skilled opponents in their day shouldn't be expected to reach similar heights today. The emphasis on aggression and the expectation that even the slickest boxers would slug it out flat-footed in wild exchanges probably neutralized much of the skill deficit in many fights. It worked in favor of the tougher, rougher, more powerful guys. Would Marciano have even been competitive against Walcott or Charles if they'd had the disposition to jab, counter, move, and hold, and fight on their toes all night? It's not clear to me.
Sometimes the bull wins. At a point there is no magical technique that defuses overwhelming physicality. Part of the equation will always be that physicality of attack and conversely toughness on the receiving end. I listened to Ward on the Rogan podcast today at the gym. Perhaps that is why this is on my mind. But Ward claimed that he was the toughest fighter in the sport for a decade. That toughness, not necessarily his skill, is why he was able to figure out Kova, that he could have packed it in when Kova decked him. Whatever, the question of the sport's development (I won't necessarily use the word evolution) is one of many facets.
Sung Kil Moon is always my go to with this kind of stuff. On paper, he should have lost to Nana Konadu and Khaokor Galaxy, and many others, who were vastly superior skills wise. But Moon's physicality, will and weird rhythm lead to him destroying both, and destroying alot of good, talented fighters. He was not an aesthetic fighter (though still fun to watch). But he was a dominantly effective ATG. And that's all that matters. Similarly, I bet no one predicted Ebihara smashing the legendary Pone Kingpetch in 1 round.
To further my point, Moon, an absolute concrete brawler and slugger with little finesse, had an impressive amateur record of 219–22 (164 KO). This includes the top flight, skilled competition, winning himself gold at the World Championship, alongside the Asian Games and World Cup. Function over Form.
