TELL ME WHY IT IS...

[Deserter]

That we can talk about the likes of James Hare getting 'stale' through having too many fights in a short period of time, but applaud the 'old timers' for being able to fight up to 25 times a year
This seems such a contradictory situation, and is it because:
1) Fights are harder and more intense now so more recovery time is needed?
2) Fighters nowadays aren't as tough so need more time to recover?
3) It's primarily a commercial decision?
4) Some other reason?

I genuinely don't know the answer myself and would welcome the thoughts of others as so many people, including the 'experts', seem to contradict themselves on this issue.
So many times I hear that 'so and so' has been in too many wars and so and so is shot, or that somebody is ruined because of one hard fight, yet boxers from earlier eras seemed to engage in wars on a regular basis without it appearing particularly detrimental.
Help me out here people :good

[jamesmcdonnell]

that is a good question.....

My guess would be that the old timers didn't train as intensely as their modern counterparts, mainly because they fought so often and therefore didn't need to. Archie Moore used to fight as often as once a week at times, so not much time to get out of shape.

I think you have to figure in as well however, that the old-timers were a lot tougher than the majority of modern fighters, they by needs had to be, the fights weren't stopped as quickly, and they had to fight a lot more often to put bread on the table.

Ray Robinson only fought so many times because he had too, in todays version of the sport he would have been like Roy jones, a cherry picker.

I think the old timers were generally a lot fitter too, have a look at the pace of the fights back then compared to the majority now, and the fact that championship fights were 15 rounders, meant that they were battle hardened, hungry and in proper 'fighting' shape, rather than being gym-fit, which is not the same thing.

The act of fighting so often, i think also means the body adapts much better to the stresses of the physical requriements of the actual fight, something which modern fighters simply don't have.

There are some modern counterparts though whose careers stand up well, a good example is someone like cruiserweight Jorge Castro, only stopped once in a 139 bouts, at the age of 36 still ranked as a top 10 contender, perhaps his success at a late age can be attributed to the fact that he has had such an active career, and hasn't entered the ring in poor shape.

I think also you have to factor in that fighters who are out of the gym for long periods, and then have to kill themselves to make weight, are shortening their own careers, look at Nard, 40 approaching fast, and he's a hell of a lot fitter and nearer his peak than DLH is.

Those are my pet theories anyway....

[stujones]

My own perception is that fighters of yesteryear ARE tougher than those of today. We will in a society that is so obese I'm am starting to question if boxing will be around in the UK in the next 50 years or so (honestly, it is worrying). Jimmy Wilde once discussed of walking 250 miles to go to a fight, and considered that the easier than manual work - Sky used to applaud Paul Ingle for DRIVING 200 odd miles round trip to train. Alex Arthur had to leave Peter Harrison cause he couldn't drive that distance, Jimmy Wilde would be turning in his grave at the thought of this.

The fighters back then are naturally fitter than what they are now, due to their jobs - therefore they could participate in more fights. However, I would say one thing with this generation is that they seemed to peak at an older age. I'm mean Tarvis Simms (not Travis) is considered an up and comer at 33, more an more fighters are acquiring a world title in their mid 30's (even in the lower weights - this is due to the scientific advantages of todays current training regime).

You can see this in today Rugby, a Llanelli prop named John Davies is pushing his mid 30's but is "old school" - most of his training involves general work on the farm etc. John is still as good as ever and is much fitter and stronger than the majority of his younger rivals (the current Welsh prop cannot play more than a half without knackering himself out) .

[Deserter]

Some good points guys, but why is it then that in every other sport that can be scientifically measured, we are getting faster, stronger etc, but these same modern training methods aren't achieving the same results in boxing? We have personal conditioners, nutritionists etc, but are you saying these are all pointless?

[knockout artist]

My own perception is that fighters of yesteryear ARE tougher than those of today. We will in a society that is so obese I'm am starting to question if boxing will be around in the UK in the next 50 years or so (honestly, it is worrying). Jimmy Wilde once discussed of walking 250 miles to go to a fight, and considered that the easier than manual work - Sky used to applaud Paul Ingle for DRIVING 200 odd miles round trip to train. Alex Arthur had to leave Peter Harrison cause he couldn't drive that distance, Jimmy Wilde would be turning in his grave at the thought of this.

The fighters back then are naturally fitter than what they are now, due to their jobs - therefore they could participate in more fights. However, I would say one thing with this generation is that they seemed to peak at an older age. I'm mean Tarvis Simms (not Travis) is considered an up and comer at 33, more an more fighters are acquiring a world title in their mid 30's (even in the lower weights - this is due to the scientific advantages of todays current training regime).

You can see this in today Rugby, a Llanelli prop named John Davies is pushing his mid 30's but is "old school" - most of his training involves general work on the farm etc. John is still as good as ever and is much fitter and stronger than the majority of his younger rivals (the current Welsh prop cannot play more than a half without knackering himself out) .

I think people, in general, were much tougher in those days, certainly before and just after WW2.

I was discussing this with my 86 year old grandmother at the weekend. She had 7 kids, no washing machine, 2 jobs cleaning morning noon and night, they lived on bread, milk and eggs. Having meat was regarded a treat. No car etc etc.

My Grandfather was an RSM in the Irish Guards in WW2. He didnt do anything around the house or with the kids, fornicate all in fact.

He once drank 27 pints in a pub in the Strand with his regiment, and then rode an army motorbike to Sheerness to take a parade that evening.

Although he was a bit of a piss head, he boxed in Ireland and for the Army. The Army looked after their boxers. He was very fit until the day he died aged 81 in 1991.

I think we a a generation of convenience and material obsessed fat slobs.

I am ashamed and have installed a heavy bag, weights, mirror and skipping area in the basement of my office to whip myself into shape.

Ive got two kids and i dont want them looking at photos in years to come saying fornicate me my old man was a fat pudendum.

[harley_man]

There's also the issue of the larger gloves. That's some hard science. The larger surface area with additional padding makes a concussive blow more brain rattling. Some docs have argued that bare fisted fighting was actually healthier for the brain. Gloves have some short term gain - cuts, broken bones in face and hands - but the long term effect is actually a greater "wear" on the brain. Thus the shot fighter after one bad blow out. His body may be a fine tuned machine but his reflexes are old. At least that's what I've read. Sounds plausible.

[bennie]

Bob Lonkhurst's recent biography of big-punching Welshman Jack Petersen, British light-heavy and heavyweight champion by the age of 21, also cited the ludicrous pace of fighter's careers back then. Three weeks after Petersen took part in a bruising 15-rounder with George Cook for example - a fight which saw him require hospital treatment - Petersen took on big-punching sensation of the day Jack Doyle in their infamous two-rounder at White City (Doyle found the occasion too much for him in front of 70,000 people, went beserk, and was disqualified).
Just ten days after a punishing over Harry Crossley, Petersen overcame giant South African Ben Foord in another long and bruising battle.
Did these guys really need to fight so often?
Author and ex-boxer Harry Legge wrote that boxers fought more conservatively as a result of the sheer number of fights they had. No Nigel Benn ferocity until they had a man really on the verge of a stoppage. They boxed patiently, coolly, almost like the modern journeyman pro.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think that is almost certainly a factor also, the brain DOES get rattled about in the cranium a lot more with padded gloves. It's worth remembering that gloves were designed to protect the hands and not

Also worth considering is that with less padded gloves, hand injuries must have been far more prevalent, and there are only so many times you can hit someone full-power before wrecking your hands.

[glittermonkey]

My opinion on Hare "going stale" is that he was only stale in comparison to his opposition. IMO, because he had more fights in a shorter time than almost every fighter out there, he is bound to look a little jaded because his opposition is relatively fresh, both mentally and physically. I'm sure there are many other cases of this, but i'm just too lazy to look them up. Tyson had 37 fights in 5 years before Douglas, whereas Douglas had 12, and is maybe a case of a fighter going stale (altough there were other factors).

Because fighters of other eras were all more active, matches with fresh fighters against jaded fighters were not as regular an occurance. Taking Robinson as an example, if he'd have had longer breaks between fights, IMO, he'd have been fresh enough to reverse some of his defeats.

I don't think that the above is the sole difference, i see it more as another factor to go alongside what James and Stu have already said.

I agree with Knockout artist. If there was a major war, and a chance that we would be invaded we'd fold very quickly. I think our boys in the forces are as tough as ever, but the majority of the general population are spineless, cowardly, ill-disciplined, selfish, morally bankrupt and full of people who prey only on the weak and defenceless.

[JimStone]

My guess would be that the old timers didn't train as intensely as their modern counterparts

That's probably the most accurate statement I've see you make. That is the exact reason.

[MightyWarrior]

All good points. Though I think one place where things haven't changed too much over the years is Mexico. They still have fighters who turn pro at 15 or 16 and fight every few weeks or so.
You can drive through a place as metropolitan at Mexico city, and still see huge rubbish dumps with people crawling over them looking for something to sell for a few pesos.
No wonder their fighters are so tough.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I wouldn't say it is the ONLY reason though.

I think the fact that they were generally fighting fit, because they would normally have only a very short break in between fights, meant their bodies were more 'in tune' for fighting, and therefore needed less concentrated training regimes.

Nowadays, the majority of fighters let it all hang out in between fights, and as their breaks are often 3 months or longer, they have plenty of time to get out of fighting shape. That means they then need to really go shit or bust in a mental 6 week training period, which I think often leaves them physically drained, and over the course of a long career the cycle of blowing up and then training like a muthafucka really takes it's toll on the body.

The human body responds best to consisent stimuli, it is able to adapt, however when you keep dicking around with it in extremis, it tends to fall apart.

[jamesmcdonnell]

It's an interesting thread this one....

[stujones]

Some good points guys, but why is it then that in every other sport that can be scientifically measured, we are getting faster, stronger etc, but these same modern training methods aren't achieving the same results in boxing? We have personal conditioners, nutritionists etc, but are you saying these are all pointless?

No, like I said its due to the training regimes that fighters are able to fight the age barrier more easily. Also, you discuss the use of nutritionalists, conditioners, psychologists and the like. How many fighters encorporate them. The absolute elite - I have seen Oscar De La Hoya's regime and it is quite staggering, reading it he is so prepared you would think no fighter stood a chance.

How many of THESE (the DLH's, the Hopkins', the Barrera's etc) do you ever see going stale. They are a different class to the Brit boys and for the MONEY and EFFORT they put into their pre-fight strategies, they deserve to be earning so much more than the brit boys.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Strange though, but Oscar ALWAYS seems to be running out of gas towards the end of fights, he fades badly, perhaps it's because he is capaigning too far above his natural weight class, either that or maybe he has naturally poor stamina, there are varying levels of natural athleticism which are hard to change.

[stujones]

Strange though, but Oscar ALWAYS seems to be running out of gas towards the end of fights, he fades badly, perhaps it's because he is capaigning too far above his natural weight class, either that or maybe he has naturally poor stamina, there are varying levels of natural athleticism which are hard to change.

I personally don't think DLH has got a particularly bad stamina problem. Yes, there are examples but there are also reasons (excuses?) that seem perfectly justifyable.

DLH vs Trinidad - He WAS told by Gill Clancy to coast home - Gill was out of a job after.

DLH vs Moseley II - Caught be an excellent shot in 9th, which slowed him down, ralied well in the end.

DLH vs Quartey - it was he who was pressurising in the last.

Can't think of many other cases of the top of my head.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fair points, wanted to hear your contentions....

[Deserter]

I'm just playing devil's advocate now, as the whole thing intrigues me, but what about these fighters who we're talking about being shot after a hard fight or a couple of losses, yet in the 'old days' this would just have been considered part of the learning curve. We have the likes of Verno Phillips to prove to us that fighters can count back yet still we're keen to dismiss boxers after a loss or even just a tough fight. Virtually every week you can read a report in Boxing News that says: "A fight like this could have taken something out of him permanently", but how does this equate with the brutal, bruising battles the old-timers would go through on a regular basis?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Again smaller gloves, and being fighting fit probably makes a huge difference.

For instance, if you enter a ring weight drained, the fluid around the brain is reduced, and every shot you take is likely to do more damage, smaller gloves and not being weight drained prevent brain injuries.

[harley_man]

I'm just playing devil's advocate now, as the whole thing intrigues me, but what about these fighters who we're talking about being shot after a hard fight or a couple of losses, yet in the 'old days' this would just have been considered part of the learning curve. We have the likes of Verno Phillips to prove to us that fighters can count back yet still we're keen to dismiss boxers after a loss or even just a tough fight. Virtually every week you can read a report in Boxing News that says: "A fight like this could have taken something out of him permanently", but how does this equate with the brutal, bruising battles the old-timers would go through on a regular basis?

Well there's definitely some psychology there. Losses used to be considered part of the learning curve. I remember not caring about won-loss records in the 70s and early 80s but as a young adult I seem to clearly remember a noticable move - by announcers mostly - to glorifying the "undefeated." I was especially aware of it after the '84 Olympics and the crop of American "future stars" who were foisted upon us in succession. And then there's Julio Cesar Chavez. Don King put the stink on him when he started promoting him as 100-0 Undefeated! I think an expectation to be perfect - on the record sheet - developed, certainly in the mind of the public but also in the minds of young fighters.

[Deserter]

I'm just playing devil's advocate now, as the whole thing intrigues me, but what about these fighters who we're talking about being shot after a hard fight or a couple of losses, yet in the 'old days' this would just have been considered part of the learning curve. We have the likes of Verno Phillips to prove to us that fighters can count back yet still we're keen to dismiss boxers after a loss or even just a tough fight. Virtually every week you can read a report in Boxing News that says: "A fight like this could have taken something out of him permanently", but how does this equate with the brutal, bruising battles the old-timers would go through on a regular basis?

Well there's definitely some psychology there. Losses used to be considered part of the learning curve. I remember not caring about won-loss records in the 70s and early 80s but as a young adult I seem to clearly remember a noticable move - by announcers mostly - to glorifying the "undefeated." I was especially aware of it after the '84 Olympics and the crop of American "future stars" who were foisted upon us in succession. And then there's Julio Cesar Chavez. Don King put the stink on him when he started promoting him as 100-0 Undefeated! I think an expectation to be perfect - on the record sheet - developed, certainly in the mind of the public but also in the minds of young fighters.

Good points, particularly about that crop of Olympians. It's why you've got the ridiculous situation with Ricky Hatton now in that FW obviously considers him (unfortunately proabably rightly) a weaker commercial proposition if he loses his undefeated tag - hence the mismatches and padded out record.
Speaking of Hatton, given his potential I can't understand why he seems to be one of the worst offenders in terms of blowing up between fights, he's surely going to suffer for it as his career goes on...

[jamesmcdonnell]

I know, apparently Barry McGuigan warned him againts the dangers of doing so, and I heard Ricky had a new nutritionist and a new diet in between fights.

However, when I saw Hatton on the Pacquaio v Marquez bill, he had more chins than a chinese phobebook.

[harley_man]

The argument for the proliferation of weight classes has always been the elimination of heavy guys busting their asses to make weight so they can then balloon up way over the limit on fight night and significantly outweigh an opponent who just made the lower limit. That way a guy could say, damn can't fight as a welter anymore so I'll move up a notch to jr. middle but avoid the big middles. It makes sense to protect the littler guys this way. But hell, there are still guys doing that, with the exception of Bernard Hopkins, whose walking around weight is reportedly always 160. Amazing.

If only they could all come in like the Executioner. Then we might not need to have this debate.

[Southpaw Stylist]

I know, apparently Barry McGuigan warned him againts the dangers of doing so, and I heard Ricky had a new nutritionist and a new diet in between fights.

However, when I saw Hatton on the Pacquaio v Marquez bill, he had more chins than a chinese phobebook.

The master of the one liners does it again

[jamesmcdonnell]

Take my wife- I wish you would.....Boodoom -Tssss!