BoxRec

Were the old timers fitter. Why do you think several old time fighters could have well over 100+/200+ fights, fight on a much more regular basis and often go 15 rounds? Thinking about SRR, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ted Kid Lewis, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard etc...etc..

Today its unusual for top fighters to get anywhere near 100 fights and most fight nowhere as often and of course the 15 round fights are finished.

I can see how the old timers were any fitter and food and conditioning today must be better than it was then yet they would be involved in wars far more, the refs would often let fights go on far longer than today even when the fighters were getting battered all around the ring and dropped several times.

Whats the reason do you think? Are todays fighters so fit they burn out quicker? Is it purely something as simple as money is so good these days that they don't need to fight often, and could have hundreds of fights if they wanted to but just decide not too?

When you read some of the resumes of the old fighters it puts the modern bunch to shame.

I think if you're fighting ten times or more a year, it's almost impossible to be "out" of training.

If you do watch some of the old time fights, the pace in some of them was positively mogodonian but because we tend to focus on the "classics" with plenty of action or drama, that becomes the microcosm for the age.

Some modern fighters are clearly clean livers (no pun intended) and some are clearly not when "out" of training but yet some of the top athletes in the game were utterly clueless on nutrition but yet had fantastic conditioning and output.

I think today's guys are more like sprinters... 12 rounds... Guys pre 1990s seemed more built for endurance.

Of course they were. Nothing gets a fighter into better shape than fighting. They fought exponentially more.

I think the further back in history you go the more well conditioned the men were for various reasons, especially in the bare knuckle era where the name of the game was endurance more than volume punching. Rocky Marciano is generally considered the most conditioned heavyweight of all time, but in truth his training methods were taking a page out of 19th century boxing fitness. Only difference is the rules and equipment of his time made that conditioning prodigous in volume punching. In bare knuckle, it was more in line with mma as throws, takedowns, holds, etc. were also employed into determining a winner. Turn of the 20th century when the Queensbury rules really took effect, you had these 3-5oz gloves and you didn't see that many punches thrown either; was more about body punching and defense. Still when fights were scheduled 20, 45, or "to the finish" it is remarkable that these guys could fight in outdoor arenas in suffocating heat and still keep a pace throughout, receiving much damage.

Its frequency of fighting that steels a fighter. You also learn how to be much more relaxed in there when you are fighting all the time. There is less energy sapping tension when you are relaxed inn the ring. Doing it all the time,you learn to relax. My sons a High School Wrestler. I've seen him wrestle three full length matches regularly at meets. His motor is unreal. Its also because he is wrestling all the time. Three meets a week,practices for two hours a day six days a week. Its constant and he doesn't have a lot of tension as a result.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Of course they were. Nothing gets a fighter into better shape than fighting. They fought exponentially more.

Yep. There was no such thing as sitting around watching TV eating McDonalds in-between fights in the 1930s, since you likely had a fight coming up in 3-4 weeks if not sooner. Plus there was no TV and no McDonalds. People walked much more. Most non-champs/top contenders also did manual labor jobs when not fighting. Combine all of that and you had much fitter fighters who also could relax and control their heart rate/breathing in the ring much better because they fought so damn much. There are numerous old PBR broadcasts from the 50s featuring guys most have never heard of in which the pace set over 10 rounds is incredible compared to the wide majority of today's fights.

Expug wrote:Its frequency of fighting that steels a fighter. You also learn how to be much more relaxed in there when you are fighting all the time. There is less energy sapping tension when you are relaxed inn the ring. Doing it all the time,you learn to relax. My sons a High School Wrestler. I've seen him wrestle three full length matches regularly at meets. His motor is unreal. Its also because he is wrestling all the time. Three meets a week,practices for two hours a day six days a week. Its constant and he doesn't have a lot of tension as a result.

Putting steel to the fire my friend. How can you expect to be great, when you are not put to the fire? Much like clay in the potter's wheel, you have to be shaped and molded, and repeat the process until you are prestine, your own gem. The men today may have better reflexes or even better speed, but this can be offset on skill alone, experience alone. The best men of today fight trilogies or just rematches, the men of yester year often fought a handful of times if not a dozen times. Ray Robinson fought LaMotta six times, fought Bobo Olsen four or five times, Gene Fullmer three times (I think), etc. At that kind of work rate, you are to expect double digit losses, but also you are to expect someone to evolve and become greater with every return. Guys today may win the first encounter, but their minds and bodies are accustomed to fighting once/twice a year. How do they expect to be able to win a series against an Archie Moore, Gene Tunney, Billy Conn, etc?

Controversial wrote:Why do you think several old time fighters could have well over 100+/200+ fights, fight on a much more regular basis and often go 15 rounds? Thinking about SRR, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ted Kid Lewis, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard etc...etc..

1) Fighting frequently was the norm back then. Now it's generally understood that fighting 15-rounders week-in and week-out with little reast in between isn't good for your health, and I don't suppose it would be allowed by the various governing bodies today.

2) There were far more fighters around and far more fight shows taking place back then, so there were more opportunities to find opponents and shows to box on.

3) They needed the money (the up-and-coming fighters that is).

Controversial wrote:I can see how the old timers were any fitter and food and conditioning today must be better than it was then yet they would be involved in wars far more, the refs would often let fights go on far longer than today even when the fighters were getting battered all around the ring and dropped several times.

Nutrition's undeniably better today but it's debatable whether conditioning has improved to any great extent. I think the principles of building fitness and strength were well understood back in the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s - you've only gotta look through old training manuals to see that. They may not have had machines with digital meters, but the end result of their training was probably the same. Also, as someone else indicated, what better way could there be to train for fighting than fighting itself?

I haven't researched the pre-war American fighters in any depth, but I've spent a lot of time studying the records and careers of some of the British fighters of the '20s and '30s, and a hell of a lot of them were burnt out extremely young. By 25 (and earlier) a lot of these guys' careers had finished or they were over the hill.

Another point that occurs to me - I see a lot of fights today where both boxers stand toe-to-toe in the centre of the ring and trade leather for the duration of the contest, which is exciting to watch but it isn't a recipe for longevity. There's sadly a serious lack of good quality film of the old-time fighters, but I wonder if in general there was more evasiveness, more skill and strategy employed to avoid taking sustained punishment, which would have enabled them to box as regularly as they did.

.

Today's dieting is used to cut unhealthy amounts of weight for a competitive advantage more than it is for health.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Expug wrote:Its frequency of fighting that steels a fighter. You also learn how to be much more relaxed in there when you are fighting all the time. There is less energy sapping tension when you are relaxed inn the ring. Doing it all the time,you learn to relax. My sons a High School Wrestler. I've seen him wrestle three full length matches regularly at meets. His motor is unreal. Its also because he is wrestling all the time. Three meets a week,practices for two hours a day six days a week. Its constant and he doesn't have a lot of tension as a result.

Putting steel to the fire my friend. How can you expect to be great, when you are not put to the fire? Much like clay in the potter's wheel, you have to be shaped and molded, and repeat the process until you are prestine, your own gem. The men today may have better reflexes or even better speed, but this can be offset on skill alone, experience alone. The best men of today fight trilogies or just rematches, the men of yester year often fought a handful of times if not a dozen times. Ray Robinson fought LaMotta six times, fought Bobo Olsen four or five times, Gene Fullmer three times (I think), etc. At that kind of work rate, you are to expect double digit losses, but also you are to expect someone to evolve and become greater with every return. Guys today may win the first encounter, but their minds and bodies are accustomed to fighting once/twice a year. How do they expect to be able to win a series against an Archie Moore, Gene Tunney, Billy Conn, etc?

I think you're spot on with most of that!

Regarding the best men today having better reflexes and speed - I don't think we can make that assumption. I've heard the argument that athletes, and human beings in general, are getting faster and stronger, etc, and therefore boxers must be too. But to counterbalance that is the fact that the talent pool of boxing has shrunken considerably. Many athletically inclined young men, who 80 years ago would have gone into boxing, today choose other sports instead. There's a faction of the number of active professional boxers now that there once was.

Alex wrote:

Controversial wrote:Why do you think several old time fighters could have well over 100+/200+ fights, fight on a much more regular basis and often go 15 rounds? Thinking about SRR, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ted Kid Lewis, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard etc...etc..

1) Fighting frequently was the norm back then. Now it's generally understood that fighting 15-rounders week-in and week-out with little reast in between isn't good for your health, and I don't suppose it would be allowed by the various governing bodies today.

2) There were far more fighters around and far more fight shows taking place back then, so there were more opportunities to find opponents and shows to box on.

3) They needed the money.

Controversial wrote:I can see how the old timers were any fitter and food and conditioning today must be better than it was then yet they would be involved in wars far more, the refs would often let fights go on far longer than today even when the fighters were getting battered all around the ring and dropped several times.

Nutrition's undeniably better today but it's debatable whether conditioning has improved to any great extent. I think the principles of building fitness and strength were well understood back in the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s - you've only gotta look through old training manuals to see that. They may not have had machines with digital meters, but the end result of their training was probably the same. Also, as someone else indicated, what better way could there be to train for fighting than fighting itself?

I haven't researched the pre-war American fighters in any depth, but I've spent a lot of time studying the records and careers of some of the British fighters of the '20s and '30s, and a hell of a lot of them were burnt out extremely young. By 25 a lot of these guys' careers had finished or they were over the hill.

Another point that occurs to me - I see a lot of fights today where both boxers stand toe-to-toe in the centre of the ring and trade leather for the duration of the contest, which is exciting to watch but it isn't a recipe for longevity. There's sadly a serious lack of good quality film of the old-time fighters, but I wonder if in general there was more evasiveness, more skill and strategy employed to avoid taking sustained punishment, which would have enabled them to box as regularly as they did.

#1- Technically (depending on your injuries) you can fight within 7 days after your last fight if you win or lose a decision; so this would work even today, why it doesnt all comes down to the money and promoters making sure only their stable fights eachother, etc.

#2- Prior to closed circuit television/theatres it was generally factored in that if you wasn't keeping a busy schedule you simply fell off the radar. Boxing was a bit more regionalized then, and state titles had more weight. You built your record and reputation in your area/region (Midwest, Atlantic, etc) and then moved "up" by going elsewhere to carve out your spot. Also you have to remember television was also a regionalized business then, every state and district had its own channel. Remember Bozo The Clown? The question ought to be which Bozo are we talking about cus there was one in Chicago, New York, Cleveland, etc. Just an example of the whole media then.

#3- Money wasn't everything. The cost of living, depending on the era, was nowhere near as bad as it is today. When you got hamburger costing five cents a pound, and electric bills only $5 a month or less, etc. Getting $50-$75 for a curtain jerker fight on a card was quite alot when you figure it all in together. I'm not saying that was the case for the Great Depression, but none the less, people lived differently then and hard work period was a way of life. I can garuntee that in the 1940s you couldn't whip a farmer, let alone a professional prize fighter. People today in a sense have devolved.

#4- 30+ years of age was considered ancient in sports for the longest time; the heavyweight division, however, almost always had hangers-on who kept plodding forward cus power is the last thing to go. You have to realize also, people turned pro much earlier in life than people today. Can you imagine someone 14-15 years old fighting thirty year old men today? Jack Dempsey had well over 100 bare fist brawls and minor bouts before officially turning pro when he was not yet 18. Totally different way of doing things then. Look at Nipper Pat Daly, ten years old when he turned pro. Considering people were fighting most every week over a period of five-ten years, you're bound to get burned out.

#5- It comes down to several reasons: Equipment, Rules & Regulations, Round Durations. When you have small gloves made of horsehair (remember 6oz gloves used to be the standard until the 1980s) your not likely to be throwing high volume punches to the head, but mainly to the body. The shorter the rounds scheduled, the quicker the pace has to be set in order to win. The bigger the gloves, the longer and harder someone can throw leather. In the 1960s and prior, especially before the 1920s, the top men were very cagey, very defensive (even the big bangers), but they took alot of punishment make no mistake of it. Jim Jeffries, for example, had both his cheeks broken and cut, both eyes cut and mouth gashed open (along with a broken nose) in just eight rounds against Bob Fitzsimmons. Jeffries also had the same kind of punishment over twenty rounds against Jim Corbett, before kayoing him in the next stanza. However, styles do make fights. Some men took longer to do the job against, others came right at you same as today. Being generous as I can to the modern guys, I will say they dish out the kind of punishment in 12 rounds that the old timers did in 20, because it was more defensive then, however these men were educated in so many ways, they threw punches that were meant to break bones, and when they are battled tested over and over again that every punch was meant to be the knockout punch. That's the difference between then and now.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Today's dieting is used to cut unhealthy amounts of weight for a competitive advantage more than it is for health.

Which also results in higher probability of brain damage. The day these guys can get their acts together and have weigh ins on the same day of the fight (like they used to do) would be a tremendous step in the right direction. The entire field of boxing would dramatically change, all these so called middleweights would wind up being cruiserweights ffs.

Alex wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

Expug wrote:Its frequency of fighting that steels a fighter. You also learn how to be much more relaxed in there when you are fighting all the time. There is less energy sapping tension when you are relaxed inn the ring. Doing it all the time,you learn to relax. My sons a High School Wrestler. I've seen him wrestle three full length matches regularly at meets. His motor is unreal. Its also because he is wrestling all the time. Three meets a week,practices for two hours a day six days a week. Its constant and he doesn't have a lot of tension as a result.

Putting steel to the fire my friend. How can you expect to be great, when you are not put to the fire? Much like clay in the potter's wheel, you have to be shaped and molded, and repeat the process until you are prestine, your own gem. The men today may have better reflexes or even better speed, but this can be offset on skill alone, experience alone. The best men of today fight trilogies or just rematches, the men of yester year often fought a handful of times if not a dozen times. Ray Robinson fought LaMotta six times, fought Bobo Olsen four or five times, Gene Fullmer three times (I think), etc. At that kind of work rate, you are to expect double digit losses, but also you are to expect someone to evolve and become greater with every return. Guys today may win the first encounter, but their minds and bodies are accustomed to fighting once/twice a year. How do they expect to be able to win a series against an Archie Moore, Gene Tunney, Billy Conn, etc?

I think you're spot on with most of that!

Regarding the best men today having better reflexes and speed - I don't think we can make that assumption. I've heard the argument that athletes, and human beings in general, are getting faster and stronger, etc, and therefore boxers must be too. But to counterbalance that is the fact that the talent pool of boxing has shrunken considerably. Many athletically inclined young men, who 80 years ago would have gone into boxing, today choose other sports instead. There's a faction of the number of active professional boxers now that there once was.

I think in alot of ways you're right. The argument that men/women are getting bigger, faster, stronger I think is a premature one. We believe it to be so, because of the dehydration/rehydration processes, and the modern workouts that increase short bursts of speed. Take the giant men of yesterday: Carnera, Mathis, Freeman, etc. They were in that era of being tested to the fire, always in competition, and had to stay in shape constantly, there was no days off or sitting on your ass counting money. It was get busy or die. We often point out, especially of Carnera, that these men failed themselves because in comparison to smaller men their punch rates were less, they were slower, etc. Check out the stats, today's heavyweights throw 40-50 punches a round. Do the fact checking, even a lumbering giant like Carnera threw more than that per round. Are we really that much better?

I've never understood why they changed the same day weigh ins. Its ridiculous the size of these guys partucularly in mma after a day or so of buliking back up. We've already seen mismatch beatings as a result. The old way seemed fine.

Expug wrote:I've never understood why they changed the same day weigh ins. Its ridiculous the size of these guys partucularly in mma after a day or so of buliking back up. We've already seen mismatch beatings as a result. The old way seemed fine.

Tell me about it. I had to eat ALOT to make super middleweight when I fought J'Leon Love. On fight night I was 154 pounds. He, on the other hand, was 190 pounds. Spotted me nearly 40 pounds. He was so bone dry at the weigh in, but on fight night he was pumped. The only men I know of who are a cut from the old cloth today are guys like Sergio Martinez, who can weight heavy and fight light. Cus believe you me, if these 180, 190, 200 pounders actually had to fight at 154, 160, 168, 175 they would be so dead tired, weak and exhausted that a real middleweight would annihilate them.

Expug wrote:I've never understood why they changed the same day weigh ins. Its ridiculous the size of these guys partucularly in mma after a day or so of buliking back up. We've already seen mismatch beatings as a result. The old way seemed fine.

Ironically enough, I'll bet they changed it to try and prevent fights from getting scrapped because of fighters missing weight. Either that or to try and make it a promotional event the day before. Either way, it's here to say.

There have always been boxers who were in fantastic shape and also those who didn't train properly and fighters who drank between fights. To make some blanket statement about fighters being in better shape then or now, is rubbish.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Expug wrote:I've never understood why they changed the same day weigh ins. Its ridiculous the size of these guys partucularly in mma after a day or so of buliking back up. We've already seen mismatch beatings as a result. The old way seemed fine.

Ironically enough, I'll bet they changed it to try and prevent fights from getting scrapped because of fighters missing weight. Either that or to try and make it a promotional event the day before. Either way, it's here to say.

Yes it is I'm sure. The last time I fought was 89. Same day weigh in. Like ten in the morning or so. What year did it change? Is it worldwide for every card now? I dunno

Expug wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Expug wrote:I've never understood why they changed the same day weigh ins. Its ridiculous the size of these guys partucularly in mma after a day or so of buliking back up. We've already seen mismatch beatings as a result. The old way seemed fine.

Ironically enough, I'll bet they changed it to try and prevent fights from getting scrapped because of fighters missing weight. Either that or to try and make it a promotional event the day before. Either way, it's here to say.

Yes it is I'm sure. The last time I fought was 89. Same day weigh in. Like ten in the morning or so. What year did it change? Is it worldwide for every card now? I dunno

I honestly can't remember.

keithmoonhangover wrote:There have always been boxers who were in fantastic shape and also those who didn't train properly and fighters who drank between fights. To make some blanket statement about fighters being in better shape then or now, is rubbish.

Would it be rubbish to flatly say modern medicine is better?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:There have always been boxers who were in fantastic shape and also those who didn't train properly and fighters who drank between fights. To make some blanket statement about fighters being in better shape then or now, is rubbish.

Would it be rubbish to flatly say modern medicine is better?

No, because it's measurable. The fitness of fighters from different eras isn't.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:There have always been boxers who were in fantastic shape and also those who didn't train properly and fighters who drank between fights. To make some blanket statement about fighters being in better shape then or now, is rubbish.

Would it be rubbish to flatly say modern medicine is better?

No, because it's measurable. The fitness of fighters from different eras isn't.

Now that is laughable. Keeping a steady pace for twenty, forty, etc. rounds is measurable.