Physical size is an overstated asset

Boxers are not ducking Caballero and Paul Williams because of their physical size advantage over them.

Other boxers has no hesitation fighting long and lanky boxers like Caba and Williams.

 

How has boxing training technique become better? It's the same **** for christ's sake. Hit the bags. Run a lot, spar, jump rope, maybe do some resistance training(they do it with weights now instead of using rowing machines or tire training). I'm willing to say that STRENGTH training has improved. We have better nutrition and equipment for muscle building.We didn't have eastern bloc fighters before? Stanley ketchel? All of the jewish fighters like B. Leonard and Levinsky? Do you really know what you're talking about? As for general skills, unless you're willing to actually specify skills that have changed in the last couple of years then you're wasting mine and your time.

You think you would beat jack dempsey?you're joking

By the way, I'm not white if you think it's like that. White people weren't overwhelmingly dominant in boxing past 1900, that much is clear.

 

Dude for one changes in stance, rules on grappling, and increased focus on defense have changed.

-- Stance - Boxers now seem, IMHO, to have tighter stances.
-- Grappling - Boxing now allows far less grappling putting a much higher emphasis on accurate punching.
-- Defense - Defense has always been around, but the dominant fighters of today seem to put a premium on it. American fighters using athleticism. Euro fighters using fundamentals. Even the Mexican school of boxing seems to be evolving in this direction.
-- Skills - I think jab, stance, and foot movement have grown by leaps and bounds. Boxing has just matured greatly.

That other stuff I have no opinion. :shock:

 

The variation in skills styles and ways your tought, various different types of footwork drills boxings a sport like any other each generation learns from the previous. One trainer passes on his knowledge to the next. And one generation learns from the next and tweaks it slightly. There was one style back then slightly tweaked. Of course its the principle hit without being hit was the same but if you watch some styles they were fighting against they look like 0-5 fighters, and theirs fighting for title.

And ok you can specify the jewish fighters as eastern bloc but they aren't the same gene pool, which would be why they were in the US at that time.

I assumed u werent but c'mon if you respect the sport you have to view it the same way as we do every other sport. As one that in some way is gradually improving.

By all means be a fan of him very entertaining i go to bare knuckle fights and love to watch drunken brawls but be honest. The pool of boxing was much more shallow back then.

I believe you get to a point where the athletcism and physical attribute: sporting knowledge: skills come to a peak

Do u box and what weight i'd love to know.

 

very well put my friend

 

I honestly think the only one you really are right about is grappling and clinch fighting. Boxers have looser stances than ever. look at fighters like jones and ali for example, they fight with their hands down and their legs shuffling and looser. Outboxers from the older days like Johnson Leonard and gans have very tight stances, hands up with as little of their bodies exposed as possible. As for defense, i disagree again. Fighters back then were better at parrying and glove catching, working the clinches better. Defense is different than now, not better. You can't fight 20 rounds with a **** defense, you'll never make it ten. Sharpshooting is as accurate now as it was then, dude, especially since there was an emphasis on body punching at small targets like the liver, heart and solar plexus and infighting. Headhunting is better now than today.

What has legitimately improved since then: lateral movement, versatility of jab, and sustained(as in 3+) combination punching. lots of improvements in outboxing.

What has gotten worse: infighting, body punching, parrying, and feinting and drawing.

keep in mind i'm referring to boxers from the 20s to the 50's not before, although there are some stellar innovators from that period.

How are they not the same gene pool? These are german, russian, ukrainian, polish, and other assorted eastern european countries. Not all of them were jewish either. You make a huge mistake by thinking Dempsey is some kind of stupid brawler. He's the first sophisticated swarming infighter, a bob and weaving innovator. I definitely acknowledge that the sport has evolved since Dempsey's time. Of course. But it isn't as different as some would have you believe. I respect the skill and prowess of the 1900's-50's fighters for one reason over all: they fought more. More sparring. More bouts. in a shorter time. Better fighters are active fighters. Yes I do box, for fun and health purposes. as for weight- LHW to CW depending on whether i'm bulking or cutting.

 

Didn't ansa the qs from earlier i don't think you know what your talking bout sorry mate

 

so not competetivly, i dont think you do kno what ur going on about so im jus not going to argue any more.

 

Whoa! That right there is a side discussion in itself. Certain fighters are "anomalies". "The First Ali" and Jones being examples that should NEVER be used as guide posts to what boxing is. They had far too many physical gifts.

I also think you are being to broad with your classifications your ommisisons of sub categories clouds the issue, e.g.,

Pure Boxer
-- Slick (Black) American Style w/wo foot movement
-- European Style (Classic)
Boxer Puncher
-- Slick (Black) American Style
-- European Style (Classic)
-- Mexican Style

Etc...

I would say Leonard is a "modern era" boxer. IMHO existing as an American pure boxer falls into two eras pre and post Ali.

Defense is a subjective and reflective of the rules. As less grappling is allowed there is a greater dependence on "traps" for the pure boxer who is usually more gifted athletically, with speed, and timing.

IMHO parrying and glove catching is garbage. It puts your hand out of position to punch AND it is too small of a target to risk "catching" while fatigued. If I see you like to parry I am going to punch straight for your face then do a short hook on you or fient and unload.

Working a clinch is also silly, unless that is where you fight best. Why would you? If you have something to hit? Hit it and get away. However I do agree with you that this has devolved due to rule changes and attached thumbs. Fighters barely even attempt to work out of clinches anymore. Even when it is advantageous for them to do so. Lost portion of the art.

20's to 50's? Boxing was racist back then. Half of the athletic guys were not allowed to compete. There were probably a thousand "Jack Johnsons" all over the south. That crap must be looked at through that lens. Same as baseball, basketball, or A. football.

Infighting? I agree. The rules have killed it.
Fienting? I disagree.
Parrying? Maybe, but I think its usefulness is dubious.
Drawing? Not sure what that is.

Body punching? I agree. This has always been "The Great Equalizer". This was how the determined B+ student beat the A+ student. As fewer skill variations participate in boxing you have fewer guys who are body focused. As the talent pool for boxing dries up you are left with EXCELLENT sharp shooters. It takes a man of supreme conditioning and focus to focus on body punching. Many guys are athletically gifted but lack the mental will to be great body punchers.

 

:good

Im just gonna say i like this

 

Not really. Ali, in the vast majority of his fights, was the bigger man.

Doesn't mean he's nowhere near as good, but that's a bit of a common statement that IMO isn't true.

He would be if he fought now, but not back then.

For the little guy to do good, he has to hold some advantages. And as said right at the start, the bigger the difference in speed, skills etc, the bigger the gap in size can be.

Pacman and Mayweather could most probably beat heavyweight club fighters, as they'd barely get a glove layed on them.

Putting them in against decent heavies would be disaster.

I've got no doubt that Hopkins could (have) hung with some Top 20 or so heavies after he moved to light heavy, due to the way he fights, he's over 6 foot, so he's not a midget, and he's ****ing clever. But put him in with a K brother, and he's getting murdered.

 

Great Big Man beats Great Little Man, end of story.