BoxRec

Do you feel that fighting evolved much since the 1920's and if so do you believe it got better or worse

IMO it evolved greatly and improved.

That is why I don't think Tunney would do well in these head to head match ups.

Grimm wrote:IMO it evolved greatly and improved.

That is why I don't think Tunney would do well in these head to head match ups.

Exactly.

If Tunney didn't do well in some of the matchups, it's not because of his style. In the case of Liston and Foreman, they're just bigger and stronger. Tunney was a better boxer than both.

Surely the footwork and movement Tunney showed at HW were a big part of the evolution? I've always thought of Tunney as something of bridge between eras... He innovated or adopted. My feeling is that he'd have doen that in any era.

How about a fourth choice:

"It got better, but now has digressed."

Someone please explain what this great evolution was? and when did boxing peak? Are we at its peak with the amazing nutrition and hardcore will to train? <-------Sarcasm :)

I believe the changes made were based on new rules and different ideas that were acceptable in society.

Fighters fight differently nowadays because the rules and equipment are different.

Panzerfaust wrote:Someone please explain what this great evolution was? and when did boxing peak? Are we at its peak with the amazing nutrition and hardcore will to train? <-------Sarcasm :)

My personal opinion is that boxing skills peaked in the 1950s, and then plateaued in the 1960s and 1970s. I think it has digressed since then, and the fighters today generally do not have the skills or experience of the guys in the 1940s or 1950s. I think the predominant reason is the lack of truly great teachers who, in my opnion, died out with guys like Ray Arcel and Charlie Goldman.

raylawpc wrote:

Panzerfaust wrote:Someone please explain what this great evolution was? and when did boxing peak? Are we at its peak with the amazing nutrition and hardcore will to train? <-------Sarcasm :)

My personal opinion is that boxing skills peaked in the 1950s, and then plateaued in the 1960s and 1970s. I think it has digressed since then, and the fighters today generally do not have the skills or experience of the guys in the 1940s or 1950s. I think the predominant reason is the lack of truly great teachers who, in my opnion, died out with guys like Ray Arcel and Charlie Goldman.

I could not agree more, but the changes from the 20s to the 50s were not so dramatic

I believe that there is much more emphasis on speed and power than before. When I show friends (who follow boxing) videos from the 60s and 70s and 80s (can’t get them to watch black and white) they all remark on how fighters seemed more conditioned to stamina and that boxing seemed more about endurance and skill. They see today’s fighters as being more like sprinters engaging in 12 sprints.

Obviously boxing is run differently too so many fighters don’t become seasoned professionals. Guys like Archie Moore was so great because he got fed to Burley and Charles as he learned to fight. You can’t compare that kind of in-ring experience.

Today’s guys are excellent. I don’t want to take anything away from them. But it is different. And you can’t expect guys with so few fights (and most of them against fringe fighters) to be as well forged as contenders who consistently fought other top contenders.

Ezzard wrote:I believe that there is much more emphasis on speed and power than before. When I show friends (who follow boxing) videos from the 60s and 70s and 80s (can’t get them to watch black and white) they all remark on how fighters seemed more conditioned to stamina and that boxing seemed more about endurance and skill. They see today’s fighters as being more like sprinters engaging in 12 sprints.

Obviously boxing is run differently too so many fighters don’t become seasoned professionals. Guys like Archie Moore was so great because he got fed to Burley and Charles as he learned to fight. You can’t compare that kind of in-ring experience.

Today’s guys are excellent. I don’t want to take anything away from them. But it is different. And you can’t expect guys with so few fights (and most of them against fringe fighters) to be as well forged as contenders who consistently fought other top contenders.

I think the fighters today - at least those at the lower weight divisions - are excellent all-around athletes, and would have done well in the era of the 40s and 50s, with proper training and conditioning, and learning under the great teachers we had back then.

But I believe in my heart-of-hearts that if you could invent time-travel and take Mayweather back in time to the salad days of Napoles, Jose would have schooled and embarrassed Mayweather.

Points to ponder when making this analysis:

1.I think we would all agree that Boxing at it's top levels requires consummate focus and discipline.

Realities that may influence one toward the conclusion "fighters are better than ever"

2. some postulate nutrition knowledge has increased over the years giving today's fighters a distinct edge
3. some postulate that people can get in better shape these days based on improved training equipment, knowedge and techniques.
4. The ability to study one's opponent has increased via media technology.


Realities that may influence one toward the conclusion that "the best fighters are and forever will be found in "bygone days".

5. WAY WAY WAY more distractions living in today's world, creating an impossibility for fighters to focus the way earlier generations could. This is a huge factor.
6. Basic economic needs are provided for in ways that simply make the motivation to fight for a living totally unnecessary, lowering the amount of people pursuing this craft. Creating a far smaller pool of talent. People are just less driven to be physical in any way.
7. The fame and riches a person USED to be able to attain from this sport has waned thus making the best candidates not even consider this sport. Creating a far smaller pool of talent.

I think the latter outweigh the former for now. That does not mean that the best of the best could not still lie in the future since the more tangible, objective and measurable dynamics lie on the plus side of this equation. The minus side is far more subjective.

If our Father's generation were let loose on the current generation, each at their prime fighting age, I think the older generation would kick the younger generations ass. They were in MUCH better physical shape overall.

BoxBuzz wrote:2. some postulate nutrition knowledge has increased over the years giving today's fighters a distinct edge
3. some postulate that people can get in better shape these days based on improved training equipment, knowedge and techniques.
4. The ability to study one's opponent has increased via media technology.

I would agree with all of the above points...
These days boxers can go to nutrtionists to learn what ot eat and what not to...
There are better facilities these days for sporting excellence, not just for boxing, but boxers can become more ripped...
And due to the global coverage of boxing, its not difficult to study a boxer.

YET, how was it that men 100 years ago, could box for 25 rounds?

How was it that men could still knock each other out after 17/18 rounds whereas these days boxers are knackered after 12 rounds, after its a rae occasion that you see a Ko in the 12th.

Few boxers keep kockout power in both fists, after being outjabbed and outboxed for 10 rounds...

Marciano, Dempsey and Johnson now those guys could have knocked out a tree.

These days, I think boxers have gotten lazy, I know they train hard and they are in great shapoe, and would knock your block off...

But olden day boxers were real hard men... They didn't mind getting punched, in fact the expected it... But they knew they would ctach you back... and catch you HARD!!!

Boxers these days have become more slick and not as willing to bring it down to the wire.

Look at Mayweather, why is he so "pretty"? I'll tell you, he's not willing to get down to it and exchange heavy shots, he prefers his own slick, dodging style...
If Myweather had ever fougt Graziano, boy would he be surprised.

I think from the 1920s to the 1980s it was about the equal. In certain eras a particular weight class was strong but another weight class was weak.

As buzz mentioned there have factors that helped modern fighters and other that hurt them. Overall, I would argue that the negative has outweighed the positive in the last 10-20 years.

I think there has been a gradual decline in the last couple of decades. The hw division has been so bad for for the last several years that its hard to shed the image that boxers in general are declining. Still there are individual boxers in other weight classes who would have been good in any era.

Whenever trying to rate a fighter i will always try and place them in past eras (1920s-1980s)theoreticaly. But it seems so easy to say someone like Willie Pep would be a huge superstar in the modern era. I think the level of safety,protection and dodgy promoters these days makes it hard to judge.I also wander how many HWs of recent could have fought 15 rounds with top fighters.

Id be really interested to know how much the AMs has changed since the 1920's to now, and if theres a big difference, then which method was better.