Boxing 100 years ago compared to today...

[Sweet Scientist]

I have mentioned in discussions on other threads, that I believe boxing is closer to what it was 100 years ago, than any other sport....

Only the rules/governing bodies have changed...the changes in other sports is far more dramatic...

There hasn't been a new punch invented, or a new way to avoid punches since the beginning...you still win fights the same way today as 100 years ago..conditioning (mental and physical), training, nutrition, dedication, etc...You may have more modern advantages today, but the basics remain the same....

It's easier to envision a fighter from a 100 years ago fighting someone current, than it is to envision a baseball player from 100 years ago trying to play in today's major leagues...

Many say you can't compare fighters of different eras...I say it's easier than comparing team sports of different eras...

What do you think about this idea?

[Manos de Oro]

I have mentioned in discussions on other threads, that I believe boxing is closer to what it was 100 years ago, than any other sport....
Only the rules/governing bodies have changed...the changes in other sports is far more dramatic...
There hasn't been a new punch invented, or a new way to avoid punches since the beginning...you still win fights the same way today as 100 years ago..conditioning (mental and physical), training, nutrition, dedication, etc...You may have more modern advantages today, but the basics remain the same....
It's easier to envision a fighter from a 100 years ago fighting someone current, than it is to envision a baseball player from 100 years ago trying to play in today's major leagues...

Many say you can't compare fighters of different eras...I say it's easier than comparing team sports of different eras...

What do you think about this idea?

This is such a broad subject, Sweet Scientist. In a very bare sense it is easy to compare bicenturians(?) in boxing. But if you look closer and take each one of the factors you mention one by one, things are quite different at the root level. Some points:

*The rise of TV meant the decline of body punching. Head shots are more photogenic and Casual Joe at home, who has never been hit to the body in his life, let alone for 30 minutes straight, can 'relate' to them more.

There is also something in the human instinct that tells you to go for the head. This is something that old trainers (including old-school trainers/fighters today) iron out, much to the benefit of the fighter. It is hard to imagine a lot of modern superstars hanging in their with fighters from the 10's - who simply dig, dig, dig the body from the get go. Many would be shocked into submission even before they feel the true pain this type of work brings.

*Conditioning has declined markedly - fighters 'look' better on the outside, but the proof is in the pudding - many at championship level struggle badly even in 12 rounders - they simply can not pace themselves (at least I'm hoping that is what it is). It is usually the ones who use the fancy machines and stuff that can't hack it, compare their like to modern fighters such as Erik Morales - who trains in the mountains/at altitude/in solitary and eats simple, traditional food in his training camp. See this thread for more thoughts: http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28967

*Dedication should be a no-brainer. The majority of title fights happen in a tiny little place in the middle of the desert. It is very easy to enjoy yourself in Sin City; what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, etc... Many fighters from poor Eastern Bloc countries train in 'proper' old fashioned environments, but do not live in the 'glamour' capital of the world. Such media power can make the rawest piece of shit, shine like the finest Wharfedale diamond.

[Dapaper]

I posted this in another thread, but I will repost it here. To me this just sums it up more clearly than any kind of argument:

"...Jeannette and McVey agreed to fight to the finish with no round limit. The resulting battle was one of the greatest marathons in boxing history. McVey scored the first of his 27 knockdowns in the first round. In the sixteenth McVey countered a Jeannette uppercut with a right to the jaw that most likely would have finished Jeannette-had he not been saved by the bell.

Jeannette went down in the next round, the 21st time in seventeen rounds that he had hit the canvas. Looking beaten after nineteen rounds, Jeannette miraculously revived and seized control of the fight. As the bout moved past the 40-round mark, Jeannette began to floor McVey with regularity, but still could not put him away. In the 42nd, Jeannette dropped McVey seven times. Finally, after 49 rounds, McVey could not continue. Despite having been knocked down 27 times, Jeannette had triumphed in this unbelievable test of endurance, courage, and boxing ability. This fight underscores Jeannette's indomitable will."

That fight happened in 1909. You will NEVER see anything in the modern fight game to compares to a fight like that. Favorably, or unfavorably, that was a different age, and a different sport.

Some sports have changed dramatically, such as American Football. But I think other sports, such as baseball, golf, tennis, and soccer have only changed quite subtly over the past century, and primarily because of changes in equipment.

My 2p.

-Dapa

[6 Pack]

I have mentioned in discussions on other threads, that I believe boxing is closer to what it was 100 years ago, than any other sport....

Only the rules/governing bodies have changed...the changes in other sports is far more dramatic...

There hasn't been a new punch invented, or a new way to avoid punches since the beginning...you still win fights the same way today as 100 years ago..conditioning (mental and physical), training, nutrition, dedication, etc...You may have more modern advantages today, but the basics remain the same....

It's easier to envision a fighter from a 100 years ago fighting someone current, than it is to envision a baseball player from 100 years ago trying to play in today's major leagues...

Many say you can't compare fighters of different eras...I say it's easier than comparing team sports of different eras...

What do you think about this idea?

I'll post my reply here aswell...

Is boxing so simple it has not changed, so the athletes have not changed and progressed like all the other sports?

May be, may be not.

How simple is running?

I would say alot simpler than boxing. And look at how far athletes have progressed in running.

Like boxing, you don't find a new way to run. You just run. But look at the athletes of yester year who are legends like Jesse Owens, and look at his records compared to the guys today. Today he could not stack up, but in his day he was untouchable.

Training today, supliments, steroids, our knowledge about nutrition, and maximizing the body have improved over and over.

Today's athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger.

But is fighting so primitive it does not change?

If you believe so, than how primitive is running, yet in sprinting there has been HUGE improvements.

I don't know what side I am on. But good arguements can be made for both sides.