For those who say Boxing has "evolved"

[gilgamesh]

[Enlightened-One]

Two slow motion video snippets of split-second events is utterly meaningless.

I bet if you desperately searched through one of the backyard fights between novices posted by the Street Beef YouTube channel, you’ll probably find one or two examples of pull counters.

I doubt you even know anything about the fighters that appear in the black and white video.

Pointless Tweet. Pointless thread.

[gilgamesh]

Looks like Archie Moore vs Yvonne Durelle in the Black and White video. I've seen that fight.

It's not pointless at all. It's an example that great fighters were great back then too, and could compete with the guys of modern eras.

That's all I'm saying.

[Enlightened-One]

Looks like Archie Moore vs Yvonne Durelle in the Black and White video. I've seen that fight.

It's not pointless at all. It's an example that great fighters were great back then too, and could compete with the guys of modern eras.

That's all I'm saying.

For sure, certain great fighters from yesteryear could probably compete with today’s pugilists, especially if they also benefitted from current dietary and training techniques.

However, the tweet only contains a couple of snippet s pull counters. It’s not an uncommon move.

I’ve actually seen novices do it without even realising what they’ve done. And without being taught.

The video in the Tweet itself doesn't prove anything.

[gilgamesh]

Looks like Archie Moore vs Yvonne Durelle in the Black and White video. I've seen that fight.

It's not pointless at all. It's an example that great fighters were great back then too, and could compete with the guys of modern eras.

That's all I'm saying.

For sure, certain great fighters from yesteryear could probably compete with today’s pugilists, especially if they also benefitted from current dietary and training techniques.

However, the tweet only contains a couple of snippet s pull counters. It’s not an uncommon move.

I’ve actually seen novices do it without even realising what they’ve done. And without being taught.

I would say old training techniques were probably often superior. Modern day Diets are probably better.

The video in the tweet itself simply shows that the technical expertise exhibited by today's great fighters isn't new.

[Enlightened-One]

I would say old training techniques were probably often superior. Modern day Diets are probably better.

Perhaps you're right for pugilistic skills, but overall strength and conditioning training, I'd confidently claim today's techniques are better.

People learn from mistakes, research and knowledge acquired from previous generations and also people involved in other sports.

The video in the tweet itself simply shows that the technical expertise exhibited by today's great fighters isn't new.

It's only a pull counter though. It's a basic technique that most fighters execute a few times during their bouts.

I’d be more impressed if the Tweet contained an old-timer employing Lomachenko’s matrix style footwork.

[gilgamesh]

Good for you. We're all real impressed.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot. Old fighters fought more which of course was worse for overall health long term but better for skills.

[Tony1244]

Totally incorrect ass-umption that everything gets better with time. SATS and other test scores certainly haven't. Either has boxing.

There is a parallel between both as both have been victimized by of a lack of discipline. A far smaller % or people (at least in the US) take up boxing and anyone with eyes can see the punch rates stats from even the 1990s far surpasses the present punch rate stats.

The hunger is not there anymore and like I said either is the discipline.

[oogiebe]

Good for you. We're all real impressed.

Probably more boxing than he's watched before.

[oogiebe]

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot. Old fighters fought more which of course was worse for overall health long term but better for skills.

And that's just it. I'll take a guy with more rounds and no modern training over a guy who hasn't been in the ring very much but has all the modern day advantages. When you fight a lot. And I mean a lot...you develop muscle and brain memory and react naturally and instinctively to the events as they unfold in the ring. You just will KNOW what to do. (a general statement...always exceptions...just to stop any pointless 'facts' by debators).

[Tony1244]

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot. Old fighters fought more which of course was worse for overall health long term but better for skills.

Yup. Easier living now which curtails motivation. More distractions. I bet fighters are on their phones a lot in the gym. I remember Lou Duva complained in the 1980s that his fighters were more worried about their ring attire and what song to use than their training.

It's gotten worse since then.

[1okstcsb]

These are questions we will never have an answer to, but it is fun to guess.
Could Sugar Ray Robinson and Sugar Ray Leonard have competed with the likes of Errol Spence, Keith Thurman, Danny Garcia, Terence Crawford?.
Could Henry Armstrong or 135 pound Roberto Duran have had any chance against Teofimo Lopez, Ryan Garcia and Devin Haney?
Could Joe louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhamad Ali, George Foreman, Ron Lyle Joe Frazier compete with Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury and Andy Ruiz?
Could Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Harry Greb etc have competed with Canelo, GGG, Charlo and D. Andrade?
We will never know the answers, still it is fun to discuss/argue

[Tony1244]

These are questions we will never have an answer to, but it is fun to guess.
Could Sugar Ray Robinson and Sugar Ray Leonard have competed with the likes of Errol Spence, Keith Thurman, Danny Garcia, Terence Crawford?.
Could Henry Armstrong or 135 pound Roberto Duran have had any chance against Teofimo Lopez, Ryan Garcia and Devin Haney?
Could Joe louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhamad Ali, George Foreman, Ron Lyle Joe Frazier compete with Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury and Andy Ruiz?
Could Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Harry Greb etc have competed with Canelo, GGG, Charlo and D. Andrade?
We will never know the answers, still it is fun to discuss/argue

I think those are mostly yes with some exceptions with the HWs. Not sure Ruiz belongs there. Like Leon Spinks and Buster Douglas, Ruiz just has that one big victory.

[emallini]

Such a dumb OP

[oogiebe]

Such a dumb OP

How so?

[margaret thatcher]

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.

[Enlightened-One]

Totally incorrect ass-umption that everything gets better with time. SATS and other test scores certainly haven't. Either has boxing.

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.

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot.

And that goal can be achieved by sparring.

I personally believe that fighting generally destroys boxers over time, whereas sparring develops their skills.

I also believe that boxers cannot perform optimally if they’re competing so regularly that they don’t have any time to allow their bodies to recover.

Yup. Easier living now which curtails motivation. More distractions. I bet fighters are on their phones a lot in the gym.

And perhaps this is the reason why Asian and Eastern European fighters are more successful nowadays, resulting in the US losing their dominance of the sport.

Boxing is a now global sport. And like any profession, you’re more likely to succeed if you work harder.

...anyone with eyes can see the punch rates stats from even the 1990s far surpasses the present punch rate stats.

The punch stats from the nineties don’t far surpass those from today.

They simply don’t.

Your claim suggests you're suffering from false memory syndrome, in the context of adult psychotherapy, you're seemingly recalling events that never actually occurred.

[squiggy]

Yeah, some of those guys are not from that long ago, and were definitely good enough to compete today.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Totally incorrect ass-umption that everything gets better with time. SATS and other test scores certainly haven't. Either has boxing.

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.

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot.

And that goal can be achieved by sparring.

I personally believe that fighting generally destroys boxers over time, whereas sparring develops their skills.

I also believe that boxers cannot perform optimally if they’re competing so regularly that they don’t have any time to allow their bodies to recover.

Yup. Easier living now which curtails motivation. More distractions. I bet fighters are on their phones a lot in the gym.

And perhaps this is the reason why Asian and Eastern European fighters are more successful nowadays, resulting in the US losing their dominance of the sport.

Boxing is a now global sport. And like any profession, you’re more likely to succeed if you work harder.

...anyone with eyes can see the punch rates stats from even the 1990s far surpasses the present punch rate stats.

The punch stats from the nineties don’t far surpass those from today.

They simply don’t.

Your claim suggests you're suffering from false memory syndrome, in the context of adult psychotherapy, you're seemingly recalling events that never actually occurred.

Serious competition isnt the same as practice in any sport. Sparring isnt the same as prize fighting.

[oogiebe]

Totally incorrect ass-umption that everything gets better with time. SATS and other test scores certainly haven't. Either has boxing.

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.

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot.

And that goal can be achieved by sparring.

I personally believe that fighting generally destroys boxers over time, whereas sparring develops their skills.

I also believe that boxers cannot perform optimally if they’re competing so regularly that they don’t have any time to allow their bodies to recover.

Yup. Easier living now which curtails motivation. More distractions. I bet fighters are on their phones a lot in the gym.

And perhaps this is the reason why Asian and Eastern European fighters are more successful nowadays, resulting in the US losing their dominance of the sport.

Boxing is a now global sport. And like any profession, you’re more likely to succeed if you work harder.

...anyone with eyes can see the punch rates stats from even the 1990s far surpasses the present punch rate stats.

The punch stats from the nineties don’t far surpass those from today.

They simply don’t.

Your claim suggests you're suffering from false memory syndrome, in the context of adult psychotherapy, you're seemingly recalling events that never actually occurred.

Serious competition isnt the same as practice in any sport. Sparring isnt the same as prize fighting.

Yup, it's essentially book smart vs hands on. Every athlete knows that.

[Enlightened-One]

Totally incorrect ass-umption that everything gets better with time. SATS and other test scores certainly haven't. Either has boxing.

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.

Im a big believer you master something by doing it a lot.

And that goal can be achieved by sparring.

I personally believe that fighting generally destroys boxers over time, whereas sparring develops their skills.

I also believe that boxers cannot perform optimally if they’re competing so regularly that they don’t have any time to allow their bodies to recover.

Yup. Easier living now which curtails motivation. More distractions. I bet fighters are on their phones a lot in the gym.

And perhaps this is the reason why Asian and Eastern European fighters are more successful nowadays, resulting in the US losing their dominance of the sport.

Boxing is a now global sport. And like any profession, you’re more likely to succeed if you work harder.

...anyone with eyes can see the punch rates stats from even the 1990s far surpasses the present punch rate stats.

The punch stats from the nineties don’t far surpass those from today.

They simply don’t.

Your claim suggests you're suffering from false memory syndrome, in the context of adult psychotherapy, you're seemingly recalling events that never actually occurred.

Serious competition isnt the same as practice in any sport. Sparring isnt the same as prize fighting.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but boxers inevitably learn more through sparring.

Teofimo Lopez is a great example of this. Prior to the Lomachenko bout, his resume didn’t seem that impressive.

However, he’d sparred against the likes of Gervonta Davis, Yordenis Ugas, Jaron Ennis, Rolando Romero, Janelson Figueroa, Ashley Theophane and Devin Haney, meant that it was inevitable that he was always going to be a far better fighter than his resume implied.

Put it this way, a fighter will be more inclined to stick to their tried-and-tested best approach during the heat of battle, because they can’t afford to make mistakes through experimentation.

In the gym, however, they can evolve by practicing new combos and manoeuvres, commit them to muscle-memory and practice them through sparring, without worrying about getting beaten up or injured.

They can also familiarise themselves with a wide array of opponents with varying fighting styles and physical attributes.

There’s a learning curve for all newly-acquired skills.

And mistakes are meant to be made in the gym.

Any fighters that aren’t making mistakes in the gym, usually aren’t learning.

I strongly suspect that most trainers believe that fighting generally destroys boxers over time, whereas sparring develops their skills.

[margaret thatcher]

at what point did it start that most top pros had extensive amateur careers?

[gilgamesh]

at what point did it start that most top pros had extensive amateur careers?

Robinson had an extensive amateur career and that was way back when. So I'd think around there it became the norm, but there are always guys who don't bother much with the amateurs as they have a more professional style, and somebody will recognize that early.

I don't believe Marciano had an extensive amateur career for instance.

[Jimmy2020]

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.