BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote:

barry wrote:The worst in my opinion is:

Modern boxers are far more superior in nearly ever aspect to early fighters!! Simply not true!!

Another, which is something that has a following of 50/50 in whether fact, or fiction is that the Joe Gans-Terry McGovern bout was a fake. I was in the percent who believed it to be a fake, that is until I actually watched the fight, and after watching the match countless times I think the bout was as legit as it gets and that McGovern beat Gans fair, square and in a very brutal manner!!!

Also the myth about Willie Pep winning a round against Jackie Graves, who was a hell of a fighter known for throwing many punches, without throwing a single punch!

barry regarding the Old fighters vs new fighters aspect I have posted much on this subject mostly in humor. However it seems that most people would at lease INTUIT that on average it must be evolving.....at least at the "best of the best" level. All new fighters have access to all the old films. all the old writings, all the old "tricks that work and tricks that don't cultural stuff that has been passed on through the ages. Nutrition knowledge is better, gym hardware is better designed, there is greater knowledge about how to bring your body to peak performance levels in so many ways. So the current fighter AT LEAST has every advantage over his ancestors.

With that said the only thing that might be missing from today's average fighter is the difference in motivation regarding perceptions about boxing and the "eye of the tiger" in each individual fighter. Even genetics is working in the new fighters favor as people are getting bigger and perhaps stronger ever so slightly with each generation.

So if you don't believe they are progressing can you explain why? Is it really just lack of attitude? One thing certainly working against the new fighter is the amount of potential and easily available diversions. Is that what's holding the new guys back in your opinion?

"learning the old tricks" involves learning from great trainers and fighting OFTEN including other experienced skilled fighters. Both are extremely lacking in much of boxing today. A fighter can look at all the Ray Robinson films available but it won't make a difference if he's not gaining experience in the actual ring and learning from with guys who know how Robinson was able to employ all his tricks.

Better gym hardware? Boxing is one sport where equipment is pretty limited. Maybe the shoes are a little better, better mouthpieces . . .but besides that you have your speed-bag, heavy bag, rope, medicine ball, and boxing ring (along with various plyrometric-type exercises that trainers have been doing for the past century). This isn't football where the shoes, equipment, turf you'd be playing on would make a noticeable difference.

I don't buy that knowledge concerning how to reach peak performance has gotten any better. I think whatever Hagler, Marciano, Armstrong, Frazier etc. were doing was a lot better than the training of our top fighters today b/c their stamina blows today's fighters out of the water. Nutrition and what is the proper things to eat in terms of sports nutrition have gone back and forth for decades. The basic simple rules of lean proteins, plenty of vegatables, carbs for energy etc. ring true despite what the latest trend study suggests (which changes every 5 years). Oscar employs the top nutritonists for thousands of dollars and he fades in all his fights. Compare his stamina vs Floyd to an older Emile Griffith.

So many of the current heavyweights are overweight
and have trouble lasting even ten rounds. In general,
they also can't fight at a brisk pace throughout a
bout. Take a look at footage of Rocky Marciano and
Joe Frazier in action and compare those great
heavyweights with their current counterparts. It is the
difference between night and day. I continue to insist
that there wouldn't make any difference in boxing
during this era if the heavyweight division was eliminated.

I must say that Evander Holyfield is an exception among
the heavyweights of the last twenty years. Unlike so
many of his contemporaries, Holyfield was willing to
pay the price to get to the top and stay there. He
also believed that he could do it. Both Mike Tyson and
Riddick Bowe were full-fledged heavyweights and had
much more talent than Holyfield. Yet Holyfield found a
way to compete with them.

- Chuck Johnston

I hear what you all are saying and to some degree I suppose it makes sense especially when you factor in how easy diversions are to acquire...breaking a fighters train of thought from their training regimen. The world has changed and maybe can no longer produce that type of person.

Maybe it's like hand made guitars. The very best were made by hand from the thirties up until the 60's when all the old guys who REALLY knew how to do it got so old they couldnt do it anymore. So now the best guitars are made by machines for the most part since the old "craftsman" are gone. They didn't leave their secrets for others to carry on. Same for the violin except the best craftsman go back even farther into the past for that instrument. So Old Martins and Gibsons and Stradivarius's are the best ever made. Nothing being produced today can match them for quality.

Sadly with fighters when the old guys went nobody was listening evidently, and you can't replace their expertise with machines.

>>>But how come ultra-active cruiserweights like Vassily Jirov don't dominate the heavyweight division?<<

Mainly because there have really been no extraordinary cruiserweights in history. A couple of exceptions, Evander Holyfield being one.

A truly great cruiserweight will very likely be an extraordinary heavyweight.

Jirov, while a very, very good cruiserweight, is simply just not a truly great cruiserweight. Plus you have to add the lesser durability, the lesser conditioning and so on to today's cruiserweights as well as with the heavyweights.

As was mentioned Holyfield, while in his prime, was one who really stood out in most all categories.

Decagon wrote:But how come ultra-active cruiserweights like Vassily Jirov don't dominate the heavyweight division?

Cruisers are largely Light HWs who don't want to or can't make the effort to make the lower weight anymore. They aren't 220 lbers "training down" to 190 (or 200 now) . . they are guys who could train down to the 175 but can't or don't make it and aren't naturally big enough to compete at HW so they go to boxing's no-man's land, the cruiserweight division, where even the top champs make paltry $. If they were/are real "small HWs' they go to the HW division where the paydays are MUCH better (Holyfield, Haye will, Byrd just skipped cruiser altogether, fat-ass Toney).

I know b/c I've been in many gyms throughout my life and the guys fighting at cruiser were all former super middles and light HWs who had put on weight/gotten married and couldn't cut it down like they had used to so they had to fight at cruiser. Almost all ended up getting fat and fighting at HW (and sadly getting knocked out) or continually trying to cut down back to 175 or 168.

Decagon wrote:"Old tricks" are overrated. Give me a solid jab any day.

I think if you had talked to Jermain Taylor after getting completely frustrated and cleanly countered by a 40 year old for 24 rounds he'd give you a differing opinion.

If Luis Rodriguez had not KOed Tony Mundine in the first round, Mundine would have beaten him.

Jim Braddock only beat Max Baer because Baer could not knock him out (Seriously! I have seen that written).

Oh yes! Kostya Tszyu was lucky to beat Zab Judah because Zab won the first round.

Brute wrote:Oh yes! Kostya Tszyu was lucky to beat Zab Judah because Zab won the first round.

Yeah, I love that logic. Same with Jones-Tarver II.

As to this disinformation thread, I would submit as one piece of disinformation the notion that Ali should have lost every close fight he ever had in his career. Or the idea that Ali's standing in boxing history is any more effected by his popularity than Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano's standing is by theirs.

A few Tyson related:

-If D'Amato had lived Tyson would have never declined.
-If Tyson had stayed committed to boxing he would have been the greatest Heavyweight champion of all time.
-If he would dedicate himself he could still become undisputed champion today.
-We know for a fact that he would have beaten Douglas if he had been in shape.

Here are some Trinidad ones:

-Tito beat a prime Whitaker
-Tito beat Oscar clearly
-Tito ruined Vargas (not that there's no truth to that, but I would say he clearly had a lot left when he fought Oscar)
-Tito was comparable to Ray Robinson, or as Larry Merchant said after the Joppy fight, that Trinidad was the biggest puncher of those weight classes since Robinson (Hearns anyone? McClellan? Jackson?)
-Tito in his prime could beat Wright
-Hopkins and Wright only beat him because they were bigger.

One by Bert Sugar is the idea that Robinson was the only fighter who KO'd someone moving backwards; Ali KO'd Foreman moving backwards, and regardless of Foreman being fatigued and all of that it still counts. Not sure why this is such a big achievmenet in Sugar's mind to begin with, as much as I admire Robinson.

Another example of disinformation is the claim that it is disinformation to say that Whitaker-Chavez was one of the worst robberies of all-time.

Decagon wrote:But how come ultra-active cruiserweights like Vassily Jirov don't dominate the heavyweight division?

Because most of them are crap?