BoxRec

And constant fighting, at the world-level, is a thing of the past.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

JDC wrote:Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

I agree, there is a point of saturation. We aren't anywhere near it, but the potential to regress with a lower interest in the sport will always exist. The potential to be better should always exist as the knowledge base grows (on many more factors than just skill set). The jab is more prevalent today, imo. It's not a case of skill-set improving, rather the execution of these skills as a result of an increased knowledge base. The trappings of modern society have an impact on lots of fighters, but I believe that a guy of strong mental state could do much better now than he would have done in his own era.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether condition has improved boxing, but I'll respect your right to disagree. Potential is the key. The ''crème de la crop'' will always maximise such potential, as best they can. However, the opponents of such fighters often suffer from a defeatist mentality today, and don't push said fighter as hard as he may have been in another era. Increased purses result in decreased desire. The notion of a ''pay day'' now supersedes the honour. Lewis said he'd come out of retirement for $50mil a few years ago, Jefferies came out of retirement for honour.

I see both sides of the argument. There or so many factors at play that I cannot compare eras in the way most do.

The conditioning and skill aspect is pretty much common sense. When on earth are greater skills acquired by doing something far less? In any field. Less studying makes better students? Isn't it obvious that a fighter like Armstrong who fought upwards of 20+ times in a year spent more time honing his craft and conditioning than a fighter who fights once? I don't recall reading about Benny Leonard ballooning up to 200 pounds in between fights. Like Duran, he hated training so he was constantly looking for fights.

And the real thing that elitists of the modern day don't grasp was that the depth was so overwhelmingly better that fighters had a grueling task just to get to the world level. Journeyman of the 40's are alphabet champions today. You could pop in any gym, on any day, and see two top 10 fighters going at it in sparring. And the extra day of weigh ins has made fighters even lazier. That is one thing that gives guys like Mayweather, Pacquiao & Marquez an advantage, they don't compromise their conditioning for a ten pound advantage in the ring.

I assumed Elmer was just trolling the topic for a while, it's pretty apparent that his love for Duran overwhelms any hint of logic he may have had. When Ismael laguna is a more complete fighter than Sugar ray Robinson and Armstrong is a pug, you've lost any semblance of perspective. Time to head to CS and talk about how Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis could never share a ring with the evolutionary beast that is Wladimir Klitschko.

JDC wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

JDC wrote:Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

I agree, there is a point of saturation. We aren't anywhere near it, but the potential to regress with a lower interest in the sport will always exist. The potential to be better should always exist as the knowledge base grows (on many more factors than just skill set). The jab is more prevalent today, imo. It's not a case of skill-set improving, rather the execution of these skills as a result of an increased knowledge base. The trappings of modern society have an impact on lots of fighters, but I believe that a guy of strong mental state could do much better now than he would have done in his own era.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether condition has improved boxing, but I'll respect your right to disagree. Potential is the key. The ''crème de la crop'' will always maximise such potential, as best they can. However, the opponents of such fighters often suffer from a defeatist mentality today, and don't push said fighter as hard as he may have been in another era. Increased purses result in decreased desire. The notion of a ''pay day'' now supersedes the honour. Lewis said he'd come out of retirement for $50mil a few years ago, Jefferies came out of retirement for honour.

I see both sides of the argument. There or so many factors at play that I cannot compare eras in the way most do.

Raylaw will know best but I think Jeff may have needed the money.

JDC wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

JDC wrote:Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

I agree, there is a point of saturation. We aren't anywhere near it, but the potential to regress with a lower interest in the sport will always exist. The potential to be better should always exist as the knowledge base grows (on many more factors than just skill set). The jab is more prevalent today, imo. It's not a case of skill-set improving, rather the execution of these skills as a result of an increased knowledge base. The trappings of modern society have an impact on lots of fighters, but I believe that a guy of strong mental state could do much better now than he would have done in his own era.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether condition has improved boxing, but I'll respect your right to disagree. Potential is the key. The ''crème de la crop'' will always maximise such potential, as best they can. However, the opponents of such fighters often suffer from a defeatist mentality today, and don't push said fighter as hard as he may have been in another era. Increased purses result in decreased desire. The notion of a ''pay day'' now supersedes the honour. Lewis said he'd come out of retirement for $50mil a few years ago, Jefferies came out of retirement for honour.

I see both sides of the argument. There or so many factors at play that I cannot compare eras in the way most do.

Money is always money, Dempsey was so popular he didn't fight for years. I agree with youn that the times have dictated the mentality. I have no doubt Erik Morales would have 250 fights if he fought in Greb's day. I'm sure Harry Greb would gladly trade 100 of his fights for 1 Mayweather payday. Ray Robinson would be fighting twice a year today at a maximum. That doesn't change what actually happened and the jab most certainly isn't more prevalent today.

JDC wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

JDC wrote:Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

The jab is more prevalent today, imo.
.

Wow . . .

There was much more in-fighting in the 40's, holding and hitting, body work etc.

You tell me any heavyweight from this era who used a jab more than a Klitschko or Larry Holmes...

Joe Louis was a jabbing machine.

The earlier fighters didn't throw many combinations, but they jabbed like nobodies business. Sorry man, that take is flat wrong. Are you seriously going to mention holding and then point to Wlad as how a jab is better now? He is proof positive that there can be both. Carnera fought much like Wlad.

Nothing to do with better, I simply said it's more prevalent imo. Rahman holds the record for most jabs in a round also, as I understand it he took that record from Louis. Louis had a better all round arsenal, Holmes and Klitschkos were/are more reliant.

I understood what you said, it's incorrect. No big deal.

There are less right hand leads now, there is less infighting, and there are less jabs. Something must have increased ten fold. What is it?

JDC wrote:

There are less right hand leads now, there is less infighting, and there are less jabs. Something must have increased ten fold. What is it?

Well hugging of course...just ask John Ruiz. It used to be every time the bell rang, two fighters would just approach each other, and then, almost immediately, and without hesitation, simply begint to lash out by way of hitting each other. John saw the folly of this, and attempted to bring genuine "sweetness" to the sweet science.

JDC wrote:There was much more in-fighting in the 40's, holding and hitting, body work etc.

You tell me any heavyweight from this era who used a jab more than a Klitschko or Larry Holmes...

I will concede Klitschko doesn't hold AND hit

Willard jabbed as much as the K brothers, as did Fulton, Carnera. Look at Big Bill Tate sparring Dempsey, the guy was 6'6 and is moving on his toes popping out jabs like Holmes did. Hell watch the Louis-Farr fight . . that match was a jabbing exhibition.

No multi-tasking there

JDC wrote:

There are less right hand leads now, there is less infighting, and there are less jabs. Something must have increased ten fold. What is it?

Laugh all you want, jabbing was most prevalent from bare knuckle to the 20's. They throw a lot more combinations than they did then.

The Gibbons brothers, Gans, Benny leonard, Slattery, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc...

They don't do anything better now than they did in the forties except for make money.

I'm astounded anyone would think that jabbing has reached its pinnacle today. Nothing could be further from the truth. But like I said, it isn't a big deal. You've made a perfect statement to mesh with Elmer's in this hilarious thread.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

JDC wrote:

There are less right hand leads now, there is less infighting, and there are less jabs. Something must have increased ten fold. What is it?

Laugh all you want, jabbing was most prevalent from bare knuckle to the 20's. They throw a lot more combinations than they did then.

The Gibbons brothers, Gans, Benny leonard, Slattery, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc...

They don't do anything better now than they did in the forties except for make money.

I'm astounded anyone would think that jabbing has reached its pinnacle today. Nothing could be further from the truth. But like I said, it isn't a big deal. You've made a perfect statement to mesh with Elmer's in this hilarious thread.

I see see you are again lamenting your status as one of the forums rudest people, as must be your intention. No problem.

Answer the question. I don't see fighters leading with hooks and uppercuts much. Every fighter is trained to do their work from behind the jab. The odd exception exists with fighters like Hamed. You are saying that there were proportionately less exceptions in the 40's. I don't believe this is true at all. What has increased now?

Its impossible for everything to be proportionately lesser. You are treating my comment of prevalent as meaning better, which is why you are answering a question of your own creation and not the one posed...

JDC, I forgive Saad's rudeness, and actually wish it was not a rule here. Save the excrements...uh I mean expletives, I have no problem with short, to the point, and sometimes callous responses.

If you follow Saad's contributions, you will find he may not be a diplomat, but he knows the sport. I recognize this even when I completely disagree with his assertions. Dempseyfire is another who is a real contributor and knows much of what he says....and these guys often disagree with each other. G.I. is a good pot stirrer even if he drops the spoon about a third of the time. I'm not sure the forum needs diplomacy as much as it does folks who follow the sport, have a strong opinion and are willing to challenge others when incoming lands that they don't agree with.

I don't even mind being pegged as an Ali rumpswab.....I know it's just a matter of mistaken identity, and I find no reason to set folks straight, since that misperception has little to do with what I'm here to review and discuss.

I now and again walk away disagreeing, but rarely disrespecting these folks opinions.

JDC wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

JDC wrote:

There are less right hand leads now, there is less infighting, and there are less jabs. Something must have increased ten fold. What is it?

Laugh all you want, jabbing was most prevalent from bare knuckle to the 20's. They throw a lot more combinations than they did then.

The Gibbons brothers, Gans, Benny leonard, Slattery, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc...

They don't do anything better now than they did in the forties except for make money.

I'm astounded anyone would think that jabbing has reached its pinnacle today. Nothing could be further from the truth. But like I said, it isn't a big deal. You've made a perfect statement to mesh with Elmer's in this hilarious thread.

I see see you are again lamenting your status as one of the forums rudest people, as must be your intention. No problem.

Answer the question. I don't see fighters leading with hooks and uppercuts much. Every fighter is trained to do their work from behind the jab. The odd exception exists with fighters like Hamed. You are saying that there were proportionately less exceptions in the 40's. I don't believe this is true at all. What has increased now?

Its impossible for everything to be proportionately lesser. You are treating my comment of prevalent as meaning better, which is why you are answering a question of your own creation and not the one posed...

As for me being rude, I'll accept that. But I figured your laughter was an opening to some jokes. I assure you nothing was meant personally, it's my turn of tongue more than anything and my humor translates better in person than in writing.

I did answer your question, combination punching has increased now as opposed to the jab dominant 20's and below. Nothing has increased now over the 40's except for size. Boxing was better in every way

Ezzard wrote:

JDC wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

I agree, there is a point of saturation. We aren't anywhere near it, but the potential to regress with a lower interest in the sport will always exist. The potential to be better should always exist as the knowledge base grows (on many more factors than just skill set). The jab is more prevalent today, imo. It's not a case of skill-set improving, rather the execution of these skills as a result of an increased knowledge base. The trappings of modern society have an impact on lots of fighters, but I believe that a guy of strong mental state could do much better now than he would have done in his own era.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether condition has improved boxing, but I'll respect your right to disagree. Potential is the key. The ''crème de la crop'' will always maximise such potential, as best they can. However, the opponents of such fighters often suffer from a defeatist mentality today, and don't push said fighter as hard as he may have been in another era. Increased purses result in decreased desire. The notion of a ''pay day'' now supersedes the honour. Lewis said he'd come out of retirement for $50mil a few years ago, Jefferies came out of retirement for honour.

I see both sides of the argument. There or so many factors at play that I cannot compare eras in the way most do.

Raylaw will know best but I think Jeff may have needed the money.

He didn't "need" the money. He was doing okay financially, but he wanted to make some improvements to his Burbank property. It was a combination of the extra-$$$$ and white pride.

I agree Buzz. I like the debate and try to word my responses in a way which doesn't provoke reactions. Personally, I don't really care and I'm happy to see what others think. This forum especially, does seem to suffer a lack of diversity in opinions as other can't be bothered coming back. I'm not one of those, it's all fun and games as far as I'm concerned. I was initially only laughing at the bluntness of the response. All's good

I have no problem with anyone on here tbh. Least of all the generally agreeable posters. (including all those who challenged my points)

JDC wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

JDC wrote:

There are less right hand leads now, there is less infighting, and there are less jabs. Something must have increased ten fold. What is it?

Laugh all you want, jabbing was most prevalent from bare knuckle to the 20's. They throw a lot more combinations than they did then.

The Gibbons brothers, Gans, Benny leonard, Slattery, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc...

They don't do anything better now than they did in the forties except for make money.

I'm astounded anyone would think that jabbing has reached its pinnacle today. Nothing could be further from the truth. But like I said, it isn't a big deal. You've made a perfect statement to mesh with Elmer's in this hilarious thread.

I see see you are again lamenting your status as one of the forums rudest people, as must be your intention. No problem.

Answer the question. I don't see fighters leading with hooks and uppercuts much. Every fighter is trained to do their work from behind the jab. The odd exception exists with fighters like Hamed. You are saying that there were proportionately less exceptions in the 40's. I don't believe this is true at all. What has increased now?

Its impossible for everything to be proportionately lesser. You are treating my comment of prevalent as meaning better, which is why you are answering a question of your own creation and not the one posed...

?? I see boxers lead with hooks all the time. Floyd particularly loves to lead with hooks. This isn't necessarily wrong . . .different tactices and styles work for different fighters.

Fighters in total 50-60s years ago threw MORE jabs, knew how to feint, were far better defensively at slipping and rolling punches, at countering, at body punching, at pacing themselves, at setting traps, at bobbing and weaving, at parrying blows (hardly any current fighters besides Floyd, JMM and Hopkins are effective parryers) . .the list goes on.

Armstrong has a fantastic resume. I would bet on Duran. It's odd that I sort of appreciate all the junk being thrown at Elmer's door, and yet side with him as to the final outcome. Elmer has spent a fair amount of time being critical of Duran a while back, just to come back and tell everyone Roberto would somehow prevail over his own #1 pick of all time.

I'm not sure I understand his reasoning. For me, I think Duran's reflexes are a hair faster, and he is a shake truer to the fundamentals....and I'll give him just a hair of a nod on ring intelligence. I think Roberto would somehow exploit the VERY few weaknesses that he would encounter quite well. I do believe he would make progress during any "shoe gazing" moments Armstrong engaged in. His "instinct" for blood is about 1/2 a notch higher IMO as well.

I'm not asking anyone else to walk my way. But my money would be on Roberto......and I wouldn't bet the house on it.

BoxBuzz wrote:Armstrong has a fantastic resume. I would bet on Duran. It's odd that I sort of appreciate all the junk being thrown at Elmer's door, and yet side with him as to the final outcome. Elmer has spent a fair amount of time being critical of Duran a while back, just to come back and tell everyone Roberto would somehow prevail over his own #1 pick of all time.

I'm not sure I understand his reasoning. For me, I think Duran's reflexes are a hair faster, and he is a shake truer to the fundamentals....and I'll give him just a hair of a nod on ring intelligence. I think Roberto would somehow exploit the VERY few weaknesses that he would encounter quite well. I do believe he would make progress during any "shoe gazing" moments Armstrong engaged in. His "instinct" for blood is about 1/2 a notch higher IMO as well.

I'm not asking anyone else to walk my way. But my money would be on Roberto......and I wouldn't bet the house on it.

I'd pick Armstong, but like you, I wouldn't bet my house on it. Come to think of it I wouldn't bet some one else's house on it.... well, matbe Irene's.

A little hair of the dog, Keith? :)

Goodnight, Irene wrote:A little hair of the dog, Keith? :)

No thanks mate, can't drink any more, my liver is goosed.