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

To play devil's advocate, yes and no. Yes, boxing styles do respond to rulesets. By the same token, though, somebody must have been the first one to perfect a lot of the techniques you see today. There's probably a difference in quality between a system of fighting developed in a tiny talent pool by guys who fight infrequently and the system used by modern athletes in a much larger talent pool.

I would probably pick Hagler to clobber Ben Brain or Tom Johnson under any rules, despite the 40-pound weight disparity.

 

Sweat Pee , maybe i'm somewhat limited , but after reading your posts i feel that the sky is my limit

 

Whenever this sort of debate comes up I always assume that if we we brought an old time fighter into the modern era, the old timer would eat, train, and use the same equipment as a modern fight. Therefore, there would be no difference between the old timer and a modern guy.

 

You are right up to a point.

Where the argument breaks down is in that many of the early champions presided over enormous talent pools.

Tom Cribb probably presided over a larger talent pool than any other British champion before or since.

Jack Dempsey probably presided over a larger talent pool than any other American champion before or since.

I would not put James Figg in the ring with Marvin Hagler for the same reasons that I would not put a man off the street in the ring with him.

I would not put Jack Broughton in the ring with him unless he proved that he was able to fight at that level.

I would not put Marvin Hagler in the ring with Tom Cribb or Jem Mace in an LPR fight unless he proved that he could compete at world level under that rule set.

 

Thought this was the right place to say this.

I was reading a boxing instructual manuel that was a very good manuel on technique an dthe more advanced points on it.

Jim Jeffries was used alot as inspiration for tactics and manuevers. His style was qwuite modern in some respects

Is he the father of 'modern boxing'?

 

This is intriguing. What was the manual called?

 

The history of boxing in a nutshell. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

Boxing mastery by Mark Hatmaker

a very good manuel!

 

Hard to tell. People in his era were probably in better shape and more inured to pain, by and large. Many regions had local "champions" and boxing booths weren't too uncommon in fairs. Then again, a lot of the pugilistic action centered around London--although a case could be made for places like Philly producing the majority of talent nowadays.

Then you need to consider that the military was drawing young men away from the army. Many of the same social classes would have been attracted to both.

A tricky question indeed.

You'd mentioned that there were more boxing clubs in his era than today. Do you have a source for that, by any chance?

I've always thought that the combination of urbanization, third world conditions, tons of money, and boxing's incredible popularity made the 1920s a golden age of sorts...at least for the lighter weights. Harder to tell with heavyweights, since average American height appears to have increased slightly since that time.

Ditto.

Marvin would destroy him in the ring, even in the rough-and-tumble rules that Figg was accustomed to (if you're interested, I could post some 1600's manuals that show what sort of fighting you'd see from Figg & co).

Figg would wait a few days and attack Marvin in a back alley with a cudgel or saber.

Agreed. I think that the rumor that Broughton "invented" the left jab might be mostly true--at least in the sense that he refined the fencing lunge for fisticuffs.

I'd have to agree with you.

On the other hand, I admit that I occasionally have my doubts. There really is something to be said for the massive amounts of money lavished on training fighters like Hagler compared to Cribb & co. The Fancy who supported Cribb and Mace were small fry by today's standards, financially speaking.

 

This is actually a great point -- just recently I went to a Dutch mixed kickboxing tournament and we pitted our (padded record) 25-0-0 (4 KO's) flashy, triple-spinning heelkick sporting talent vs a Thai gentlemen we flew in who had a record that looked something like 135-38-4.

I knew it before I even saw him. "They don't know what they brought over here."

The Thai absolutely destroyed him, leisurely, dancing in-between rounds, laughing, playing to the crowd. Our talent ran, clinched, and did a lot of jumping kicks, because your opponent is not allowed to attack you when you fall to the floor. He basically abused the rules in order to lose via lopsided decision instead of TKO.

While the physique of the Thai was tougher, what impressed me most was his ring generalship -- how utterly relaxed he was in the ring, how little urgency he displayed (just workin' rounds) and how he managed to dominate a fight solely on experience and intangibles -- because technically both fighters were on the same level, yet inside the ring the difference was huge, and I couldn't put my finger on what the Thai was doing better EXACTLY.

I am not basing my entire view around this fight, but it did make an impression on me -- it is exceedingly hard for someone with 30 fights worth of experience to beat someone that has 175 fights under his belt.

We can see it in more moden boxing champions like Duran and Chavez too -- how relaxed and comfortable they were inside those ropes. How imperceptbily good they are at the small stuff -- the finer details. I would be surprised if men like Harry Greb were any less accomplished in those areas, and I even think we miss a lot of things that men like Jack Johnson, Archie Moore and Robinson do because we have no close-ups.

 

Manassa: Excellent post ... I laugh when I read so many here feel as if the men from the early 1900's were laughing stock fools ... of course the game has changed along with the rules, ring sizes and fight distances. However, for human evolution one hundred years is nothing and the men were essentially the same from a physical standpoint. No doubt training, nutrition and drugs accelerated performance today but when I go through my match ups I imagine a level playing field, equal conditioning, ect ...

If the 1940' were the break through decade, does that mean Joe Louis does not make the cut ? If he does, who taught him other then early 20th century great Joe Blackburn ? Did Blackburn pick up his knowledege in his six years prior to starting with Louis ?

I clearly understand a lot of this is based on primitive footage which distorts all motion. It gives a poor representation of the skills that existed.

I clearly agree the sport as a whole became more refined but there were terrific fighters from Peter Jackson to the young Corbett to Joe Gans and so on that there is no footage or very little footage to judge. It can't really be summed up in one generalization.