I have a very simple question to ask all the experts here. Other than boxers putting their hands up way more often, what has changed stylistically from fighters in the 1900-1910 era, and the fighters today? Everyone always talks about how todays fighters are lightyears ahead in terms of technique. So what has changed?
1 - More fighters throw more combinations more often. This one can be a little controversial if you say it any other way, but it's a biggie. Film shows us that out-boxing has evolved in terms of fluid combination punching for the majority of fighters. 2 - Less varied distances. When you reach a certain level, you fight over 12 rounds. This allows precision training. Training for 6 rounds and 45 rounds are very different experiences. There is such a thing as a twelve round fighter, as we know, and when you reach a certain level now you'd better be one. No worrying about fighting a 20 round fight six weeks after this ten week fight. The Rub Fighters tend to be less flexible tactically because of this, I think. Fighters have to be more stretched to think their way through these various different distances, and that makes them more adaptable in their big fights. Why would even a cerebral modern fighter be as adaptable a guy who fights many more fights over a wider variety of distances in crucial fights? 3 - The demise of in-fighting. Clinches and in-fighting just aren't used in the same way any more. A premium is on combinations and out-fighting. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcq-Sy05C-8[/ame] A lot of this just wouldn't happen now. So naturally, the techniques are just not stressed any more. 4 - The Jab Contrary to popular opinion, the jab has always been seen as a crucial punch - since men wore gloves. But it has definitely evolved, especially in theory. Thomas Hearns describes his son's first six months training as "just the jab". This is the degree to which this punch is viewed as crucial. Even pure swarmers with massive punches have the jab drilled into them now - see Tyson. 5 - The No Contest The no contest rule, rife in this era, put the onus firmly on survival in many fights - don't get stopped, don't lose. These survival tactics are still absolutely crucial but only journeymen priorities them now. There are loads of others, but these are just a couple.
Great post McGrain, and thank you! 1. This is a good point. Although I do believe that the use of combos is underestimated, I do believe that combos are used much more today. 2. This is the best point. Very true that the training regimes had to have been different in order to adjust. Im curious as to what you think about Mayweather. After the Mosley fight, it looked like he coulda hve gone another 10 rounds easily. He wasn't even breathing hard. 3. Again you can't deny the change over time in this aspect. Once again though, I think the change is less dramatic than people make it out to be. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95kyJcfCjlc[/ame] Heres a Tyson fight where he fights on the inside for most the time. Theres no grappling to the magnitude of the Ketchel Papke fight, but it's still very much there. And you can have fights today where fighters are grabbing each other a lot. 4. Also a good point. Other than a handful of the great fighters, the jab wasn't utilized back then as it is right now. I think in some cases it's a better thing, and in some cases it's not. I know Johnson had an excellent jab and used it very often, and to set up combos. But I guess he's the exception. Thanks again for the post. I do agree the changes are there. I do not think the changes are dramatic enough to discount, or even to underestimate the era. Another question McGrain. I love the way you present your answers. How do you feel about the 50's? Do you think there is still a discrepancy in styles back then, than there is now?
Here's another question. Could the older style(s) compete with the more modern way of boxing. For example, if Jack Johnson faced Ali or Holmes would he be competitive? Could Bob Fitzimmmons compete with likes of say Hagler or Sugar Ray Robinson (or Leonard)?Or would that older style of fighting be outdated. I agonize over the answer...one day saying yes and the next no. The toughness and conditioning of the older fighters is every bit as good as today...maybe even better but is the old style problematic against the modern style. I've never seen a direct answer in regards to this and I'd like to hear what some of the older more experienced contributors to this forum think. I would certainly respect thier opinion(s).
In my opinion: The talent amongst the atheltes in the sport of boxing back then, was much great and deeper. There were a lot more natural athletes in boxing, than there ever was. Today, there are some stylistic changes that have improved over the year (so the general census says). I think these two things counter-balance one another, making the discrepancy in the dominance of the two eras a lot less significant. Ali himself said that his two toughest fights against any boxers in history would be Marciano and Jack Johnson.
It is hard to believe that, if you watch the heavyweight division. Boxers mostly just throw 2 or 3 punch combos nowadays. Probably not so much in the early rounds, but certainly as the fight wears on. I do think though that there is more emphasis, nowadays on throwing arm punches in quantity (higher workrate) as opposed to sitting down on every punch. It is an interesting and good point. Although much is made of old timers having long fights, shorter fights in between them is often forgotten. Actually, i think that some 4 or 6 round No Decision fights, wouldnt hurt some contenders nowadays. The fighters would have to learn to sit down on their punches and line up their opponents. Also, on this point, the fact that fights are stopped so easily means that fighters do not really have to go all out to stop a fighter. That means, more often than not, fighters can overwhelm fighters and they will be stopped even though the other fighter hasn t really thrown the KO punch. Again, larger volume arm punching can be more advantageous in many situations. Vitali or Golota are great examples of Arm punchers who have reached contender or champion status. This largely correct, but contrary to popular belief, i am surprised at just how many older fights had clinching and infighting barred! So maybe it is not necessarilly to the same extent as we all think, in many occassions. I do think though that you are probably correct, and certainly there was a lot more wrestling going on in the old days. For most fighters, the jab used to be a power punch. The body was held more square on and the weight on the back foot, which enabled it to be unloaded. Nowadays, it is more a case of shifting the weight forward and throwing it out more regularly to cut or upset the opponent coming in. This is a really big change, although it is worth noting that there were still plenty of boxers who used the jab the same way as today, but as a whole, it isnt drumbed into fighters as regularly, particularly in the below championship level. Not so much between the very, very best fighters. It is a huge change. As well as survival, it also put the emphasis on scoring KOs, as opposed to scoring points with the jab or arm punches, so this is another reason why fighters would conserve energy with less work rate, but sit down on their punches more. Some more that i think are crucial: Training: Unlike athletics and other sports training has not been a quantum leap forward because boxing has always been a professional sport. In fact, it has arguably gone backwards, although no one knows that for sure. The biggest difference here is that nowadays, if you want to train for a fight, you hit the gym and start lifting and working on your strength. In the older days, you hit the road and start running. This is not to say that both eras dont do both types of training, but it certainly is a big difference on empshasis. No of Fights: There is no doubt that fighters used to fight more often and higher quality fighters. Nowadays, a good fighter will be nurtured into a title challenging position, being fed tailor made opponents that help protect a zero. Nowadays, if a fighter fights anyone who is a tough opponent and isnt tailor made, even fans will say he is badly managed. And nearly always, once promising fighters lose, they rarely come back or if they do, it certainly isnt often. In the older days fighters would rise through the ranks by fighting others of similar quantity on a regular basis, often a week or two appart. If numbers 20th and 25th ranked fighters would fight, they would fight others who were ranked about the same position. Then later in the year the two winners would fight and the two losers, then some times the winners and the losers, then the winners would fight the number 15th ranked fighter and then maybe give a promising younger fighter a fight and maybe then an older previously ranked fighter a shot. And if you look at the results, most fighters would find their level at a certain level, then with experience, they would reach a higher level, and often despite several losses along the way, and failed attempts to beat top 10 fighters they then break into the scene. And sometimes become champions. Harry Greb didnt start off unbeatable and invincible, neither did Jack Johnson, and most others. But they all evolved to a level that wouldnt have been possible if they hadnt learned from fighting other good fighters I think this is very important and one of the major weaknesses in boxing among todays fighters. I know that they still spar a lot of different fighters, but i dont see how that is possibly the same from a learning point of view, and i think that it is a massive weakness among todays fighters. Stance: As i have mentioned earlier, most fighters used to fight with weight on the back foot and more squared up. The idea of this is to allow the fighter to put more weight behind their punches. I have never fought like this (although i should note that it is the most common type of stance that kickboxers use still which is interesting) but i would have thought that the modern stance allows better and more fluent movements, less telegraphed punches and a better ability to counter when defending. It should be noted that several of the older proponents such as Jack Johnson did not agree with what i have said, and it is also worth noting that overall results when the transitional period, did not really give the advantage to one type of fighter over the other, although obviosly the success of Joe Louis and to a lesser extent dempsey and Tunney made the older style obsolete in the minds of the new breed, but those guys would have been champions with any style.
It really depends when the term 'Old-timer' is set at. 1800's, 1890's, 1920's,1950's. Personally I feel modern boxing has not changed much from the 1920's 'incarnet' excpet point 2 and 5 by McGrain.
In most cases, the answer is no. No, they'd out-punch him with ease. Fitzimmons was slightly bigger than they were and could punch very hard, according to all accounts. But if they would compete at the same weight, then he starts with the second chance.
