Evolution of the Heavyweights

[silkov]

This is something I wrote on a message board a couple of months ago:

One way of viewing the evolution of the heavyweight division is to watch the introduction and perfection of techniques primarily used in lighter divisions of boxing, or from other sports. Here are some revolutionary heavyweights:

James Figg: Figg’s greatest contribution to boxing was introducing fencing techniques into standup fighting. Although many of the fencing thrusts, parries, jabs and blocks originated from boxing, boxing had never been an organized contest the way fencing had been. Figg set up boxing academies and turned boxing into an institution.

Jim Broughton: Broughton, James Figg’s successor, introduced a new set of rules to boxing that made it a more standup sport. The London Prize-Ring rules that governed most bareknuckle fights are very similar to the ones he wrote.

Jem Mace: Arguably the first World Heavyweight Champion, Mace helped boxing become a more international sport, by giving exhibitions around Europe and Australia. Like Figg, he was an excellent instructor, and he put the “science” in the “sweet science.” He is often called the “Father of Modern Boxing.”

John L. Sullivan: All Sullivan really did was popularize gloved combat. In England, the home of boxing, there was a big crackdown on prizefighting, so the talent pool was slightly lower. Most historians would agree that the fighters of the early 1800s were a better lot than the fighters of the late 1800s, when it comes to bare knuckle boxing, but we cannot discount the effect gloved combat had on boxing. In a bareknuckle bout, fighters didn’t punch very hard to the head the way they do today; if they had, then they would have broken their hands. Many bareknucklers used body assaults and looked to cut with punches to the head, glancing off the target. As gloved combat progressed, the way people punched completely changed.

Jim Jeffries: Introduced athleticism into boxing. Jeffries was not a fighter; he was an athlete. He could easily have competed in any sport, and if he were alive today, perhaps boxing wouldn’t be his sport of choice. Would he be a LaDamian Tomlinson or a Michael Jordan, or a Kobe Bryant or a Michael Grant? We’ll never know, but he was the greatest athlete 100 years ago, when the population of the world was already approaching the two-billion mark. Sullivan, for instance, did train for some of his fights, and put on a tremendous effort doing so, but other times, he’d simply show up drunk.

Jack Johnson: No heavyweight before Johnson had a defense like his. His way of blocking shots with his hands and arms makes Chris Byrd look ordinary. Fighters simply couldn't box with him, because they would get slaughtered, and many resorted to wrestling, headbutting and other illegal tactics. Johnson also became a competent wrestler, and John Ruiz would have his damnest trying to get one over on him.

Jack Dempsey: Dempsey is often seen as the father of combination punching. The difference between Dempsey and fighters like Johnson, Jeanette and Langford was that Dempsey rarely fought more than 10 or 15 rounds. In a 10- to 15-round fight, audiences started to see more action-packed rounds, and with the rise of Dempsey, 40-round fights fell by the wayside.

Gene Tunney: Here, we see more of the defensive elements previously only seen in lighter weight divisions popping up. While Tommy Burns used scientific boxing to capture the World Heavyweight Championship, at 5’7”, he was really only a middleweight whose skills allowed him to compete against much larger men. Tunney, himself, was truly only a light heavyweight, and despite that, he can easily be seen as one of the 10 or 15 greatest heavyweights of all time. No heavyweight had used the footwork Tunney did; it would have been interesting to see him up against Dempsey in his prime. Although most people rank Louis above Dempsey, Dempsey by far had the better offensive footwork, and I’d see Dempsey more likely to beat dancers like Tunney and Ali than Louis would be.

Joe Louis: Here, we have the perfection of offensive combination punching. While Dempsey may have served an historically more important role in heavyweight boxing by starting the move towards 10- to 15-round title bouts, it was Louis who perfected Dempsey’s offensive punching style. No one before or since Louis - in any weight - has been able to throw three to six punches together, each one as technically close to perfection as Louis‘s were. You’re probably thinking of Sugar Ray Robinson right now. Robinson was the better fighter, pound-for-pound, because of his chin, his footwork and his defense, but Louis was the better offensive fighter. You see shades of Louis in every great offensive fighter, from Eder Jofre to Mike Tyson.

Another great contribution to boxing Louis made was that he fought cleanly. While practice of a fighter going to a neutral corner in the event of a knockdown dates back to Dempsey-Tunney II and beyond, it was Joe Louis who made this a boxing standard that no one questioned. Louis didn’t clinch, he didn’t rabbit punch, and he surely didn’t bite anyone. It might be that society wouldn’t have accepted a black fighter who cheated. Joe Louis fought in the same America where Jackie Robinson’s Major League Baseball debut was met with profanity and racist epithets. Americans can’t get enough of a hard-working, talented and honest athlete, and not only were both Louis and Robinson accepted, but they became beloved. It’s a tragedy that their lives took two different paths; President Bill Clinton retired Jackie Robinson’s number in all of Major League Baseball - one of the few presidential rulings on sports - and Joe Louis ended up broke, a professional wrestler, and a heroin addict.

Muhammad Ali: The defensive footwork previously seen only in smaller heavyweights, like Burns, Tunney and Walcott, hit its peak here. Ali was a 6’3” man who danced around the ring, daring his opponents to follow him. All of the fighters in this article, with the exception of Sullivan and perhaps a few of the earlier fighters, records of whom are sketchy, were great because of their effort. Ali wouldn’t have been able to dance for 15 rounds if he hadn’t trained harder than any fighter of his era, except Joe Frazier. If someone from the gym said he was going out for a 5-mile jog, Ali would go out for a 10-mile jog. His reflexes made him great, but his dedication to training made him Muhammad Ali. If Sullivan had stayed out of the bars, he could have been great as well; as it was, he was the greatest boxer in the world, and that was enough for him.

Evander Holyfield: For almost 75 years, weight training had been taboo in boxing. The earlier fighters, like Sullivan and Langford lifted weights, but through the 20th century, most fighters avoided lifting weights and moved more towards cardiovascular exercises. While Rocky Marciano is conspicuous in his absence so far, he epitomized the cardiovascular-trained boxer. He never touched weights, but he hit harder than anyone had before, it is said. But by the time Holyfield hit the scene, weight training had totally changed. During the Cold War, universities on both sides of the Iron Curtain began studying different methods of weightlifting; war was moving away from the battlefield and into political arenas and amateur athletic events. In boxing today, explosive weight training is used by most professional and many amateur fighters, in conjunction with modern nutrition (wink, wink).

So, what’s next? I’m ready for a true swarmer to hit the heavyweight scene, the likes of Harry Greb or Henry Armstrong. The closest we’ve seen to them has been Joe Frazier and Jack Dempsey. Maybe we’ll see a heavyweight who comes forward with true feints, the way Roberto Duran did, rather than the often pendular bobbing-and-weaving-style that Frazier used. Some have suggested that Naseem Hamed’s peculiar approach to boxing is the future, although very few have mimicked his style. I, for one, am ready for this next great champion.

How can you not mention Jim Corbett?..... and what about Daniel Mendosa?... Mendosa used 'scientific' boxing long before Mace, also Mace was hardly the first boxing instructor.... Sullivan also had a far bigger impact than you give him credit for.....

[The Great John L]

Evander Holyfield: For almost 75 years, weight training had been taboo in boxing. The earlier fighters, like Sullivan and Langford lifted weights, but through the 20th century, most fighters avoided lifting weights and moved more towards cardiovascular exercises. While Rocky Marciano is conspicuous in his absence so far, he epitomized the cardiovascular-trained boxer. He never touched weights, but he hit harder than anyone had before, it is said. But by the time Holyfield hit the scene, weight training had totally changed. During the Cold War, universities on both sides of the Iron Curtain began studying different methods of weightlifting; war was moving away from the battlefield and into political arenas and amateur athletic events. In boxing today, explosive weight training is used by most professional and many amateur fighters, in conjunction with modern nutrition (wink, wink).

Not sure what you're saying here about Holyfield, but I think you're saying he made weightlifting part of his training program. Is that correct? Of course, he was hardly a pioneer in this, as Mike Weaver was quite successful and was also a big proponent of weightlifting, as I'm sure many others were as well.

And does the (wink, wink) about modern nutrition have something to with the epidemic of obesity in the country due to the high calorie, unhealthy processed and fast food eaten by most Americans today? Or are you refering to that other advantage of modern athletes -- steriods?

[silkov]

Um, I didn't say that Mace was the first boxing instructor. In fact, I mentioned that Figg opened boxing academies. And I didn't mention Jim Corbett because, well, he sucked. He really did little to help boxing hit its later stage. He was more scientific than Sullivan, but that's like bragging about being taller than Baby Jake Matlala.

Holyfield wasn't the first boxer to go back to weight training, but he's the boxer I credit with making weight training popular again. And modern nutrition = synthetic testosterone, not fast food.

Corbett sucked?... that really is a ludicrous statement... especially as you sing the praises of Jeffries yet a 34 year old Corbett came very close to beating Jeffries. Also Sullivan was an all round athlete before Jeffries... Sullivan could have competed in many athletic events and was an extremely fast runner and known for his immense physical strength amongst other things.

[silkov]

Um, I didn't say that Mace was the first boxing instructor. In fact, I mentioned that Figg opened boxing academies. And I didn't mention Jim Corbett because, well, he sucked. He really did little to help boxing hit its later stage. He was more scientific than Sullivan, but that's like bragging about being taller than Baby Jake Matlala.

Holyfield wasn't the first boxer to go back to weight training, but he's the boxer I credit with making weight training popular again. And modern nutrition = synthetic testosterone, not fast food.

Sullivan actually used weights and a special diet when training for the Kilrain bout... that was slightly before Holifield I believe!!!!

[Borinken25]

You forgot to name the best evolution after Holyfield. John “The Hugger Man” Ruiz
Sorry couldn’t help it. I hope you guys have a sense of humor.

[silkov]

Sullivan actually used weights and a special diet when training for the Kilrain bout... that was slightly before Holifield I believe!!!!

I actually wrote, "For almost 75 years, weight training had been taboo in boxing. The earlier fighters, like Sullivan and Langford lifted weights, but through the 20th century, most fighters avoided lifting weights and moved more towards cardiovascular exercises."

So what was your point exactly?. And why the ommision of Mendosa when he is seen by many as one of the first scientific boxers?...

[The Great John L]

Muhammad Ali:...If Sullivan had stayed out of the bars, he could have been great as well; as it was, he was the greatest boxer in the world, and that was enough for him.

?????

What exactly are you saying here? That he was great, but could have been greater? It almost sounds like you're trying to say that he wasn't great, but then in the next sentence you say he was the "greatest boxer in the world". There aren't too many fighters in history that you could say were the greatest boxer in the world, so certainly you're saying he was an all-time great. Right?

[witherspoon]

Muhammad Ali:...If Sullivan had stayed out of the bars, he could have been great as well; as it was, he was the greatest boxer in the world, and that was enough for him.

?????

What exactly are you saying here? That he was great, but could have been greater? It almost sounds like you're trying to say that he wasn't great, but then in the next sentence you say he was the "greatest boxer in the world". There aren't too many fighters in history that you could say were the greatest boxer in the world, so certainly you're saying he was an all-time great. Right?

I think what decagon means is that John L was without a doubt accepted/worshipped in his time as the greatest boxer who ever lived. This while he was active. His hard drinking lifestyle probably had alot to do with his aura of 'larger than life, devil may care, lick any son of a bitch in the house'.
He did not need to lay off the booze to be any better (although he did make an effort for the Corbett fight, but probably knew he was getting on by then).
In short, John L did not have the foresight to train harder so that he could compare more favourably with the Dempseys, Louis', Ali's of the future. Can't knock him for that, though.

[barry]

Well if you were trying to impress us with this you failed to, plus it is not an article on a website, but something on an internet message board, maybe it was insidefighting messageboard. If this is the exstensive writing that you mentioned that you have done on Langford, Johnson, McVey and Jeannette than I don't know what to say other than start reading some sources of the time and quit paying so much attention to these boxing history books that have been written over the past twenty, or thirty years that continue to say the same thing about the same fighters over and over and over again.

[dr_devious]

Do you reckon John L Sullivan was the greatest ever boxer, at the end of the 19th century? I know the styles of fighting were different, but the old-time London Prize Ring fighters like Tom Cribb, Tom Molineux and Jem Belcher would have taken some beating by the later prizefighters, such as John L. The early 18th Century guys like Cribb were monsters

[Ezzard]

After the Foreman fight Ali definitely became a much more languid fighter who conserved energy. The defeat of Foreman sent shockwaves through the boxing world and the fight itself has become one of the most discussed moments in sporting history. The idea of taking your opponents best, nullifying him whilst saving your strength and energy, although not new, was revolutionary to Ali's contemporaries.

A decade later the HW division was being lambasted by journalists and fans brought up on 70s fights. Many of the fighters like Page, Tubbs, Witherspoon spent a lot of time in their fights lounging, hugging and nullifying their opponents (although the moment when they were supposed to spring out of their shell never happened). Were these guys attepting a poor imitation of Ali?

There's no doubt that Ali's influence was huge and the Foreman win still resonates today.

[The Great John L]

After the Foreman fight Ali definitely became a much more languid fighter who conserved energy. The defeat of Foreman sent shockwaves through the boxing world and the fight itself has become one of the most discussed moments in sporting history. The idea of taking your opponents best, nullifying him whilst saving your strength and energy, although not new, was revolutionary to Ali's contemporaries.

A decade later the HW division was being lambasted by journalists and fans brought up on 70s fights. Many of the fighters like Page, Tubbs, Witherspoon spent a lot of time in their fights lounging, hugging and nullifying their opponents (although the moment when they were supposed to spring out of their shell never happened). Were these guys attepting a poor imitation of Ali?

There's no doubt that Ali's influence was huge and the Foreman win still resonates today.

It sure does. Just about all of the present HWs spend the entire fight lounging, hugging and nullifying their opponents.

Great point, Ezz.

[The Great John L]

John L. Sullivan: All Sullivan really did was popularize gloved combat. In England, the home of boxing, there was a big crackdown on prizefighting, so the talent pool was slightly lower. Most historians would agree that the fighters of the early 1800s were a better lot than the fighters of the late 1800s, when it comes to bare knuckle boxing, but we cannot discount the effect gloved combat had on boxing. In a bareknuckle bout, fighters didn’t punch very hard to the head the way they do today; if they had, then they would have broken their hands. Many bareknucklers used body assaults and looked to cut with punches to the head, glancing off the target. As gloved combat progressed, the way people punched completely changed.

Hmmm. You've spent countless postings talking about how boxers, especially HWs, have evolved and improved since Sullivans days and are therefore much better today, but you don't seem to think there was any "evolution" of bareknuckle fighters from the early 1800s to to the late 1800s. Why is that?

If you are going to say that the talent was thinned because of the "crackdown" in England, then if we use the same logic, wouldn't the fact that there are only a fraction of the number of boxers today compared to the first half of the 20th century suggest that the boxers of the early 20th century are better than todays fighters? Are you also aware that there were MANY more boxing gyms and trainers 50+ years ago than there are today? And are you aware that amatuer boxing is nearly dead in the US? Wouldn't all of this "thinning" of boxing resources indicate that todays boxers, in general, are not as good as early 20th century boxers?

[Ezzard]

John L. Sullivan: All Sullivan really did was popularize gloved combat. In England, the home of boxing, there was a big crackdown on prizefighting, so the talent pool was slightly lower. Most historians would agree that the fighters of the early 1800s were a better lot than the fighters of the late 1800s, when it comes to bare knuckle boxing, but we cannot discount the effect gloved combat had on boxing. In a bareknuckle bout, fighters didn’t punch very hard to the head the way they do today; if they had, then they would have broken their hands. Many bareknucklers used body assaults and looked to cut with punches to the head, glancing off the target. As gloved combat progressed, the way people punched completely changed.

Hmmm. You've spent countless postings talking about how boxers, especially HWs, have evolved and improved since Sullivans days and are therefore much better today, but you don't seem to think there was any "evolution" of bareknuckle fighters from the early 1800s to to the late 1800s. Why is that?

If you are going to say that the talent was thinned because of the "crackdown" in England, then if we use the same logic, wouldn't the fact that there are only a fraction of the number of boxers today compared to the first half of the 20th century suggest that the boxers of the early 20th century are better than todays fighters? Are you also aware that there were MANY more boxing gyms and trainers 50+ years ago than there are today? And are you aware that amatuer boxing is nearly dead in the US? Wouldn't all of this "thinning" of boxing resources indicate that todays boxers, in general, are not as good as early 20th century boxers?

It's impossible to argue against this point John L. The basic maths is irrefutable. Even if someone does come along who is highly skilled it is difficult for them to achieve what the old timers achieved simply because there isn't enough talent for them to prove themselves against.

I'm not here to knock current fighters and their efforts but nobody from today will ever have record comparable to Robinson, Charles, Greb, etc...

[The Great John L]

John L. Sullivan: All Sullivan really did was popularize gloved combat. In England, the home of boxing, there was a big crackdown on prizefighting, so the talent pool was slightly lower. Most historians would agree that the fighters of the early 1800s were a better lot than the fighters of the late 1800s, when it comes to bare knuckle boxing, but we cannot discount the effect gloved combat had on boxing. In a bareknuckle bout, fighters didn’t punch very hard to the head the way they do today; if they had, then they would have broken their hands. Many bareknucklers used body assaults and looked to cut with punches to the head, glancing off the target. As gloved combat progressed, the way people punched completely changed.

Hmmm. You've spent countless postings talking about how boxers, especially HWs, have evolved and improved since Sullivans days and are therefore much better today, but you don't seem to think there was any "evolution" of bareknuckle fighters from the early 1800s to to the late 1800s. Why is that?

If you are going to say that the talent was thinned because of the "crackdown" in England, then if we use the same logic, wouldn't the fact that there are only a fraction of the number of boxers today compared to the first half of the 20th century suggest that the boxers of the early 20th century are better than todays fighters? Are you also aware that there were MANY more boxing gyms and trainers 50+ years ago than there are today? And are you aware that amatuer boxing is nearly dead in the US? Wouldn't all of this "thinning" of boxing resources indicate that todays boxers, in general, are not as good as early 20th century boxers?

It's impossible to argue against this point John L. The basic maths is irrefutable. Even if someone does come along who is highly skilled it is difficult for them to achieve what the old timers achieved simply because there isn't enough talent for them to prove themselves against.

I'm not here to knock current fighters and their efforts but nobody from today will ever have record comparable to Robinson, Charles, Greb, etc...

Thank you for supporting what I've posted several times in discussions with Decagon. I was trying to get him to see that he was being inconsistent with his theories of boxing continually improving. I'm sure Decagon will either find a way to refute this logic, or else simply ignore it as he seems to have done in the past.

BTW, an even worse scenario than the talented fighter who may not grow as a fighter due to the lack of talent and boxing resources are the many who will never get exposed to boxing due to the lack of popularity of the sport.

[barry]

>>>please prove that there were more fighters 100 years ago than there are today.<<<

Well that is something that you actually can learn by looking at nothing but a fighters record. Hell the fact that the older fighters fought so much, 50 to 100 to 200 more times than fighters of today is proof enough for most people that there were more boxers then than now...even the top fighters of old rarely fought under 50, or 75 times in a career whereas fighters of today are lucky if they have a 40 fight career...that's all the proof anyone needs to know in that there were a lot more fighters then than there are now!

[The Great John L]

Now it's your turn to back up what you say - something you rarely do - please prove that there were more fighters 100 years ago than there are today.

I'll take my turn when you make some type of reasonable reponse to the questions posed in this and other threads. You continue to make the same inane statements and then fail to answer a single question posed of you. Your response is always "where's your proof", but you offer no proof for your statements, which are so bereft of intelligence as to appear to be nothing more than flaming. Although perhaps in your mind "Corbett sucked" is a well thought out theory made after many difficult seconds of research.

So please before you make any demands of the more reasonable posters on this forum, try actually providing some intelligent exchanges first.

[theone]

Corbett sucked?..

Corbett is one of the most important figures in boxing history. But if he fought today, the same way he fought in his time? Yeah, he would pretty much suck.

It sure does. Just about all of the present HWs spend the entire fight lounging, hugging and nullifying their opponents.

Fighters of Sullivans era fought the same way. Half the fights they fought had almost as much wrestling as boxing.

[theone]

Some of those old Jack Johnson fights have more clinching than John Ruiz's entire career.

Yup. Johnson wouldnt get past the fourth round if he tried to fight someone like Marciano or Frazier they way he did most of his opponents.

[Ezzard]

Some of those old Jack Johnson fights have more clinching than John Ruiz's entire career.

Yup. Johnson wouldnt get past the fourth round if he tried to fight someone like Marciano or Frazier they way he did most of his opponents.

Maybe, but Marciano and Frazier would have been whipped had they tried to figth in their style for 45 rounds

[dalek]

not if they ko'd their opponents as would be likely for most fights.

[Ezzard]

not if they ko'd their opponents as would be likely for most fights.

I thought the comparison wasbetween Marciano/Frazier and Johnson and not "most of their opponents".

[dalek]

true.but from what footage i've seen of johnson i'd still expect either joe or rocky to ko him before ten.

[Ezzard]

true.but from what footage i've seen of johnson i'd still expect either joe or rocky to ko him before ten.

No chance. They might outwork and outhustle him but Johnson was never KO'd in his prime. I'd pick Jack to outpoint both of them. he wouldn't give them the openings. He'd frustrate them and outbox them.

[barry]

James Toney has had 75 fights, with a total of around 65 different fighters...Langford fought 133 different opponents, but he had rematches against the very best of the era...Toney has been a good fighter, but his record is not comparable to Langford's!