When do you think Boxers stopped...

The MMA fighter is a moron and the boxers talking with him are either morons too or just couldn't be fussed to disagree with him.
There are some idiots at the gyms I go to too, but always enough knowledgeable people to set them straight if they dared to say something as stupid as that about Sugar Ray Robinson or Willie Pep. I mean, that's some really dumb **** right there.

You seem to gravitate towards these types of fools, because you've told these types of stories before.
Anyone who can't see SRR was great is bordering on mentally handicapped, at the very least.
And I'm trying not to be harsh but that's the absolute truth.

 

Which the quote doesn't support. There was nothing silly about it.

 

"I used to love to see Willie Pep and Ray Robinson. To me, the epitome of a great athlete is a great boxer. I just love the rhythm of seeing a man dance, slip punches. I loved the dancers and boxers. I would see them and be mesmerized."

- Emanuel Steward


"Sugar Ray Robinson was wild swinging and only won because he was fighting short Italians."

- An MMA guy at Pat M's gym

 

Yes, it was silly - as are all such claims by people who can't imagine, that there will be a tomorrow, where a new generation of trainers will be just as good as the present one.

 

It's a balancing act. It stands to reason that the more fights a fighter has, the greater his experience will be. There is no substitute for experience.
Ergo, a fighter with 150 fights will without doubt have more experience than a fighter with 40 fights. (Okay, this part of the subject can go much deeper, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll leave it there)

But it's the wear and tear, man. It's a killer. Imagine over a 100 fights worth of training, fighting, training etc. Almost unimaginable.
As you say, the rest and recovery time is absolutely crucial. Nobody can peak 12 times a year, impossible.

It beggars belief that some of these old-time fighters had 100+ fights in primitive conditions and still had long careers.

 

what you don't understand is that I'm not a hero worshiper (as you obviously are) who is influenced by what somebody else says. I have my own opinions and they won't be changed by anything you can quote.

If that is what Steward thought, it's his opinion, the MMA guy stated his opinion. Neither will influence me. If I'm interested enough to form an opinion about a fighter I'll watch some video and decide for myself. There are a few people whose opinion of boxing talent I value, hearing or reading what somebody told an interviewer does not interest me.

I don't think the MMA guy or the boxers were "morons." They watch video and make their determination about fighters based on real life experience. They don't need to read Bert Sugar fantasies or wait for what the "historians" think. People who know what they're watching can make their own decisions based on their experience, people who don't know what they are watching need a boxing celeb's opinion because they don't understand.

 

Yes, I would mostly agree. Handling pressure and maintaining composure is often what sets apart the good from the also-rans.

 

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Also seems consistent with the huge research literature on "deliberate practice." If you want to develop skills, you practice those skills, with precision and purpose.

 

No it wasn't.

The fact that if it was silly that would that support a narritive that suits your agenda, doesn't make it silly.

It was a perfectly reasoable comment given the context in which it was made, which was that LPR was a death's door, and gloved boxing was only just becoming established.

 

Yes it was!

The fact that someone is so stuck in his own time, and fail to see that the world is moving forward - that makes such a statement silly.

 

Actually learn something the era, instead of projecting your agenda onto it.

 

I'm sure Jem Belcher, Tom Sayers, and Jem Mace would have all been totally blown away by all the advances in the science and art of boxing personified by Paddy Ryan.

 

Yep, damage to a fighter is damage, it's the same whether it comes in sparring or if it comes in the biggest fight ever. Taking less damage is better. I knew a guy who was training at a gym where Lou Duva had his prospects from the Olympics (1984?), Holyfield, Whitaker, Taylor, etc. He said Holyfield did not like to spar and seldom did. Holyfield spent more time conditioning, shadow boxing, etc. than sparring.

From video of Holyfield shadow boxing, he looks like he worked hard on good form. In the ring he looked like a "how to" video. And despite being in lots of tough fights, he looks good and seems to be alert at near 60 years old. Maybe practicing skills with precision and purpose, instead of engaging in sparring wars paid off for him?

 

You can be condescending all you want - but that doesn't change the fact, that the qoute was from an 1883 book. Which is really all I said. Whether you think it's right or wrong, doesn't matter - it's ****ing there on page 9 for all to see. What is it, you don't understand?

 

In the strictest sense it has never improved.

The greatest fighters are not products of their eras, they are events, just like the greatest novelists or painters.