BoxRec

Deserter wrote:

bennie wrote:I hate these threads because most people fail to recognise the fact that boxing – in terms of boxing craft and expertise - has actually regressed in the last few decades, which cancels out the inevitable physical advancements seen in heavyweight boxers over the same period. The Klitschkos, one of whom is about to fight Derek Chisora (laugh), beat opponents because they have size and strength and an inkling of the sport’s technique. There is no way in the world they would beat those heavies who truly mastered the ability to fight.

If your theory is correct Bennie (and I'm not saying it isn't), I'd be really curious to find out what people believe is the cause of this regression, as it's pretty much unique in sporting terms if true.
For example, has TV had a detrimental influence in terms of putting pressure on boxers and their teams to deliver knockouts and action at the expense of skill - there's certainly no doubt that the likes of 'Sweet Pea' didn't ever get the mainstream exposure or financial rewards their skill-set and achievements deserved and this can surely only have been down to their style.

MachoMan09 wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:I'm not sweeping athleticism away as a bad thing. Jack Johnson evolved boxing as a sport and it was largely due to his athleticism. Max Baer and Ken Norton were perfectly built athletes who excelled as boxers. You also had Ali, Foreman and Frazier, good athletes who could box. Athleticism can give boxing's trajectory a boost when it matches up with the strides made by society but things have gone too far the other way.

The problem is crystallised when you see prospect vs journeyman contests. The prospect is generally quite athletic and I've lost count of the times when they rely on this. Hammering the guard of the veteran for a 60-54 win. Prospects stand out when they switch attacks, pick shots to exploit gaps and generally mix in a bit of thought. Seen many outstanding athletes get picked off with single shots by the likes of Billy Smith, who may not have the workrate, or inclination at times, but who can sometimes show a prospect what boxing is about, whether they take notice of this is up to them.

Jon Fewkes, Jon Kays, Brian Rose and Karl Place are three guys who I saw early and quite often who stood out for their boxing ability and intelligence when picking spots.

I agree with all that. Specificity is the key and that is really my point. I am not saying, and haven't said, that athleticism trumps skill, in fact I haven't really mentioned athleticism in the terms that you and some of the others are refering to it. Elite sportsmen have invariably become better at what they do over the decades. That includes the enhancement of sports specific skills coupled WITH a significant improvement in our understanding of the physiological systems, how they are utilised/stressed during different types of sporting activity and how best (to the extent of our current knowledge) to adapt to those stresses.

bennie and overhand_right are both of the belief (correct me if I'm wrong, chaps) that the sport of boxing has regressed. As I have said earlier, I don't know for sure if it has or it hasn't. I haven't tested it and cannot really determine (having thought about it) a methodology of accurately calculating this one way or another. I am assessing it has not regressed by comparing it to other sports where improvements have been significant. The point raised about the number of participants falling - and obviously, as a result, the raw talent pool being smaller - is potentially valid but I am not aware of available data to back this up. The gyms in the UK and the States were certainly fuller in the 1950s than they are now, but what about other parts of the world? Maybe, maybe not.

Ultimately, it is my belief that the guys who were great in the 30s, 40s, 50s ... would be even better now than they were then; and the guys who are great now would be less capable than they are now, then. If you catch my drift...