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

You clearly haven't read much of his posts, or are that dumb that you take them at face value.

Lighten up? Are you serious? I honestly couldn't give two ****s what you think son.

The fact that you think my knowledge is exclusive to the parameters you set when you were kind to me earlier in this thread says it all.

Fact is, boxing today is an athletic endeavour first and foremost. Boxing skill is at an all-time low IN TERMS OF DEPTH. I have always said there are exceptions to the rule.

Basically, you don't like it that I say Floyd's skill set isn't as proven because he is fighting a lot of technically poor fighters. That is a fact.

 

For once we're in agreement.

 

That was another bucketload of anger.

Just for the record, I didn't say, or mean, that your boxing knowledge is exclusive to two parameters - you obviously know a shitload about boxing in general - it was just those two areas that I've seen you contribute with especially much. Just two examples of that you have a great deal of boxing knowledge.

And, yeah, lighten up.

 

Just because I used all caps (for emphasis, I wasn't shouting) doesn't mean the post you quoted was an angry one.

You must admit there is far less depth technically nowadays than say, the 60s? And because of that, the most well-versed technicians today are not as proven as their historic counterparts?

And if you think I wear rose-tinted spectacles, well only last week I criticised Packey McFarlands technique, a figgter I rank in the top 20 P4P of all time.

Problem is, people only see what they want to see with me. I'm actually very fair...in my opinion at least.

And don't think I don't enjoy a lot of your posts. I onky got aggravated with you recently when you started getting pissed off with what you thought was an old timer bias. Which, well I can see your point, even if it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

Sugah Jay is an out and out troll. Surely you must see that?

 

I don't think today's depth is as bad as you do, but I have no problem with you thinking that. If there were no differing opinions on this board, they'd be no point to it. The only thing is that I think you become a bit too angry at times. I myself was a bit cranky and arrogant in a thread where you also were participating, and I know you took exception. And I apologized.

Sugah Jay is a bit trollish, but is probably also genuinely enamored by PBF. At the end of the day I find him quite harmless compared to the many name calling Internet "tough guys" around here (not saying you're one of them, mind you).

 

I'm not a big fan of those threads where you just contribute a title and then don't bother to write a comment or opinion of your own. That seems lazy as hell. I'm also not a big fan of the way you make ten threads at a time and spam other good threads off the front page. Also, your Mayweather nuthugging in the classic section, where that sort of discussion doesn't belong, and then you tell the most competent posters on the forum that they are idiots.

Like you, I believe that the old timers pre-1920s are a bit overrated, but the more old footage I watch, generally the more I've found to like. Check out Benny Leonard vs Lew Tendler I, Gene Tunney vs Tommy Gibbons, Mickey Walker vs Tommy Milligan, Pancho Villa vs Jimmy Wilde, Tommy Loughran vs James Braddock to see some slick fighting technique in the 20s. I think there might be some good footage of Georges Carpentier and Freddie Welsh from the teens but the rest and earlier I can't vouch for. The footage of Langford, Gans, Johnson, Ketchel, Wills, McVey, and Jeffries I've seen hasn't wowed me.

Right now, I'm of two minds on the subject. I feel like there has probably always been a handful of fighters who could fight in any age. It's possible that some of the old timers don't look as good because of inferior footage or changes in technique. Another part thinks that maybe competition wasn't as fierce as some people think it was back in the day, and maybe they are seeing what they want to see in old distorted footage. I don't have the background in nineteenth century bare knuckle boxing or clear cinemagraphic evidence to make a call either way with 100 percent certainty. I can say though, based on some things I've seen that Packey McFarland does look to have a few things going for him, even if I couldn't put him in the top 20 ATGs like Flea does.

 

There are Marciano and Dempsey nuthuggers in the classic section the same as there are Mayweather and Pacquiao nuthuggers in the main. However, we aren't allowed to talk about current fighters in the classic section because it is the section reserved for discussing retired fighters only. Any Mayweather centric threads belong in the main and will be moved.

Since you ask, a nuthugger is someone who has an unrealistic degree of hero woship, and an inflated idea of a single fighter's abilities. See ******* or ***** for reference. The fact that you are a *****, is a good sign that you have a poor idea of how Floyd historically stacks up against boxers of the past, and therefore you have little business down here in the classic section.

 

While I recognize the site, I don't recognize the author. The author is just listed as "Christian" with no last name, no picture, no bio. According to Bleachers contributor rating he is number 5,288, so not a regular contributor at all. Looks like he's just some blogger with no real credentials, and a Floyd nuthugger like yourself.

 

Yeah, that BR report is truly painful.