Obviously the bare-knuckle boxing of the 1700s is not worth discussing, nor are the early days of queensbury rules in the late 1800s, when the techniques being established were on the kind of level a chimpazee could think up. Boxers were not the disiplined and thoughtful fighters of earlier and later years. Although around in the 1st century AD boxing had previously been a worthwhile sport, perhaps on on a technical and athletic level similar to the 1960s. These men were cut from a different cloth to the modern man, softened by the comforts of civilisation. Their ancient form of boxing was also a matter of life and death, meaning each and every soldier training in this artform fullfileld their potential. As you can see their conditioning back then was quite splendid. This content is protected This content is protected They had also had several hundred years to refine their technique by this time, that combined with the quality of athlete lead to what I cosnider the first peak of boxing. My answer is boxing from 200BC or so untill 300 AD or so and boxing from the 1970s onward are the only eras in which the quality was at a sufficently high enough quality to justify it's discussion. Which eras do you enjoy discussing and which eras do you disregard?
My fav is the 80's...Most of my favorite fighters were from there and I feel that was the last era when boxing was really a premier sport in the world. Im really getting into the 1940-1960 era...really great time for boxing there and the amount of film helps a hell of a lot. I like reading a lot about the 20's for some reason..many feel thats the golden era and I reckon thats where boxing really started to evolve into the modern style. Boxing was massive then and had little competition from other professional sports. I dont disregard pre turn of the century eras, they are just not the ones that interest me the most right now.
I think boxers peaked circa 1500 BC (see my avatar for evidence), and it's been all downhill ever since. Joe Calzaghe is the exception to the rule though. And perhaps Koki Kameda.
Not being snide, CHJ, why would you presume those idealized sculptures had to do with conditioning? Can't begin to count the guys I've known who were blessed with bowling ball muscles, chiseled physics and symmetry and never did a day's exercise. Granted, those guys with the DNA head start -- and heavy lifting ('n juicing) -- were the most likely to make the cover of muscle mags.
Im interested in all boxing basically from John L onwards but if i come across bare knuckle articles books etc... ill pay interest. The early boxing is again i dont go out of my way to research etc.. i really like the 20s onwards.
The 70's were for me the epoch or era of boxing history that impressed me the most..the free tv telecasts of TITLE BOUTS..the 15 round limit, great champions like Ali, Monzon, Napoles, Duran, Foster, Olivares, Canto (to name but a few). The mid to late 60's was also a great time for a fledgling boxing fan, and the 50's probably was the most fan friendly decade with the role television had and the fact that boxing still had a favored spot in the public's culture..these are the era's I am most interested in, though I also am more and more into the 20's and 30's, and I make the observation that compared to all these decades I've mentioned, the 40's were understandibly a bit lukewarm due to the war...still it merits review and appreciation for the sake of the fewer but still classic bouts that took place then.