Things about Classic Boxing Discussion That **** You Off

Some modern training methods do make better fighters - explosive weight training (not bodybuilding training but explosive training), plyometrics, circuit training, advanced nutrition, learning skills from video, evolving techniques

Never in history have we seen the likes of RJJ outside of modern boxing. Like him or not RJJ took certain aspects of the sport to new levels.

Most fighters don't utilise scientific modern training though and things like bodybuilding don't work with boxing

 

As for your questions the argument that Pre-1900fighters had evolved the same level of skills that the sport had 1950-onwards. If you know a thing about boxing technique pre1940s fighters are clearly less skilled.

 

When people try to make Sugar Ray Robinson, Rocky Marciano, or Marvin Hagler look overrated. It pisses me the **** off.

 

:good

 

People who dismiss 20/30 pound weight advantages when it's two quality heavyweights but concur that it's a major issue if the match-up is something like Hagler-Patterson or Calzaghe-Marciano.

 

Yes. There are some double standards here, but no more than other forums.

 

Any time someone makes an argument and someone who disagrees just posts something like:

"You obviously know nothing about boxing"

"Ban this moron."

Instead of creating a counter argument, they just put someone down.

 

I try never to get too upset, its not worth it ....But...

When someone post an intriguing Match up between to fighters from history, and someone simply replies " Joe ko 1st " or "Bill destroys Him"

It would be nice and perhaps educational if the thought processes, and angles and observations which prompted the selection were also shared, one might be enlightened or one might spot a flaw in the assessment, one would then be able to have a discussion in greater depth, whist i often do not agree with some selections i certainly appreciate someone taking the trouble to reveal their analytical process and detail. Just a thought.

 

1. When people claim boxing technique has "evolved". A ridiculous notion considering certain fighters (e.g., Archie Moore) have fought ranked contenders for three eras or so, without giving greater credit to the technique of the fighters they fought thirty years later (usually the opposite, in fact), despite being in their fifties.

2. People discrediting the achievements and careers of particular fighters (Usually pre 1950) without actually knowing anything about them.

3. People discrediting and disrespecting some of the most passionate and knowledgable men in the sports history, such as Nat Fleischer.

They are three of my pet peeves on here.

 

Read Jack Dempseys book, he is also guilty of that. He believes once a fighter hits 180lbs or thereabouts, he has the capacity to develop the technique to knockout a fighter much larger than himself.

20/30lbs weight discrepancies are certainly LESS significant the more you weigh, it's simple maths.

A 1lb human is 30 times (or 3000%) lighter than a 30lb human. But a 1000lbs human is only 3% lighter than a 1030lbs human. That calculation could be wrong, but the principal is correct.

 

Yes, obviously the weight differences among bigger fighters are proportionately less.
And at some point (depending on the individuals in question) the added size will have limited benefit, diminishing returns and detrimental consequences.

Otherwise Nicolay Valuev would be unbeatable (to the point of no one being remotely competitive against him) and would need his own weight class.

Proportionately, Chagaev beating Valuev is probably the same as Miguel Canto beating Emile Griffith, but of course it's not the same.

 

Of course. But why's 180 the cutting off point? And why would light-heavies and crusiers deliberately bulk up to compete?

 

When Bert Sugar took over The Ring one of the first things he said didn;t belong was Nat's belief that the likes of Jeffries and Fitz could be Ali and the gang. This realism was part of the reason the Ring didn't die on its arse. Nat did great work for boxing as a sport and it owes hima considerable debt, but his penchant for old timers was embarrassing at times.