Why is it assumed fighters from 12-15 round eras cant go 45rounds?

I'll see if I can contact him and ask him this question.

 

Fighters of that period were the last and final rendition of true gladiators. No, they didn't fight for the actual purpose of killing each other, but the differences aren't that far apart. They fought to the point of disability, and yes I imagine that some men never left the ring alive, or in one piece. Men like Sullivan, Johnson and Jeffries were fortunate to have size and strength on their side for most of their fights, whereas there were many fighters who weren't. Today boxing is still a brutal sport, but nowhere near to the extent that it was a century ago. Most fighters were shot by the time they were in their late 20's or sooner, and they basically jeopardized their health and even their lives for purses that stretched no further than their next meal.

 

From the article (development of boxing strategies, etc) it sounds more like they together averaged 85 punches per round. That I can believe. Even though I only have 3.5 minutes highlights of the fight (does anybody here have 11min version or longer?), but except for 22th round (which is incorrectly labeled as round 19 by KOTV stuff), where Wolgast is knocked down and seriously hurt, Nelson is throwing punches at average rate, not very frequently and in few combinations, and Wolgast actually throws more frequently.

 

That would be much apreciated.

 

No it states that Nelson himself averaged 85 and draws comparisons with Leonard Duran.

Clarification on some points would however be helpfull.

 

The Development of Boxing Strategies, Styles and Techniques During the Gloved Era to Present--Part 2: The Era 1900-1915

For example in the 1910 Battling Nelson-Ad Wolgast lightweight championship bout, the punch rate was approximately 85 per round for 39 rounds with upwards to 25 combinations of the 2,3 occasional 4 or more per opponent per round.

It doesn't state Nelson averaged, it says X per round for Y rounds.

 

Coxs description of the same peice of research dose state that it was Nelson alone who averaged 85 per round.

This might be misinterpretation on his part but I understand that these two historians know each other well and comunicate regularly.


The Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast lightweight championship held on Feb 22, 1910 was called “for concentrated viciousness... the most savage bout I have ever seen” wrote W.O. McGeehan in the New York Herald Tribune.

Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.” They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round. They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!

 

If the original author of that claim wanted to say it was Nelson alon,e I believe he'd have done so, but his wording is different. And based on factual errors by Cox I believe it's just his own interpretation of Hunnicut's words, he doesn't even pay attention to "for 39 rounds" part and if they really talked it over, he'd know the fight was stopped less than half a minute (23 seconds according to one source) after the beginning of 40th round.

 

Lets not forget the Gans Nelson fight, were on the hour and ten min film, Nelson shows a high punch out put in the clichs. Now Gans battle and wear Nelson out of couse. But Nelson was not fighting like it was a 15 or 12 rounder there either.

 

I haven't come across a single next-day report which had such an error (Wolgast-Nelson ending in 42th round) and I've seen several dozens of them (mostly the same wire report reprinted in different papers all around the US). Cox clearly got the 42th round from boxrec which erroneously listed it as such before yesterday.

 

I think one ogf the reasons that fighters were able to fight longer fights decades ago is that boxing was'nt as fast paced back then as it became later on. Take Johnson/Willard as an example and compare it to Ali/Frazier I. Which fight was fought at a faster pace? Not to hard to correctly answer that one right? If you're scheduled to fight a 45 rounder then you have to plan differently than you would for a 15 rounder. Energy expenditure must be applied differently in both scenarios. You're not going to fight balls to the walls when you know you're in for a long day with a 40-45 rounder which explains all the pawing, posturing and intermittent action in many of the old time fights. A fighter back then, especially a Heavyweight, would need to pace himself more carefully than a modern day HW in a 12 rounder inside an air conditioned arena. That's just common sense. Plus as time went by and the world became more fast paced and technologically advanced, fans probably did'nt want to sit through a 45 round fight anymore which if gone the distance is 2hrs and 30 minutes long which spelled the end of such long title fights. Shorten them up, increase the pace of fighting(At least most of the time) and keep the action-starved public happy. This in effect changed the style of fighting. More jabbing and combination punching as opposed to the extended guard pawing type of fighting that was common during the first half of the last century. Fighters today COULD fight a 45 round fight but it would'nt keep many fans interested for long since the fighters would have to revert to more of an "Old Style " type of fighting in order to do it. In the long run I think the energy expended in a fast paced 12 or 15 round fight is probably equal to the amount of energy expended in a slow paced 40-45 rounder. Ali/Frazier I and III was every bit as grueling as say Johnson/ Willard or Jeffries/Sharkey, just fought differently. Make sense to anyone out there?

 

If you are in touch with Hunnicut then you should ask him about it.

 

Perhaps in some cases yes. While 25 and 45 round fights could be fought at the same pace as a 12 or 15 round fight such bouts were the exception rather than the rule.

Guys like Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast who could maintain a modern pace over 40 rounds perhaps represent the ultimate endurance monsters of boxing history.

 

Tracy Callis only has his post address, which I don't feel like using for such a minor thing as asking how did he count the punches, no e-mail address.
As for round 42, I'm absolutely certain that it's an error, the bout ended in 40th round.