TALENT POLL TODAY VS 1950'S???did the 50's really have more talent and more skilled??

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by highguard, Dec 1, 2010.


Page 1 of 2
  1. highguard

    highguard Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,791
    6
    Apr 12, 2010
    hi i always keep reading about in the 30's-50's there was so much more talent in boxing because there were so many talented fighters because
    there was a greater talent poll


    the reason being there were so many more gyms open in the usa
    and boxing shows all the time and people were poor etc

    all this is true

    but this is just in the america

    in europe only england produced alot of fighters
    and a few other countries had some fighters here and there


    the latin boxing scene was big then just like now
    so no need to bring it into discussion


    now you have american fighters, latin fighters and fighters
    almost every european country and russia, not to mention
    much more asian fighters



    also many people say that fighters were better schooled then

    i can see why they would say that, there so many great coaches in america
    but again this is in america, and range of boxing styles was less then now


    now you have classical american guys like mayweather and hopkins
    to brits like froch with big style differences
    plus other more classical british/european(by europe i mean from italy to poland) fighters

    also there are guys with russian style boxing like vitali or dennis lebevev
    a loose style with lots of side steps and much use of looping punches


    and in german, there is again you see another style of boxing being now popular, the high guard style you see guys like abraham,strum,
    sebastian sylvester and many other fighters in german using




    just to say something about myself

    i have with many different coaches

    here is a list
    a mexican trainer(worked more on inside fighting/bodywork then others)

    a few canadian trainers(worked most ranges but usually worked a lot on the jab and block and slipping)

    a russian coach-learned a lot of side steps and got to use hooks in many different ranges plus the usual stuff )

    an american- focused alot on getting your body weight into every shot plus most normal stuff

    a romanian- a straight up european style and my straight punches got a lot better there


    now that is just my experence, so i am sure there is so much more to see



    now to all those that will say boxing is boxing and basics are basics?????

    its just not that simple,
     
    highguard, Dec 1, 2010
    highguard, Dec 1, 2010
    #1
  2. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    I see where you are coming from but look at the fighters and trainers active back then and now. It´s like reverse evolution.
     
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    #2
  3. yaca you

    yaca you Someone past surprise Full Member

    4,365
    56
    Jun 1, 2010
    where's the poll?
     
    yaca you, Dec 2, 2010
    yaca you, Dec 2, 2010
    #3
  4. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,221
    5,875
    Apr 30, 2006
    Activity level plays a huge part in it. Look at other sports, for example: the professionals in every other sport compete more frequently now than they did 60 years ago, which leads to more opportunities for development from the athlete's and the coach's perspective.

    Boxing has gone backwards. Now, it's unheard of for a top fighter to fight 100 times, even with a healthy number of weaker opponents to fine tune their game against. That limits the new things a fighter and trainer can and will try and leads to more one-dimensional fighters today than ever before on the whole. There's always exceptions, of course, but that's the paradigm the majority of fighters are operating under today.
     
    Rock0052, Dec 2, 2010
    Rock0052, Dec 2, 2010
    #4
  5. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Good point. One reason for this are the fans, getting pissed of when a fighter isn´t fighting a top guy every fight.
     
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    #5
  6. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,221
    5,875
    Apr 30, 2006
    Absolutely. And then most fans turn on a guy the instant he loses. I like the sport, but if I'm being totally honest, I really don't think most fans today support the kind of environment that would be conducive to developing more truly elite and high level fighters and having them square off against each other routinely.

    Fans got to see Robinson in great fights nearly 10 times between LaMotta and Basilio alone. Today we'd be lucky if both of those fights even happened.
     
    Rock0052, Dec 2, 2010
    Rock0052, Dec 2, 2010
    #6
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    I agree. Once a fighter loses he is destroyed and done, exposed. Laughable. Today´s commentators aren´t helping much either.
     
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    #7
  8. yaca you

    yaca you Someone past surprise Full Member

    4,365
    56
    Jun 1, 2010

    there is less in it for them avoiding a potential loss will be sure to get you more money in the long run.
     
    yaca you, Dec 2, 2010
    yaca you, Dec 2, 2010
    #8
  9. Ezzard

    Ezzard Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,070
    19
    Nov 11, 2005
    I believe that the names aren't hyped as much today. I also believe that fighting less and over 12 rounds as well as the advancements in PEDs means that the sport is more about power and speed and less about skill and endurance. This has happened in almost all sports over the past 30 years.

    Guys like Pac, Floyd, Martinez and the Klits would be top fighters in any era. But most of them have taken fewer fights and easier pay days than they old timers did.
     
    Ezzard, Dec 2, 2010
    Ezzard, Dec 2, 2010
    #9
  10. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    547
    Feb 17, 2010
    Don't agree with you on Europe being better now.The euro scene has little depth now.A marked decline from 50s-through 80s at least.
     
    lora, Dec 2, 2010
    lora, Dec 2, 2010
    #10
  11. highguard

    highguard Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,791
    6
    Apr 12, 2010
    i agree 100 percent about fighters not being active enough to learn their craft as well the old timers did,
    the reason is that now the media is crazy about undefeated records lol
    but when top guys fight everyone loses just look at the super 6 at 168
    but its harder for the media to hype a guy with lots of loses


    lora, i hope your joking,
    yes boxing always kind of big in europe but come on
    before america was clearly the centre of boxing and
    now you have world champions in europe
    who could not care less about america when they are
    fighting in front of 30 thoustand people


    the depth is huge with different countries and styles etc
     
    highguard, Dec 2, 2010
    highguard, Dec 2, 2010
    #11
  12. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    That had more to do with the decline of boxing as a mass sport in America than with Europe beeing better. Europe had a very good and active boxing scene back then, the difference was they often didn´t went to the US. They do now. And back then European fighters fought in front of 30,000 people too.
     
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    #12
  13. highguard

    highguard Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,791
    6
    Apr 12, 2010
    bodhi you are right

    yes in europe boxing was big and yes there were 30 thoustand people etc

    and boxing in america has declined,
    but its easy to see that you see a lot more good european fighters now then 40 years ago,
    also the huge boxing market in germany has changed alot of things too
     
    highguard, Dec 2, 2010
    highguard, Dec 2, 2010
    #13
  14. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Germany had a huge boxing scene from after WW1 (many German soldiers who became British prisoners of war learned boxing from them and fought preofessional afterwards, before that boxing was more known as a carnival or circus attraction) until the early 70s, after that it declined and was seen as something shady. Pimps and organised crime ruled it until the late 80s/early 90s when Sauerland and RTL (Germany´s biggest private TV station) made Maske a champ and THE symbol of German reunification. But make no mistake boxing was big in the 50s and 60s over here with many good fighters. The difference was they rarely fought Americans. There not more good European fighters now than then. They just get more exposure in the US than then - and more exposure overall.
     
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    bodhi, Dec 2, 2010
    #14
  15. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,583
    Nov 24, 2005
    It's the former Communist countries of Europe and Eurasia, rather than Europe.

    Most of those countries didn't produce or export professional boxers in the 1950s. Now they do.
    Whether their numbers counteract the drop in American and western European fighters I dont know.

    American promoters ran a near monopoly in the 1950s based in New York around the mobbed-up IBC. Fighters coming up in America, or NY, or willing and able to do so, and willing to sign up to the right people, were clearly at an advantage.

    Then again, you could say certain Germany-based promoters are among the major groups vying for a stranglehold on pro boxing now, and have all the talent to the east of them tied up sooner or later.
    Professional boxing is never a fair playing field.
     
    Unforgiven, Dec 2, 2010
    Unforgiven, Dec 2, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 2