Their footwork is non-existent. And Baer not only stands straight up, he also has both hands down and just walks around like taking a stroll.
The numbers of active boxers are from BoxRec's database. They have 12,034 listed for the year 1998 - compared to 23,535 for 2018 (the most recent year, where they have published the number). As I said, pretty much a doubling over the 20 year period. https://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=101907&start=75 Do I suggest, that the overall standard of the sport has regressed in the first 2 decades of this century - because boxers and trainers are now watching old tapes? No, I'm kind of suggesting the opposite. Why would expertise disappear into thin air exactly now (or over the past couple of decades, as you claim) - when we have more information available to us than ever before? Doesn't make sense to me!
Worst era of Heavyweight Boxing we have seen for some time....An extremely fat average Mexican is ranked top 5 and is quite capable of defeating all above Him...that in itself should tell you something.!!!
Because guys don't go to YouTube to learn to box. Not if they're serious, anyway. They go to a gym. Guys have been dying and their knowledge dying with them. Not enough of their students have been able or inclined to carve out a living passing that stuff down. Do you really think Shane McGuigan or Adam Booth are well rounded technique coaches? Booth can only get results from a certain type of explosive athlete, while McGuigan is a glorified fitness coach. Actually, you'd expect McGuigan, with his family pedigree, to be better than he is, but it seems he's only really benefited from his Dad in terms of attracting clients with the name and the bit of promotional muscle. If he was all that, Josh Taylor wouldn't have been so quick to part ways for someone even younger than Shane.
Who is it that have been dying, and what knowledge have they taken with them? Are modern trainers too stupid to learn from history, and therefore unable too teach today's boxers the finer points of the game? "Not enough of their students have been able or inclined to carve out a living passing that stuff down". So you make a broad statement like that, based on what?... that Shane McGuigan isn't a good trainer? We have had some exceptional boxers these first 2 decades of the 21st century. RJJ, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Ward, Usyk, Loma, Rigo, Inoue, Gonzalez, Donaire, Mosley… somewhere there must be trainers, who know what they are doing!
You want an itemized list? It could be done, but it would be greatly time-consuming. Modernista guys seem to want everything from the guys they're arguing with without really qualifying their statements and putting out themselves. The burden of proof only ever seems to fall on we who don't agree that the best of the 1930's/50's would get battered by Robert Easter Jr. You hadn't noticed that I've given much more in this thread than I've gotten in return? Your pardner in modernism even told me a longer than average post was too long. All the modernistas ever seem to do is offer reductive arguments. Go through my posts on this forum, you'll see plenty of technical breakdown. You might not care for the observations or agree with my conclusions, but it's there. I'm not the one saying that the guys who made the sport great in the 20th century would get brutalized by Maurice Hooker. Mine is not the outrageous or risible position here. Based on studying and observing the game. Fewer fighters seem to have been moving out of competing and into training and making a success of it in the last few decades. Roach is one who did. McGirt. JDJ. There are some, of course, but not as many as you might expect. When a guy like Shane can't really impress as anything more than a glorified fitness coach, despite having a champion boxer for a father, it suggests something. At some point the emphasis has shifted away from the nuances of the art. I appreciate the guys I've worked with and am thankful for what I've been able to learn from them, but I'm conscious that I'm not learning from Al Silvani. You're kind of making my point for me here. Many of those guys are of the prodigously athletic type, who can get away with a lot on account of tremendous natural gifts. Gonzalez would be an exception. Mayweather is one of the guys who has soaked up infinite knowledge from guys who go way back in the trade, that's a fair one, despite the depths of his athletic gifts. Pacquiao's benefited from Roach (one of the guys I acknowledged as having taken what he learned from a golden mentor and successfully passed it down), definitely developed into a cagey fighter as well as an exceptional physical talent. Ward is fair, also, but I think he's ended up teaching Virgil as much about the game as Virgil has taught him – an extraordinary cerebral talent, is Ward, wheres Virg's results with other guys haven't been so hot. Shane was a pretty rounded dude, part of that came from rumbling with Mexicans in the gym, made him able to cope on the inside. You should've mentioned Timothy Bradley to enhance your point, another whose depth of experience sparring latinos helped instill his versatility (with close-quarter insight to match his athletically benefited long-to-mid boxing). Loma can't fight in reverse gear near as effectively as he holds ring center, for a top P4P he's not all that versatile. Usyk we have plenty still to learn about. You can't really talk about guys like Roy and Donaire as having greatly rounded skillsets. And I have a ton of time for Nonito, but he struggles on the front foot and relies too much on reflex counterpunching. Put another high level counter puncher with handspeed in front of him and he's all at sea. Guy only fights one way. Lack of versatility. Top Cubans, too, your Laras and your Rigos, are no longer as versatile as they were in the days of Gavilan. Top guys, even those beneath the absolute cream, were generally way more versatile in past eras. Now, you're just picking out a few of the more exposed P4P guys of the last few years. What about the others? I would've nominated Tyson Fury, but he's not the norm. Another exceptional intuitive talent who has travelled around a lot of different trainers and focused much more on sparring than is typical in order to acquire the knowledge he has. I take it you two fellas, Camaris and yourself, are on a page here. What do you two modernistas think about Carmine Tilelli (Joey Giardello, if you prefer)? I suppose he'd get violated by the Charlo twins, right?
'Scuse me, I mean BATTERED. Well, yeah, that's a case of an oldie I probably wouldn't be fancying against a newie. Fury can certainly beat Dempsey, and I don't hold Dempsey in low regard. Fury absolutely clowns Willard and beats him any which way he chooses.
If you can watch this stuff and not see what's great about it, you're into the wrong sport. This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected Much of that is Jake past his absolute peak, by the way. And, lest you need reminding, that's one of the 40's/50's guys who is characterized more as a slugger/brawler in 21st century lore. Exquisite technician.
I think you're reading me all wrong! I'm not a modernista. I have no preference - except that I like good boxing, whenever it took/takes place. I don't believe today's fighters are better than the old ones - unless we go WAY back! I have several times stated here (and on other sites as well), that I don't believe boxing has improved over the last 80 years or so. Once you reached the late 30s, early 40s, boxing had become fully "modern" (for lack of a better word) - with brilliant boxers like Louis, Pep and Robinson. I don't see anyone today better than that. One of the first boxers that REALLY impressed me is Tony Canzoneri. He was so good (in my opinion), that I'm not even sure a superb boxer like Napoles would beat him. In the recent Canzoneri - Napoles thread I voted for a draw! This content is protected
Fair enough, man. You did co-sign/upvote a post that said the very best of the 1930's/50's would be luck to scrape into today's P4P Top 30, though. Can't blame a guy for guessing you shared those sentiments. It's been plenty serious, no?
You are coming across as a bit of a pompous autist, my friend. Not gonna lie about that. But it's nice you follow boxing!
You're the guy who insinuated that anyone here who watches 'old' fights and endorses the virtues of 'old' fighters is a beard-stroking hipster trying to lord it over everybody else. If that's not pomposity... I wouldn't even be posting in this thread if I hadn't seen your reductive, condescending (some might even say pompous) remarks in the first place. What else do you have? Thought so.
