Past Boxers v Modern Day Boxer

Tyrell Biggs was fundementaly sound for the most part, as was Archie Moore in his younger years. Emile Griffith was a good pure boxer as well, but he tended to lose his temper and become a brawler when he got angry.

 

Nah depends on the individual fighter like always. Styles have changed but back then they had as good technical boxers as we do today.

 

Different prevalent styles (there were PBF-esque analogs in other eras, but arguably rarer), different rules, different lifestyles (having to work a 2nd job to pay for boxing), different crowd expectations to play to, standing 8-count, less rounds, different competitive structure (alphabet soup), etc. Lots of differences!

 

They weren't as skilled, some people will try to rationalize it but having a look at some old tapes, plenty of them did look primitive. And they were primitive, Im not too hot on boxing history pre 1950 but if you're talking about 20's, how big was boxing on the world scale? It was big in america but how many of the best foreign boxers came to america to share their style, what they know?

 

Not many. The US had pretty much one sanctioning body (the NBA stealing the thunder of NYSAC), while Europe had a bit of an alphabet soup if I'm remembering right.

 

it's evolved and become more scientific imo, more refined and less brawling based, look at the heavies of yesteryear and you get dempsey and Marciano, now a days you get huge men with long ramrod jabs...

it's...different

 

I once saw a fight between a black boxer and a white boxer. The white boxer won. Do you guys think white boxers are more evolved than blacks?

In other words, it might help to specify. You can't just say "past boxers", there has to be some kind of cut-off point to fairly judge. In my opinion the modern era in terms of technique came into full effect around the 1940's, with pioneers paving the way beforehand. Anything prior to say, the 1920's or so I don't really take seriously when considering head to head matchups with modern counterparts, though that doesn't diminish their all time standing for what they accomplished during their era and how they helped the sport evolve.

 

Yeah, it's amazing watching the difference between modern day technical geniuses like Sam Peter and the crude sluggers of yore like Jersey Joe Walcott....

:roll:

 

I'm probably going out on a bit too long of a limb, but I think boxers of the "Golden Age" laid out many of the boxing archetypes we see today from crowd-favorite crude slugger all the way to slicksters the general public watched in hopes of them being KTFO. (Just-in-case note: I'm not saying you're either one or the other - it's a wide range.)

 

I totally disagree on the modern day boxer being more skillful than past. Back then there were less rules to protect fighters, lighter gloves, and more rounds etc, etc. Since we're talking skill, I consider skill an overall rating of a fighter's combined techniques or methods that work for him/her whether it's offensively or defensively during a fight.

Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson, Nicolino Loche, Eder Jofre, Benny Leonard, and Salvador Sanchez were just acouple that I think imo are fighters whose skill transends the test of time and what they did in the ring at times they made it look easy, but true boxing fans know they were very special boxers that come along rarely. I'm liking acouple of today's fighters, but they're becoming harder to come by and the overhyping by media and acouple of nuthuggers does not help at all.