Thil vs Apostili 1937...

Lmao.
Kevin thinks the jab was revolutionized during Listons time.

If you don't think old school fighters are unevolved, great.
If you think only the heavyweights were unevolved, then your outlook is even more screwed up.
How can one weight class of fighters during a period of time be 'unevolved' while the lower weights are evolved. That makes absolutely no sense, since they train together at the same gyms with the same trainers.

The modernist shtick is falling apart in this thread.

 

Lmao. You've been arguing for over a year that the game of boxing has evolved significantly in technique and skill since the 30's. You argued that fighters used to "push" their jabs in stead of snapping them. You argued that the jab was "revolutionized" during Listons era.

Paypal me $200 if I find you saying that?

 

IIRC, my claim was more specific than that. I argued that Liston and Ali, in their own ways, revolutionized jabbing in the heavyweight division.

 

So to be clear;
You do not believe that boxing technique has evolved much in the last 80 years.
You believe technique only evolved in the heavyweight division?

 

Still waiting.

 

Huh? Not sure whats going on, but the problem with Peter wasnt that he lacked skills. He looked excellent at times working behind the jab, especially Toney 2. He could box, the problem was he didn't know how to box rangier opponents or just pull it all together, like Quarry or Mercer, two heavies with similiar strategic short comings despite being skillful.

 

Despite being the world welterweight champion two times, Barney Ross apparently never weighed more than 144.5 pounds for a bout. I looked that up after seeing how much bigger Ceferino Garcia looked compared to Ross in their bout on the Carnival of Champions card.

- Chuck Johnston

 

I thought it was pretty much accepted that Apostoli was something special? I know I have had to re-evaluate Thil since being on this forum, he is a damn sight better than generally given credit and that includes by me!

 

Thil was a great fighter. The best French middleweight ever IMO. He was winning on points against Apostoli when he was stopped on cuts. One paper joked he was banging away at Apostolis body so good he gave him a permanent curviture of the spine.

 

The only modernist schtick in this thread is going on in your own mind, I think.

Lower weight classes frequently exhibit greater technicians than higher ones. This is true whatever era you look at. It just so happened that some of the 1930s heavyweights displayed shocking skills, which makes the difference all the more glaring.

I really don't understand your difficulty grasping this concept.

 

Strawmen. You're an expert at spotting them.

Is resnick's argument towards us a fair one, do you think?

 

I have to say it was largely due to your stated opinion of him that I took a closer look .I assumed ,owing to long held British assessments of him that he was something of a cheese champ, always crying foul .That is patently not the case.

 

For all the skills of Canzoneri ,Ross,McLarnin,and co, to deny that Carnera and Max Baer weren't crude of technique and oafish in execution would be ridiculous.This thread is going nowhere fast because its just chasing its own tail like a blind mouse.Its trying to construct a defence /rebuttal of a generalized argument that hasn't been made in the first place!

 

Precisely!

 

You mean a supposed evolution in boxing technique is not a popular topic of contention here?

If all of us agree that boxing hadn't evolved much technique wise over time.
And that people like Baer and Galento are reflections of their own unorthodox manners, rather than a product of a supposed unevolved period in boxing where better technique wasn't known, then I suppose we can all be one big happy family.