Why do old fighters get judged so harshly?

Can only speak for myself, but I have repeatedly highlighed Hearns defensive flaws. The mistake he made when Barkley caught him was just beginners stuff.

But I can't really remember anyone using him doing that stuff as examples of good technique, so I don't see the double standard.

 

There are quite a few critics of "the old fighters" who talk about primitive skills and evolution, who nevertheless insist that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest fighter ever pound-for-pound and head-to-head at welterweight, Ezzard Charles the greatest light-heavyweight, Willie Pep at feather etc., and Muhammad Ali was good enough to beat everyone who has come along since.

 

If you are fighting over 26rds in tropical humidity they are a massive factor.In1915 Johnson was not the fighter he had been by any stretch of the imagination. If the underlined was true, Valuev would not have beaten Holyfield.

 

If you are fighting over 26rds in tropical humidity they are a massive factor.In1915 Johnson was not the fighter he had been by any stretch of the imagination. If the underlined was true, Valuev would not have beaten Holyfield.

Yes indeed and they are quite happy to concede that Joe Gans,Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, etc would all do well today!

 

Yes, some are !
There are so many schools of thought on this. I do find the "evolution exists ... but only up to a point!" the most interesting, and probably agree with it for the most part. I can't quite explain why it would be so though, why boxing would evolve and then stop progressing around the 1940s to '60s.

Funnily enough,in the book by Heller In This Corner, I remember Paul Pender talks about evolution in sports and says in the near future there will be fighters who would be able to blow Ray Robinson away inside of 1 round.
Although Pender might have had an agenda since he didn't rate Robinson as much of a great boxer, only a puncher. It did come across as a genuine thought of his.

 

Do you think that the art of boxing has improved since the end of the 50's? Strength and conditioning I would say yes,the sheer science of boxing, no imo. Robinson was definitely a great fighter, a great boxer , that's another matter.

 

In my opinion, the modern fighters, in terms of their careers, will never equal the likes of Benny Leonard or Ray Robinson or Sam Langford or Harry Greb. They just don't have the same type of career pace or trajectory. I hear stick and ball commentators state that Floyd is the greatest ever and it makes my skin crawl. So, in that respect, it's almost like two different sports between then and now.

On the other hand, many classicists arrive at the discussion with notions that only the old timers (and largely the white old timers) fought with ferocity, possessed true heart and trained in a unique "monk-like" manner. This is simply bullsh*t. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with the sport knows this to be so. No one was more dedicated than Hopkins or Floyd. No one fought with more heart than, say, Provodnikov. Add to all this, there is the belief in magical, long forgotten techniques so subtle but effective that film can not capture them but that have been forgotten in the mists of time, and which if employed today, would make fools of modern pugilists. This is the kind of sh*t that annoys me.

 

Are you sure Holyfield being 46 had nothing to do with it?

 

To my eye, today's boxers look technically better than almost ever. Loma, Rigo, Floyd etc...

Now, perhaps Robinson's physical advantages at 147 would see him beat Floyd, and Robinson is certainly greater, but I think Floyd looks better technically.

But the big evolution seems to have taken place somewhere 1920-1940. I think the gap between for example Louis and Johnson is very sizable, whereas the improvement from Louis's time until today is more marginal. In the HW division the improvement over the last few decades has rather been in boxers retaining a reasonable amount of athleticism while gaining a lot in size. The technical skills of the Klit brothers etc are quite modest if you don't factor in their size and without a doubt a some way below that of say Holy, Tyson and Holmes. But they are also substantially bigger.

The improvement I personally see from the ca 20's through the 40's might be because the sport probably was becoming more truly professionalized (when Johnson lost to Choynski boxing was illegal in that state and they both went to jail afterwards), but this is just a guess. That evolution seems to have slowed up since then (at least in terms of technique) is probably because what in economics is called "diminishing returns" (the low hanging fruit have already been plucked). Improvements in fitness etc is harder to estimate since it isn't a statistical sport in that sense (sprinting and marathon running are of course more quantifiable) - the exception being the size of HWs.

 

Gans looks very good. It would be interesting to read more about him, what new things he was thought bringing to the table at the time. His nickname "The Old Master" probably says a lot about how he was viewed.

 

I'm convinced it did!
That was the point I made!

 

No one mentioned them not knowing how to box.The fact that Johnson and Holyfield were old and past their best is the reason they were beaten.

 

The Johnson Willard bout was scheduled for 45 rounds. This virtually guaranteed Willard a win as long as he did not get koed.

As per Fleischer who reported from both fighters camps and was at ringside ....Willard was fit to fight the world the day he fought Johnson. Willard was the first of the white hopes that could fight over 20 rounds.