When Fans talk about 'modern technique' and their prehistoric counterparts...

Depends on how active you are in the clinch. If you fought somebody like Jeffries who's constantly trying to uproot you and control/trap your arms, the answer is "very tired indeed."

If you're getting "Ruiz'd", on the other hand...:yep

 

Excellent post. I agree with almost all of it.

 

Thanks. What's the part you don't agree with?

 

I cant speak for cross trainer, but i think that the main problem i disagree with is the fact that modern training has increased. I see the opposite, as training has decreased in every area except for heavy weight lifting.

 

You're welcome.

There are just two things I'd modify.

First, I'm not sure that slipping of punches was less used by old-timers. It's pretty counterintuitive, but the earlier a boxing manual is, the narrower the margin they recommend for slipping. The turn-of-the-century guys often just use head slips. That would probably explain the large number of cauliflower ears among early boxers.

Also, I suspect that "scientific" training didn't really come into vogue until the 1970s, though arguably training techniques improved before that point just because of extra experience. So Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't get the kind of "modern training" advantage that Floyd Mayweather would. By the 1990s modern fighters are definitely more athletic than their turn-of-the-century counterparts. (On the other hand, if you're talking about the general health of the population, you're right. 19th century living conditions were pretty awful).




On a semi-related note, you can see an interesting comparison of "old school" versus modern training methodologies when you compare European and American kickboxing to the Thai circuit. Westerners train their kickboxers in essetially the same way that they do their boxers--sophisticated workouts, weight training, low double-digit fight records, and not a huge amount of sparring. The Thais have gruelling, primitive training (definitely inferior from a sports science standpoint) and hundreds of fights. The Thais dominate their own weight divisions.

It gives you a decent idea of what our boxers would face if we were suddenly put in contact with the 1920's United States of Greb and Co.--essentially a third world nation by today's standards.

 

My post was just a generalisation really, and training can be a delicate subject.

When I talk 'modern' training, I'm really talking about from '40s to '70s rather than today's weight training. That, I don't agree with. I wouldn't advise (not that I'm an authority) any fighter to add bulk muscle to their frame, it's better to fight at a more lean, natural weight and work on stamina and endurance.

But still, generally, compared to the beer swilling fighters of the 19th century, fighters are better trained today. Many of those men worked hard labour jobs and were fit in their own right, but their specific boxing training wouldn't be to the standard of professional boxers from the '60s who made a career out of fighting.

I stress the word generally, because there are always exceptions.

Even if fighters today are more athletic, I still maintain that the boxers of the '40s were just as good because of the amount of experience they had. A 15-0 fringe contender today is probably no better than a 40-12-1 fringe contender of the '40s, even if he was marginally stronger and quicker.

 

Whitaker would not have been a big star in the 'NO DECISION' era.
with the lighter gloves , he'd also have found himself stopped more often.
i don't say he'd have been a bum , just that not the big success he had in his era.

 

it is possible that the 'old timers' techniques were indeed better in their time and less in ours and vice-versa. i also believe that there are some things and techniques that stayed the same and techniques that did improve. do you think that a man of Freddie Roach caliber wouldn't have been helpful in the 1890-1930 ? if so you're a fool. i believe that then's trainers were inferior to him , just like today's. and i'll sum it by some quotes: "don't lose your focus" , "i need more of that jab"

 

Frank, I don't ask this question to demean you, but rather to get a better understanding of where you're coming from: Are you mentally ******ed?

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Aside from more scientific training I would also say that the sport has become more professionalised. Just about all top fighters today have solid amateur careers behind them and has boxing as a full time job.

By the way, was Louis the first HW champ with a pretty long amateur career behind him?

 

As somebody pointed out earlier (in another thread), boxing has always been professionalized--even going back to the days of Dan Mendoza. It's always been a full-time job for a fair few fighters. I agree that some old-timers didn't train as hard as modern guys, though.

 

Evolution (as in the biological process) in no way implies improvment merely changes in response to prevailing conditions.

You are not better than Sillurian sea scorpion merely adapted to a different set of environmental conditions. If you went back to the Sillurian period you would not be able to breathe due to the ratio of gases in the atmosphere. Hence we would have to credit the sea scorpion as being better adapted to that environment.

Now I think the same is true of boxing to a large extent.

 

I think it is more the case that he was the first heavyweight champion whose profesional career was managed from his profesional debut.

Most of his predecessors had to prove that they were a serious proposition before they got that suport framework.