[RING, June 1962] What Happened to Body Punching? By Paul Berlenbach

After spending just a little time on forums like this, surely there's ONE thing that every poster soon will come to realize: That the VAST majority of old-timers (fans, reporters, trainers and the boxers themselves) believe the present su*ks - and that today's boxers can't compare to the greats of yesteryear. I thought this would be obvious!

 

Yes and No. In his lifetime, was Paul Berlenbach's comment wrong?

 

Okay, I'll start with one that I take to be illustrative.
Years ago before I joined this forum I saw thread in which James J Jeffries' 11 second 100 yard dash time was being discussed. Seamus scoffed and said he could do that at 14, and claimed this was really just a glaring example of how athletic abilities have dramatically advanced over the last 100 years.

Now Seamus is clearly a smart guy, but I consider this point exceedingly silly for a number of reasons. Did Seamus weigh 220 pounds and train for an entirely different sport, and was he running in leather soled shoes on a dirt track without starting blocks? Also, exactly what benefit of modern scientific training was he receiving from his junior high track coach?
(If it's nutrition that explains these alleged advances, how poorly nourished and underweight would Sam Peter or the Klitschkos be if they grew up in the US in the 1940's rather than Nigeria or the Soviet Union at the end of the cold war?)
It's quite possible that Jeffries never actually ran that time, but if he did it's damn impressive.

 

That's descriptively false, as I for one have not come to such a realization. Also, the claim "the present su*ks - and that today's boxers can't compare to the greats of yesteryear" needs to be a little more precise before it can become clear whether or not it constitutes irrational bias.

Like, suppose a guy over fifty says the current heavyweight division is one of the weakest in history, in terms of talent. Would this alone qualify him as one of your biased old timers?

 

No, that alone would not qualify him to be called a biased old timer. Not in my book, anyway. That's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have.

However, if someone came on here and said, that today's boxers (in general) are sissies, and not a single one of them would be able to capture a world title back in the 40s... I would call that person biased.

 

What do you mean by "Yes and No"? In your many years on this forum, have you not noted, that most old-timers prefer the "good old days" over the present?

 

I would agree without hesitation. But I don't see that much.

 

It was responsive as an illustrative example of the inverse bias I see, and perceive to be more common. It was not responsive to your query (there's just one so far) but that query is not very clear. To paraphrase, it is: What basis do you have to deny that old-timers who offer their opinions on the fight game disproportionately glorify past fighters while denigrating present fighters?

There's no reason your perception, which I don't share, should serve as my null hypothesis, so by default I need no basis whatsoever. I'll then assume you're asking me what examples I can provide to shift your perception. As I said from the beginning, I can't -at least not without spending a very long to time doing so. It's not that I think you'll just stubbornly remain unconvinced if I give you ten examples, it's that you'd be wrong to become convinced even if I did. Ten is not enough.

Now, if you want a few examples I'll be happy to give them, for what they're worth, but I need a clearer idea of what you're asking. For example would Mcvey qualify as an "old timer"? I believe he's in his sixties, and I'm pretty sure I can find threads where he has said an old school fighter would get crushed by a modern one. Likewise SuzieQ, though I'm not sure how old he is.

So what, exactly, are you asking me?

 

Oh, and I should add really quick that although I cited Seamus as an example of the "modern" bias I perceive, he's nowhere NEAR as bad as the **** I see nearly every time I stray into the general section. Seamus at least makes incisive and clever points, but there are endless examples of utterly clueless meatheads in the general section.

 

But what does it mean that old timers "tend" to do this? That it happens? Sure, but that's trivially true.

Now if you're talking specifically about former fighters, that's another matter, and there I'd concede the pattern is much more plausible. But even there I can think of a counterexample right off the bat: Tyson.
And Deontay Wilder would be a sterling example, among active fighters, of the kind of inverse bias I see. But if we're just talking fans, I see old guys all the time who buy into the wildly exaggerated "bigger, stronger faster" cliche, and repeat old canards about nonexistent "scientific training".

I also see old guys say, as if they're just ruefully acknowledging harsh "reality"*, that boxing "evolves", and just like the young guys they'll often draw extraordinarily silly analogies between athletes and products of technology like fighter planes or sports cars.

*This is a kind of bias too, where people overcompensate and assume something is true not despite its being discouraging but because of it.

 

Can't read all the responses right now... I find myself on both sides of the fence. I love and respect the old guys. They were truly hard and have earned every right to their opinions no matter what any of us say. Even the greatest of scoffers and doubters should take proper heed of their thoughts. On the other hand, the game has changed, the pool of athletes has diversified, the science of the body and nutrition has grown exponentially, the preparation of boxers has changed immeasurably with a whole retinue of specialists and time and video in preparation of opponents...

 

I can't find the quotes atm but I'm pretty sure that John L. Sullivan when asked how he would do against the champions after him responded that the fight game had changed and improved beyond recognition after his time.
I think Dempsey when asked how he would fare against Marciano also replied that boxing had changed tremendously since his time, with that change being implied to be to the positive. He was also very appreciative of Ali which was somewhat surprising to me.

I agree though that those examples are the exception rather than the rule and that most retired fighters tend to be rather critical (or downright dismissive) about later generations of fighters.

 

I remember reading a Dempsey forward, I think to a reissue of his Guide to Self Defense, done in the early 1950's where he pretty much lambasts Marciano for his lack of skill and being basically a street fighter.