Where do you rank em...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Charlie, Jun 19, 2010.


Page 5 of 6
  1. dustball

    dustball Member Full Member

    344
    2
    Feb 16, 2010
    i really dont get everybody rating pac over may they are both all time great no doubt but u have to look at the whole body of work the wins and losses but i always say it is very tough to do this with active fighters
     
    dustball, Jun 19, 2010
    dustball, Jun 19, 2010
    #61
  2. Crax Sellerman

    Crax Sellerman Guest

    The quality of sparring is far better, so they're getting more out of less while also accumulating less unnecessary punishment. So,

    Yes.

    More. Getting hit in the head more often isn't helping anybody. The technique is refined now through repetition and training, which is significantly advanced from previous generations.

    Both.

    Both.

    Neither. Superior talent doesn't require competition.
     
    Crax Sellerman, Jun 19, 2010
    Crax Sellerman, Jun 19, 2010
    #62
  3. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    How is the quality of sparring better? That I don't understand. Anyway, the notion that technique is somehow better in this day and age is very very incorrect. How could that be true when the quality and quantity of trainers has dropped so rapidly?

    My advice to you crax:

    [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Arc-Boxing-Decline-Sweet-Science/dp/0786438495[/ame]

    A great book that is a very well reasoned and researched study of the decline of boxing in regard to fighters, trainers, competition, and technique. If you approach it with an open mind and don't write it off as old man whining, I think you'll come to agree with the author's stance.
     
    Swarmer, Jun 19, 2010
    Swarmer, Jun 19, 2010
    #63
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,114
    Mar 21, 2007
    Why is the quality sparring better?



    I don't accept for a moment that training is "significnantly advanced". It seems to me that advancements like hand-mitts have evolved specificallly to replace sparring, which is not kind of replacement at all.

    But to be clear, you're saying that fighting doesn't help to refine a fighter's technique? You thinkt hat a fighter with 30 fights will have an equally refined technique to one with 80?


    This puts you in a minority. Teddy Atlas, Freddie Roach and Joe Frazier are guys who, of the top of my head, have repated the mantra, "puncher's are born, not made".

    Of course, technique can be refined, but for me, there is no question that there is no sense in which it is more refined in 2010 than in 1940.

    For you the opposite will be true and that will be that.



    So you think that if there were 5,000 fighters here, and 1,000 fighter there, they would produce the same amount of genuinely great fighters?
     
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    #64
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,114
    Mar 21, 2007

    I agree that that is the most objectionable statement in the above.
     
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    #65
  6. Crax Sellerman

    Crax Sellerman Guest



    Trainers now have the benefit of watching film of previous generations of fighters and refining techniques from that. Trainers now have the benefit of superior sports science and medicine. They didn't even have ****ing Gatorade when Ray Robinson was fighting.

    Work smart, not hard.
     
    Crax Sellerman, Jun 19, 2010
    Crax Sellerman, Jun 19, 2010
    #66
  7. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,036
    27,681
    Jul 26, 2004
    Pac top 30
    May top 35
     
    kirk, Jun 19, 2010
    kirk, Jun 19, 2010
    #67
  8. di tullio

    di tullio Guest

    damn. burley was smooth as hell.
     
    di tullio, Jun 19, 2010
    di tullio, Jun 19, 2010
    #68
  9. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Watching films is only one thing. As in any other sport, you have to practice something in real time for it to actually work and transition properly. For your muscles and brain to properly retain technique you have to experience it. That's only obvious.Nutrition and sports science are undoubtedly important, but like Dempsey says in his book...

     
    Swarmer, Jun 19, 2010
    Swarmer, Jun 19, 2010
    #69
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,114
    Mar 21, 2007

    Possibly none smoother. And when you consider that he's in with a guy to whom he's giving away 12lbs and a weight division who also happens to be one of that divisions best punchers, it gets better.
     
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    #70
  11. Crax Sellerman

    Crax Sellerman Guest

    That's the opinion of one guy who got punched in the head for a living.


    I'll take the scientists.
     
    Crax Sellerman, Jun 19, 2010
    Crax Sellerman, Jun 19, 2010
    #71
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,114
    Mar 21, 2007


    Nice post and quotes.

    Have you read Jack Johnson's book? It's spooky. He basically describes a diet of meat, but less red than white, and loads of green vegetables and some fish when you are in training. In other words, what a modern fighter would eat.
     
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    #72
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,114
    Mar 21, 2007

    You can ignore Dempsey if you like, but try not to ignore the following -


    There are MANY less boxers now than there were in 1950. In 1950 there were more registered boxers in Britain than there are in the world, currently. Think about that.


    Fighers spar less.


    Fighters fight less.


    Fighting less and practicing fighing less in a smaller talent pool doesn't lend itslef to advancement.


    I don't actually see a difference between the best now and the best then. I mean obviously Sugar Ray Robinson looks better than Mayweather and Mayweather looks better than LaMotta, but that is because they are better, not because they were trained in different eras. So this isn't some beating for modern fighters. I think they are great. But I do refute any notion that boxing has advanced, like 100m running has advanced. That's just crazy, for reasons outlined.
     
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    #73
  14. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Dempsey has a similar section, actually. Mostly lean protein, veggies, fish, etc. He basically says to avoid lots of starchy complex carbs for the most part. I haven't read Johnsons, but dempsey's is pretty legit. Reading his theories on how to properly convey your bodyweight into a punch has actually greatly helped my own boxing. His sections on defense are actually really very complete. You'd think that this book would be tailored specifically to his early swarming style, but there's a lot about catching and blocking, parries, etc.

    I would like to read johnson's book(and driscoll's too). Here's Dempsey's:


    http://zinelibrary.info/files/Championship%20Fighting%20by%20Jack%20Dempsey%20%281950%29.pdf

    Couldn't agree more. The facts are pretty simple: Boxing has declined in popularity, in the US and otherwise. The number of trainers, fighters, and fights has declined. The relative ease of getting a belt has risen with more weight classes and more organizations. What sense does it make that boxing as a whole has progressed? Or has not declined?
     
    Swarmer, Jun 19, 2010
    Swarmer, Jun 19, 2010
    #74
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,114
    Mar 21, 2007

    I think the multiple weight divisions thing is understated. In ye olden times, everyon between 135 and 147 would be in direct competition. Now, that division is bisected. That's not without consequences.

    But I don't think it's actually declined, no, though it has changed. It's 12 rounds now, which perfectly reasonably accounts for some declines (feinting for example). So different, not worse.


    Do you close your fist tight on the point of impact like Dempsey describes? Or do you consider that a factor of the looser gloves?
     
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 19, 2010
    #75
Page 5 of 6