The evolution of boxing

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot to mention the point I was going to make after demonstrating the superiority of Don Bradman... he last played in 1948 and began in 1928..... he proves that not all sportsmen are better now than any old timers... he turns that theory on it's head. The thing that nobody has yet mentioned or maybe thought of yet.... all the training and sweat and effort means nothing when stacked against pure genius.... a genius can just do things no one else can.

 

Indeed. :good An exceptional fighter can be exception to the rule.

 

Because there was no man, as tall as he, back then, who was remotely world class.

 

If you're asking me would Wlad beat any HW champ before Tyson, I would definitely say yes. If you're asking me would the top 10 HW contenders of today beat any HW champ before Tyson, I'd say no, but many of them would beat many of them. Boxing is no more fundamentally different from a timed sport like sprinting, than sprinting is to shot put, which is not timed, but still has a recordable output proving superior performance. Experience, technique and pure guts have a role in all sports. Boxing is maybe my favorite sport, but it would be silly to attribute to it such fundamentally different qualities than other sports so as the same rules don't apply, at least in a general way. Especially when the things marking the athletes producing the new records in the tangible sports are also marking todays boxers (i.e. increased height and weight).

I will say that some posters, of which I think you might be one, have made interesting arguments that boxing has changed so fundamentally its no longer the same sport, and that its impossible to know whether the qualities demanded for today would translate to yesterday, and vice versa. There is truth to that, but I personally see no way that Dempsey could compete with an athletic, hard hitting giant like Wlad even assuming such factors at play.

 

Jack Dempsey 6'1, 77" reach.

Lamont Brewster 6'2, 77" reach.

Corrie Sanders 6'4, 77" reach.

Brewster and Sanders could compete with Wlad (and knock him out) but Dempsey stands no chance?

 

What exactly are the advances in boxing technique, and why are they improvements?

 

Boxing hit its peak in the 70's and 80's. I don't consider that 'old timer'. They used to get away with steroids and other PED's back then, easily.

Here's why:
1. Next day weigh-ins has negatively impacted the sport - boxers are spending more time cutting weight than they are honing their craft and talking strategy
2. A, B, C belts - cherrypicking is prevalent, best avoiding the best and avoiding valuable experiences. This hampers the development of a fighter as they are not growing from experience.
3. Impact of amateurs - this carries a lot of clout in determining and shaping a boxers fighting style.
Amateurs did away with scoring points with effective aggression for a long while, and there's thus been a growing emphasis on point-scoring without engaging in a fight, and inadequate in-fighting. This also makes the elite pressure fighters too economical, and less rough. Trainers are thus increasingly catering towards this. The eastern bloc are full of great fighters now, take Artur Beterbiev (the guy who twice beat Kovalev in the amateurs, and was a World Amateur Champ). The physically strongest 188lber of all time and most probably the hardest hitting 188lber too - a very good pressure fighter, but he's just too economical at the moment.

 

Aha! And why was that do you think?

Could it be that all the wood chopping and running as far as the middleweights just put the giants at a disadvantage back then? Could it be that the training then did not favour giants? Or could it be the rules then that did not favour the giant? Or the duration? Or the size of the gloves? All these changes, dont you think they favoured smaller guys back then a lot more?

And now that larger fighters are finally doing so well, after all this time, could it be that more things favour them than before?

Intresting...:think

 

I asked this question earlier.

If boxing has evolved,
Why is Chris Arreola so fat and out of shape?
Why is Amir Khans chin so bad?
Why cant Paulie Malignaggi KO anyone?
Why is Carl Froch so slow?

If the so called smaller, lighter guys of yesterday stand no chance today, why is is that 2 of the top heavyweights in recent years, outside the Klitsckos, were Haye and Adamek, a former CW and a former LHW?

Boxing has not evolved, people punch each other in the face, just like they did a century ago.

 

Further to illustrate your point,

Did you know that when Ian (or it might have been Greg) was captain of Australia, Don Bradman came down the nets for a hit with the team and Belted the bowlers all over the place.

I know its a point probably romanticised, but everyone agreed, that if he wanted to play, you wouldnt think twice about selecting him, even at that age.

Also, Walter Lindrum, set records in the sport of billiard back in the 20s? that modern players cant get anywhere near.

 

If boxers have developed less physically than other athletes (and not only in athletics, but also football, golf, tennis etc) it is only because it is perhaps a somewhat conservative sport in some ways. Like the fact that the use of weight training is still a bit controversial to some, while it seems to have become a natural part in almost all other sports. Sports where stamina, explosiveness and dexterity is just as important as in boxing.

But, no, I'd say there are always those (like Pac and the Klits) that are ready to utilize current advancements and the rest has to follow suit to keep up.

 

Exactly. To examine the greatest technique ever displayed in a conventional sense one has to watch boxers in black and white film. It's a bit like comedy. The newer stuff is an acquired taste within the generations that is only relevent to its time - where as the classic stuff will always be universally funny.

That's not to say modern fighters are not great - they are! They are doing everything it takes to be great now and you can't take that away from them. It's just as effective what they do. It's not that they are inferior from one era to another, just different . It's always taken talent to reach the top.

 

For a start when I make comparisons I NEVER use the heavyweight division as a guide, it is the one division that can actually assist a young guy to help his case that todays fighters are better, No not better ,,, MUCH BIGGER yes and I won't even try to tell you how much difference size makes, I see Wlad destroying Tyson actually and beating Fitzsimmons and Tunney but that is only due to his massive size, he can actually fight and box ten times better than a Carnera or Willard but maybe not as tough as Willard but Willard had just a jab and power, Wlad has more. But if we compare WW's to WW's from now to then there is no contest whatsoever, the old boys were two leagues above todays bums. The heavyweight division has usually been the weakest in terms of outright talent.

 

Very good point, Dempsey sure is in a much higher class than those guys.

 

THIS is EXCELLENT, you have hit the nail on the head, especially about the negative aspects of amateur bouts, they are a joke, no better than the points karate fights Chuck Norris and Bob Wall did but I would back Bob or Chuck against amateur champs of the same size and weight from now, they would hurt these kids.