Why was the technique so ugly in the past compared to today?

If he goes to CHB he will be immediately banned, as he should've been here.

 

Floyd vs Corrales is the one fight I've actually enjoyed watching Floyd. I always appreciate his skill, but I find him hard to watch most of the time. But that is just a gem of a performance.

 

He might not have anything close to your knowledge, but I prefer him to your cranky ass anytime. Just lighten up a bit.

 

Agreed. Some posters are idiots or jerks but Sugah is fine and there are only a few here with great boxing knowledge and their not the ones calling for bans like this.

 

The short answer is the techniques were suited to the equipment they used, the way fights were scored and the fact that gloved boxing was in an infant state compared to today.

Specifically refering to the way they moved their hands it is an effect of the smaller gloves meaning it was better to block shots earlier in their travel.

There is a fighting style called 52 blocks where they also do lots of seemingly unnecessary hand movements. They do it for a mixture of feinting(or general distraction) and to be contantly giving the opponent different looks. I think this was also true of the 'ugly techniques' of fighters over 100 years ago.

 

Thing is, I do enjoy reading Flea Man's post about the wee skilled guys that most don't know about. He really knows his **** there, and about 60's fighters below HW. But he just gets his knickers so badly twisted up by anyone saying a fighter today actually is any good compared to past ones. It's so silly. McCallum-Kalambay II is my favorite technical display ever, but boxing didn't die the day after.

Why should it be so hard to appreciate the most skilled fighters of today? Even safety first pricks like Floyd. And why be so angry with those who do?

 

Floyd-Corrales is still modern compared to Fitzsimmons-Corbett. atsch

Maybe YOU'RE the dumbass.

 

Well said hope people can appreciate it.

 

I feel that there is sometimes a bit of a double standard in this argument.

People effectively asses the fighters of the past based on the textbook of today, and the rule set of today.

They also treat any departure from the textbook in an older fighter as a technical flaw, while if the same occurs with a modern fighter, they simply say that they have an unorthodox style.

 

Do you seriously not see the vast difference? I respect you as a poster and your knowledge about the old timers, but it is strange for me that this should even be a subject of debate. It just so brazenly obvious.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected