Modern Vs Old fighters.

1+1 mother ****ers

 

Why is it even necessary to have a "position"?

As devoted followers of boxing, shouldn't we all be able to recognize, that there have been great and talented fighters back in the olden days - as well as today?

Why are some people unable to honour and admire boxers from one era - without denigrating those from another (and it of course goes both ways)? I don't inderstand that!

 

By "position," I mean an intellectual position. The beliefs you hold about the history of boxing.

You have a "position" in the sense that I was using the term: You have beliefs about boxing history that you think are correct. And you have reasons to think those beliefs are correct. We all do.

 

Good question. For me, it's just an overall feeling, fights that I've read about into consideration - so it's based on watching & reading. For example, I've read clips from newspaper decision reports on Greb's encounters, and they are choc full of descriptions of very high paced, violent encounters with lots of blood and lumps and busted eardrums, teeth getting knocked out and a whole lot more.

Some poster on here was saying that maybe a lot of Greb's ND wins (plus all other nd wins), were Setups! LOL!

 

The best comparison I know of is to compare modern-era fights to the many kinescopes of fights from the 1950s and '60s, not that I would have any hope that the exercise would change anyone's pre-conceived notion.

 

Yeah, I can get a bit stubborn with getting rid of preconceived notions myself, been working on it!

I try to honestly look at it as it is, without favoritism. Like for instance, I really like Usyk, and would love to see him beat Fury, but I am picking Fury to beat Usyk.

 

Yes, if we're talking about fast-paced fights from the 1920s, it's hard not to think of Greb! He's often described as a relentless whirlwind, who showered his opponents with punches from all angles - something he could keep up round after round, without tiring. Which of course made for some highly action-packed fights.

Also, he doesn't sound like someone who would just coast through his ND bouts. I think, he simply couldn't resist a good punch-up... so I don't really buy into the idea, that many of his ND bouts were setups.

That being said, Greb was obviously one of a kind - and it's pretty clear, that not everybody was interested in being involved in one slam-bang affair after another, like him.

In fact, if you examine the fights more closely, we find that many were declared NC - with both boxers being thrown out for refusing to make a fight of it. Hundreds and hundreds of boxers suffered this humiliation. And these are just the fights, where the participants took it so easy on each other, that the sham was too obvious. Imagine how many fights there must have been, where the boxers did just enough to avoid being booted!

With something like 99% (I would guess!) of the fights being unavaible to us, it's difficult to make absolute conclusions - but I find nothing to suggest that fights back then, generally speaking, were faster-paced than today.

 

Do fighters spar as much today? I always think that has to help longevity although sparring probably is great for toughness.

 

Actually, the fact (if that's what it is) that there were more "No Contests" back then might lead to the conclusion that fans expectations were probably higher then than they are today and that the referees were responding to their dissatisfaction. It may rather be that the slower pace of fighters in the last few decades have made the fans more tolerant of fighters who are not in top condition to go the distance. I really don't think a person needs to see all of the fights which ever took place to make a comparison between the pace of past fights and those of today. A representative sample of past fights should suffice. And, as I have suggested recently in this thread, a random sampling of kinescopes from the 1950s and '60s is the best way I know of to see how the stamina of main-event fighters then compare with the stamina of main-event fighters today. The reason I single out kinescopes is that they usually include the entire fight whether it be a knockout or the full scheduled distance of 10 or 15 rounds as the case may be.

 

So the reason so many fighters were thrown out for failing to put up a fight, can be explained by the fans expecting more from the boxers back then. And the reason this happens very rarely today, is because modern fans are being more tolerent of slow-paced and poorly conditioned boxers.

Hmm... I think you may be onto something here. Strange that I have missed this, as it explains everything!

 

I once read that fighters were not sparring as much back in a day and with how busy They were. They were often treating one fight as preparation for the other, fights were serving the functions of sparring in a way.
I'm not sure how true it is... and also to what time in history it was referring, maybe some more knowledgable people could expand on it.

I believe today, fighters probably take more punishments in the gym, than in the 2 fights a year They might have.

 

The same facts can lead to different conclusions. My main point which neither you nor Levook have picked up on is the one suggestion that 1950's kinescopes of TV bouts being the best and earliest significant evidence of the stamina of older fighters since those fights are the earliest run-of-the-mill main-events which can be watched from beginning to end. If a person would spend the time to review random samplings of recent fights with a comparable sample of older fights and devise a system of markers to rate stamina and possibly even other factors, one might be able to form some comparisons and reach conclusions about the durability of fighters from different eras. But yes, I believe it may be possible that fight fans in previous times were more demanding than present-day fans; and the promoters, fighters, trainers, managers, and boxing commissions were more sensitive to these demands because their income was more directly connected to fight action and how many tickets were purchased. With today's big TV and cable and pay per view contracts, rabid announcers and commentators out to make names for themselves, phony championships, and bogus over-hyping of fights, there are so many factors that go into the economics and promotion of the sport that that the actual action in the ring sometimes suffers by comparison.

I throw this out for whatever you think it's worth which is not much since I haven't watched a complete TV fight in more than 20 years. I don't even have a TV nor have I ever paid a penny to a cable company. But I have watched and still watch a lot of old fight films. As I say, my only point is to bicker with your conclusion that there is no way to make comparisons between generations about the stamina of fighters. There are a large body of films of complete fights from the 1950s and '60s to analyse.

 

I'm just wondering: How many NC fights from back in the 20s have you watched - where you feel the boxers were unfairly booted, by a referee who caved in from the pressure of the crowd?

 

I have absolutely no interest in tallying NC fights from any period. I agree that the films we have from the 1920s are usually highlight films that do not offer much insight into the stamina or fighting pace of fighters then visa vs now. So, in response to your observation of the lack of old film footage, I was offering the suggestion that films from 1950s offer the first opportunity to look at complete fights and make comparisons about fighters' stamina from then versus now. I haven't made that comparison, so I have no opinion about it. I merely offer the 1950 fights as a path for those who care enough to make comparisons. That was the sole reason for my participation in this thread. Any other comments were just gratuitous remarks which you and anyone else are free to take as meaningless blather if you wish.