BoxRec

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 03:57 Boxing, as a skill, has most definitely not evolved, it peaked mid-20th century, in large part due to the number of participants reducing to date. What has evolved is strength and conditioning training, nutrition, ergogenics, and weight manipulation strategies.

Good summary. How big of a difference do you reckon the S&C and diet make to performance?

"""Nobody said that everything gets better with time.

That’s a “totally incorrect ass-umption”.

That said, most things do improve over time, because knowledge generally increases and it's far easier/quicker to communicate nowadays in comparison to yesterday. It's also far easier to retain knowledge through media.

Anyway why on earth would anybody compare SATS with the sport of boxing? FFS!

I think you're suffering from a psychological phenomenon known as "rosy retrospection", whereby you're automatically compelled to judge the past disproportionately more positively than you judge the present."""EO

Yes, most things improve over time with all else being equal, but not all else is equal. We've gone over that less people box and less people are disciplined.

I thought the test score analogy was obvious. If people are less disciplined, and they are, it will counter both mental and physical advancement.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑28 Dec 2020, 19:26 i don't think actual boxing technique has changed all that much in the last many decades.

when you watch the likes of hugging jack johnson etc from the early 1900s you can see clearly it was a lot different, but around the mid 1950s at least it looks very similar to what you see today. joe louis probably has the best punch form and combo technique ive seen from any hw ever

if boxing has evolved today in some respect, it would be that fighters today are far far bigger for their weight classes than they used to, so if you did do intergenerational head to heads within the same division, you'd have the more current guys being a lot bigger on average. a guy like marciano could make lhw today. you have guys fighting at 154 who then weigh almost 180 in the ring etc.

at the same time though, i feel like on balance, today we see a lot less punch diversity and combos from guys. there are far more top level fighters who just use the same shot or same combo over and over and over.

And as for the Jack Johnson days. The rules themselves were different. I'm sure the technique would've been different if the rules were.

Tony1244 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:16We've gone over that less people box and less people are disciplined.

No, we haven't.

Boxing might be a less popular sport in the US, but one could easily that pro boxing is far more popular around the globe than it was twenty years ago, hence the emergence of Eastern European and Asian fighters.

And they seem pretty disciplined to me... barring Sergey Kovalev and Kubrat Pulev's out-of-ring shenanigans.

Tony1244 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:16I thought the test score analogy was obvious. If people are less disciplined, and they are, it will counter both mental and physical advancement.

But you're assuming that people's approaches to academia are the same as their chosen profession, which I have to disagree with.

And I don't believe that fighters are less disciplined today than they were yesteryear, hence the reason why I feel you're suffering from "rosy retrospection".

It seems you have the automated knee-jerk compulsion to judge the past disproportionately more positively than you judge the present.

"Nothing today is quite like the good ole days?"

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:43

Tony1244 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:16We've gone over that less people box and less people are disciplined.

No, we haven't.

Boxing might be a less popular sport in the US, but one could easily that pro boxing is far more popular around the globe than it was twenty years ago, hence the emergence of Eastern European and Asian fighters.

And they seem pretty disciplined to me... barring Sergey Kovalev and Kubrat Pulev's out-of-ring shenanigans.

Tony1244 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:16I thought the test score analogy was obvious. If people are less disciplined, and they are, it will counter both mental and physical advancement.

But you're assuming that people's approaches to academia are the same as their chosen profession, which I have to disagree with.

And I don't believe that fighters are less disciplined today than they were yesteryear, hence the reason why I feel you're suffering from "rosy retrospection".

It seems you have the automated knee-jerk compulsion to judge the past disproportionately more positively than you judge the present.

"Nothing today is quite like the good ole days?"

Maybe you remember not too terribly long ago. When Bernard Hopkins was fighting or James Toney was fighting, it wasn't uncommon to hear things from the Commentators like "He's learned a lot of those old school techniques that nobody really teaches anymore"

That's the difference.

Because of the popularity of the sport. At least in the States, there were far more trainers with a deeper knowledge of techniques, and tricks to teach older fighters, many of these trainers are dead and gone now. Fighting on the inside for instance you don't see a lot of anymore from guys.

The best of the best in most eras could compete with the best of the best in other eras, but generally speaking there are lots of things that have been lost or at least aren't taught nearly as often as they used to be because there aren't the teachers who possess that knowledge.

J-C wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:15

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 03:57 Boxing, as a skill, has most definitely not evolved, it peaked mid-20th century, in large part due to the number of participants reducing to date. What has evolved is strength and conditioning training, nutrition, ergogenics, and weight manipulation strategies.

Good summary. How big of a difference do you reckon the S&C and diet make to performance?

I honestly think strength & conditioning training is quite overrated in boxing. Look at how many modern guys completely gas out after being put under a bit of pressure. Modern boxers might be fitter than ever in terms of the gym, but it often doesn’t translate into real fighting imo.

*Edit: I meant ‘improvements’ in modern S&C is overrated, not S&C itself is overrated.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49

J-C wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:15

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 03:57 Boxing, as a skill, has most definitely not evolved, it peaked mid-20th century, in large part due to the number of participants reducing to date. What has evolved is strength and conditioning training, nutrition, ergogenics, and weight manipulation strategies.

Good summary. How big of a difference do you reckon the S&C and diet make to performance?

I honestly think strength & conditioning training is quite overrated in boxing. Look at how many modern guys completely gas out after being put under a bit of pressure. Modern boxers might be fitter than ever in terms of the gym, but it often doesn’t translate into real fighting imo.

*Edit: I meant ‘improvements’ in modern S&C is overrated, not S&C itself is overrated.

A lot of stamina comes down to your comfort in the ring, and your experience, and ability to pace yourself. For instance we all so Fat James Toney at Heavyweight show better stamina than many of his better conditioned opponents.

This comes down to his comfort in the ring. He was more experienced, and more calm, and therefore wasted a lot less energy. Some guys are obviously in great shape, but always have stamina issues because they don't pace themselves or fight with a nervous energy that exhausts them quicker.

Jean Pascal and Jermain Taylor are good examples from recent times. They were always in shape, and almost never failed to gas out in the latter half of a bout.

Although I agree that sports evolve, especially in most of the other major sports where there aren't weight classes. Athletes in sports like football and basketball have become bigger, stronger and faster although I feel there is little difference from what we had in the 90s but there is a significant difference from let's say the 60s in those respectable sports.

Boxing IMO is much different, boxing is a absolute dinosaur compared to any other modern day sport, aside from wrestling. Boxing is also broke up into weight classes, so I honestly don't feel boxing has evolved like other sports, because it has already significantly evolved since it became a organized sport, with rules. I think great fighters in the 50s and 60s even, aren't that much different than what we have today as far as skill and knowledge of the sport, in fact I think the fighters may have even been better schooled with some exceptions.

I don't know if modern day training is really as much help as people claim when it comes to boxing, or that much differwnt. Boxing isn't a sport of muscles and strength. Boxing's a sport of skill, speed, timing, endurance and knowledge. Simple training like hitting a speed bag, heavy bag and normal calisthenics, along with road work are still the most effective ways to prepare for fights just like it was 60 years ago.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49Maybe you remember not too terribly long ago. When Bernard Hopkins was fighting or James Toney was fighting, it wasn't uncommon to hear things from the Commentators like "He's learned a lot of those old school techniques that nobody really teaches anymore"

Yes, I agree. However, Hopkins and Toney were modern-day greats - the exceptions, that would beat most fighters from all eras.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49Because of the popularity of the sport. At least in the States, there were far more trainers with a deeper knowledge of techniques, and tricks to teach older fighters, many of these trainers are dead and gone now. Fighting on the inside for instance you don't see a lot of anymore from guys.

To a certain extent, I agree.

However, we're also seeing new approaches/techniques from different territories than the US, such as Lomachenko's matrix style footwork.

Things are just different nowadays - not necessarily worse overall.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49The best of the best in most eras could compete with the best of the best in other eras, but generally speaking there are lots of things that have been lost or at least aren't taught nearly as often as they used to be because there aren't the teachers who possess that knowledge.

Fighters from yesteryear ducked others too.

Ali refused to rematch Foreman.

Hearns, Hagler, Eubank Sr., Watson and Benn all refused to face Herol Graham.

We can even go much further back in time and cite Charley Burley being avoided by Jake LaMotta, Tony Zale, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson.

Even Jack Dempsey admitted to ducking Sam Langford.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:59

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49Maybe you remember not too terribly long ago. When Bernard Hopkins was fighting or James Toney was fighting, it wasn't uncommon to hear things from the Commentators like "He's learned a lot of those old school techniques that nobody really teaches anymore"

Yes, I agree. However, Hopkins and Toney were modern-day greats - the exceptions, that would beat most fighters from all eras.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49Because of the popularity of the sport. At least in the States, there were far more trainers with a deeper knowledge of techniques, and tricks to teach older fighters, many of these trainers are dead and gone now. Fighting on the inside for instance you don't see a lot of anymore from guys.

To a certain extent, I agree.

However, we're also seeing new approaches/techniques from different territories than the US, such as Lomachenko's matrix style footwork.

Things are just different nowadays - not necessarily worse overall.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49The best of the best in most eras could compete with the best of the best in other eras, but generally speaking there are lots of things that have been lost or at least aren't taught nearly as often as they used to be because there aren't the teachers who possess that knowledge.

Fighters from yesteryear ducked others too.

Ali refused to rematch Foreman.

Hearns, Hagler, Eubank Sr., Watson and Benn all refused to face Herol Graham.

We can even go much further back in time and cite Charley Burley being avoided by Jake LaMotta, Tony Zale, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson.

Even Jack Dempsey admitted to ducking Sam Langford.

Lomachenko's footwork isn't some modern thing that is going to become common among fighters in general. It was a particular skill that he had spent a lifetime developing. Doing ballet and all that stuff as a kid. His footwork was a skill that was unique to him, not something that I can imagine becoming common place in the sport overall.

That being said I would agree that his is probably the best footwork I've ever seen from any fighter.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49

J-C wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:15

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 03:57 Boxing, as a skill, has most definitely not evolved, it peaked mid-20th century, in large part due to the number of participants reducing to date. What has evolved is strength and conditioning training, nutrition, ergogenics, and weight manipulation strategies.

Good summary. How big of a difference do you reckon the S&C and diet make to performance?

I honestly think strength & conditioning training is quite overrated in boxing. Look at how many modern guys completely gas out after being put under a bit of pressure. Modern boxers might be fitter than ever in terms of the gym, but it often doesn’t translate into real fighting imo.

*Edit: I meant ‘improvements’ in modern S&C is overrated, not S&C itself is overrated.

I know what you are saying and you are right and wrong at the same time. The physiological demands of the sport are better understood than they were as is the training required to develop a boxer to meet those demands. Not all boxers train in the right way, however. Far from it actually.

Anyone who uses the term "matrix" in relation to boxing is a prat.

Teddy's Toupee wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 13:15 Anyone who uses the term "matrix" in relation to boxing is a prat.

The media has used the word "Matrix", for several years, as a synonym to describe Vasyl Lomachenko's unique fighting style/footwork.

It's basically a convenient abbreviation.

And anyone that is overly-sensitive to the point they're offended by the use of abbreviations, should be considered as prats!

Yes, I guess it could be an abbreviation for his fighting style.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 11:02

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:59

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49Maybe you remember not too terribly long ago. When Bernard Hopkins was fighting or James Toney was fighting, it wasn't uncommon to hear things from the Commentators like "He's learned a lot of those old school techniques that nobody really teaches anymore"

Yes, I agree. However, Hopkins and Toney were modern-day greats - the exceptions, that would beat most fighters from all eras.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49Because of the popularity of the sport. At least in the States, there were far more trainers with a deeper knowledge of techniques, and tricks to teach older fighters, many of these trainers are dead and gone now. Fighting on the inside for instance you don't see a lot of anymore from guys.

To a certain extent, I agree.

However, we're also seeing new approaches/techniques from different territories than the US, such as Lomachenko's matrix style footwork.

Things are just different nowadays - not necessarily worse overall.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:49The best of the best in most eras could compete with the best of the best in other eras, but generally speaking there are lots of things that have been lost or at least aren't taught nearly as often as they used to be because there aren't the teachers who possess that knowledge.

Fighters from yesteryear ducked others too.

Ali refused to rematch Foreman.

Hearns, Hagler, Eubank Sr., Watson and Benn all refused to face Herol Graham.

We can even go much further back in time and cite Charley Burley being avoided by Jake LaMotta, Tony Zale, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson.

Even Jack Dempsey admitted to ducking Sam Langford.

Lomachenko's footwork isn't some modern thing that is going to become common among fighters in general. It was a particular skill that he had spent a lifetime developing. Doing ballet and all that stuff as a kid. His footwork was a skill that was unique to him, not something that I can imagine becoming common place in the sport overall.

That being said I would agree that his is probably the best footwork I've ever seen from any fighter.

Lomachenko isn't doing anything that fighters haven't done for years



this ^^^ is a decent video but this one is even better:



the same techniques- sidesteps and pivots- that have been used for decades. nothing new there.

'matrix footwork' like he's some kind of alien

I think Lee Wiley was similarly disconcerted that people were saying Loma was doing something somehow new and unprecedented, hence the longer video

one of the main reasosn people seem to get confused by Loma is that he's a southpaw. watch the video above, lots of fighters doing the exact same sh1t as lOMA, EXCEPT AS orthodox fighters. Some of the footwork Loma pulls, Mike Tyson was doing that at 215lbs 3 decades ago, just from the orthodox stance (mostly)

'MATRIX' my fkin ass.

maybe if Orlando Canizales had a slick pseudo-scientific regime everyone could get a hard-on over, people would have been calling him 'the matrix' or 'the superhuman' or some sh1t 30 years ago

watch that 'god of angles' video and tell me Loma does something no other fighter has done before

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑30 Dec 2020, 07:27 watch that 'god of angles' video and tell me Loma does something no other fighter has done before

Never was flabbergasted by his legendary prowess. I'd have to think the greatest footwork ever would be someone who can fight moving backwards. Teo saw who couldn't and exploited it.

Lomas prime was likely as an amateur but I'm glad the ridiculous worship is done.

Holyfields footwork was phenomenal.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑30 Dec 2020, 06:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 11:02

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 10:59
Yes, I agree. However, Hopkins and Toney were modern-day greats - the exceptions, that would beat most fighters from all eras.

To a certain extent, I agree.

However, we're also seeing new approaches/techniques from different territories than the US, such as Lomachenko's matrix style footwork.

Things are just different nowadays - not necessarily worse overall.

Fighters from yesteryear ducked others too.

Ali refused to rematch Foreman.

Hearns, Hagler, Eubank Sr., Watson and Benn all refused to face Herol Graham.

We can even go much further back in time and cite Charley Burley being avoided by Jake LaMotta, Tony Zale, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson.

Even Jack Dempsey admitted to ducking Sam Langford.

Lomachenko's footwork isn't some modern thing that is going to become common among fighters in general. It was a particular skill that he had spent a lifetime developing. Doing ballet and all that stuff as a kid. His footwork was a skill that was unique to him, not something that I can imagine becoming common place in the sport overall.

That being said I would agree that his is probably the best footwork I've ever seen from any fighter.

Lomachenko isn't doing anything that fighters haven't done for years



this ^^^ is a decent video but this one is even better:



the same techniques- sidesteps and pivots- that have been used for decades. nothing new there.

'matrix footwork' like he's some kind of alien

Great videos but it doesn't change my statement. I never said other fighters didn't have brilliant footwork and techniques. I said Lomachenko's is the best I've seen.

I stand by that statement. I never called it "Matrix style", it's just the best I've seen.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑30 Dec 2020, 07:35 I'd have to think the greatest footwork ever would be someone who can fight moving backwards. Teo saw who couldn't and exploited it.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Dec 2020, 10:26

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑30 Dec 2020, 06:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 11:02

Lomachenko's footwork isn't some modern thing that is going to become common among fighters in general. It was a particular skill that he had spent a lifetime developing. Doing ballet and all that stuff as a kid. His footwork was a skill that was unique to him, not something that I can imagine becoming common place in the sport overall.

That being said I would agree that his is probably the best footwork I've ever seen from any fighter.

Lomachenko isn't doing anything that fighters haven't done for years



this ^^^ is a decent video but this one is even better:



the same techniques- sidesteps and pivots- that have been used for decades. nothing new there.

'matrix footwork' like he's some kind of alien

Great videos but it doesn't change my statement. I never said other fighters didn't have brilliant footwork and techniques. I said Lomachenko's is the best I've seen.

I stand by that statement. I never called it "Matrix style", it's just the best I've seen.

you did say it was unique to him. there is no single technique he uses that other boxers have not used before, and plenty.

I didn't say he invented anything. He just did it smoother and faster than anybody I've seen. Would hit a guy, and when the counter would come he's standing beside the guy nowhere near getting hit.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Dec 2020, 04:20

Teddy's Toupee wrote: ↑29 Dec 2020, 13:15 Anyone who uses the term "matrix" in relation to boxing is a prat.

The media has used the word "Matrix", for several years, as a synonym to describe Vasyl Lomachenko's unique fighting style/footwork.

It's basically a convenient abbreviation.

And anyone that is overly-sensitive to the point they're offended by the use of abbreviations, should be considered as prats!

Prat.