BoxRec

This comes up time and again when one tries to compile "all-time" rankings. Boxing as a "modern" sport - i.e., with rules that resemble modern boxing - broke through around 1890, when gloves became mandatory. Still, in the late 1890s and early 1900s most fighters fought quite differently from today - they moved much less, the pace of fights was much slower; they didn't vary their stances very much - either standing straight or fightinh out of a crouch - and they rarely threw combinations. Part of this owes to the fact that many boxing matches were much longer than 15 rounds, so fighters had to preserve energy. But it also owes to antiquated techniques, which improved rapidly in the subsequent years.

My question is: by when had boxing technique attained a level that is comparable to today's?

My vote goes to "around 1930" - fast technicians like Langford or Tunney and pressure fighters like Greb or Dempsey introduced most elements of modern boxing in the 1910s/1920s; and by 1930 championship fights looked fairly similar to today.

But I'd be interested in other views.

The reason most people say 1930s is b/c that is when we start seeing film in real time, and the movements don't look like that of circus acrobats.


If you see certain film-Gans-Nelson, Wolfgast-Rivers, Langford-Flynn slowed down to real time, you see that modern boxing more or less was settled about 15 years after the end of the bareknucle era, or about 1910. Minor chnages came about after that due to bigger gloves and shorter durations of fights (no more 20 rounders after the 1930s for example)

dempseyfire wrote:The reason most people say 1930s is b/c that is when we start seeing film in real time, and the movements don't look like that of circus acrobats.


If you see certain film-Gans-Nelson, Wolfgast-Rivers, Langford-Flynn slowed down to real time, you see that modern boxing more or less was settled about 15 years after the end of the bareknucle era, or about 1910. Minor chnages came about after that due to bigger gloves and shorter durations of fights (no more 20 rounders after the 1930s for example)

Interesting stuff.

Decagon wrote:The Walker Law in 1920 ended 20- and 40-round fights in New York, leading to the standardization of the 15-round championship fight. Boxing's a different sport when you have to fight three hours. By 1930, boxing had reached its modern form, for the most part. Also, boxers stopped using that ridiculous stand-up English style.

If this is so - and I agree with you here - don't there necessarily arise difficulties when one compiles all-time lists that include fighters from the pre-modern era?

Decagon wrote:Exactly. Most of those fighters Langford fought wouldn't be able to compete against a modern heavyweight who specializes in the jab, combinations and bodyshots over 12 or 15 rounds. It's silly of you to rank him so high, even though he might be outpointed by a few of the guys in our current, shitty, heavyweight division. Langford simply didn't have the sustained combination punching to compete with a lot of the all-time greats.

Langford fought actually pretty "modern" - fast, slick, powerful, varied punch arsenal. Jack Johnson had a much more "pre-modern" style than Langford - slow, defensive, upright. And many people have JJ in their top 5.

This said, we seem to read from a similar page as regards difficulties to rate fighters from different eras. To be honest, I've grown tired of arguing why a 1990s fighter woulda shoulda coulda be ranked higher or lower than a 1910s fighter. There is simply no good basis to make this assessment.

It makes more sense to (i) rank fighters within a limited time period, say a decade; and (ii) rank decades by their competitiveness, prowess compared to the previous and the susbequent decades, and excitement. From a combination of both, one can get a sense of the importance of a fighter, but not of "who woulda coulda shouda have beaten who".

Decagon wrote:Hey, if ranking fighters is too difficult for you, don't do it. Most of us have been doing this for five or ten years, and there are tons of problems we've faced:

• Comparing fighters who haven't fought before
• Judging a fighter of which there is little or no film available
• Comparing fighters of different eras
• Comparing fighters who used the same-day weigh-in system to fighters who used the day-before weigh-in system
• Comparing fighters who've taken steroids to fighters who haven't taken steroids
• Comparing fighters who've drawn the color line to fighters who haven't drawn the color line
• Dealing with newbies who think their rankings are the end-all
• Ranking fighters based on film vs. ranking them based on fighters they've beaten
• Comparing absolutely primative fighters like Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons to fighters who actually had a little skill, like Chris Byrd and Tim Witherspoon
• Comparing fighters of weak eras (Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott) to fighters of stronger eras (Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield)
• Comparing fighers with a lot of defenses against weak competition (Joe Louis) to fighters with fewer defenses against better competition (Rocky Marciano)
• The mob
• Multiple titles
• Idiots who think that the Klitschko brothers are worth a shit
• The size difference between heavyweights after 1965 and fighters before 1965

Hey, if it's too tough for you, try collecting stamps.

Whenever I see a slight chance to enter into a half-interesting dicussion with you some sh!t comes round the corner as surely as the sun will rise.

Decagon wrote:Hey, if ranking fighters is too difficult for you, don't do it. Most of us have been doing this for five or ten years, and there are tons of problems we've faced:

• Comparing fighters who haven't fought before
• Judging a fighter of which there is little or no film available
• Comparing fighters of different eras
• Comparing fighters who used the same-day weigh-in system to fighters who used the day-before weigh-in system
• Comparing fighters who've taken steroids to fighters who haven't taken steroids
• Comparing fighters who've drawn the color line to fighters who haven't drawn the color line
• Dealing with newbies who think their rankings are the end-all
• Ranking fighters based on film vs. ranking them based on fighters they've beaten
• Comparing absolutely primative fighters like Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons to fighters who actually had a little skill, like Chris Byrd and Tim Witherspoon
• Comparing fighters of weak eras (Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott) to fighters of stronger eras (Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield)
• Comparing fighers with a lot of defenses against weak competition (Joe Louis) to fighters with fewer defenses against better competition (Rocky Marciano)
• The mob
• Multiple titles
• Idiots who think that the Klitschko brothers are worth a shit
• The size difference between heavyweights after 1965 and fighters before 1965

Hey, if it's too tough for you, try collecting stamps.

Not to diminish all the work and research you and people like yourself have put into compiling list of fighters and where they rank but I don't think that it is nessesary to have to put in ten years of research for a person to compile an educated list of their own. I agree it takes a certain amount of knowledge and effort to come up with a worthwhile list and I applaud the people who do but it is just boxing not rocket science. Most people on this board who put list together do so in good faith and are usually open to hear other people's ideas. Usually they very somewhat which is very normal. It is just a discussion board and I think most people who come here seem to have a laid back attitude and are more interested in the exchange of ideas rather than trying to prove everyone else wrong as to establish some type of intelctual superiority.

kick asner wrote: Not to diminish all the work and research you and people like yourself have put into compiling list of fighters and where they rank but I don't think that it is nessesary to have to put in ten years of research for a person to compile an educated list of their own. I agree it takes a certain amount of knowledge and effort to come up with a worthwhile list and I applaud the people who do but it is just boxing not rocket science. Most people on this board who put list together do so in good faith and are usually open to hear other people's ideas. Usually they very somewhat which is very normal. It is just a discussion board and I think most people who come here seem to have a laid back attitude and are more interested in the exchange of ideas rather than trying to prove everyone else wrong as to establish some type of intelctual superiority.

Oh, Decagon isn't after "intellectual" superiority - this would be beyond reach for him anyway - he's after "taking cheap shots" superiority.

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:Exactly. Most of those fighters Langford fought wouldn't be able to compete against a modern heavyweight who specializes in the jab, combinations and bodyshots over 12 or 15 rounds. It's silly of you to rank him so high, even though he might be outpointed by a few of the guys in our current, shitty, heavyweight division. Langford simply didn't have the sustained combination punching to compete with a lot of the all-time greats.

Langford fought actually pretty "modern" - fast, slick, powerful, varied punch arsenal. Jack Johnson had a much more "pre-modern" style than Langford - slow, defensive, upright. And many people have JJ in their top 5.

This said, we seem to read from a similar page as regards difficulties to rate fighters from different eras. To be honest, I've grown tired of arguing why a 1990s fighter woulda shoulda coulda be ranked higher or lower than a 1910s fighter. There is simply no good basis to make this assessment.

It makes more sense to (i) rank fighters within a limited time period, say a decade; and (ii) rank decades by their competitiveness, prowess compared to the previous and the susbequent decades, and excitement. From a combination of both, one can get a sense of the importance of a fighter, but not of "who woulda coulda shouda have beaten who".

In regard to comparing prowess to previous and subsequent decades; I agree that you certainly can do that. For example you can compare the decade of 1910-1919 to the 1920's.

But how do compare a fighter from the 1910's to the 1990's?
What you need to do is then extend your comparisons. Since you can compare the 1920's to the 1930's, then you should be able to compare 1910-1919 to the 1930's.
Since you can compare the 1930's to the 1940's; you can then compare 1910-1919 to the 1940's and so on. You can compare compare vastly different eras. You just have to do a lot more research and thinking.

You can do the same with individual fighters. for example, take Pinklon Thomas (Basically 1980's fighter), Lennox Lewis (came a little after Thomas, with some overlap), and John Ruiz(came after Lewis with some overlap).
Lewis was certainly better than Thomas, but the difference between him and Ruiz is even greater.
So of the 3, Lewis is # 1, Thomas #2, and Ruiz is #3. You can continue to do that with anyone. If two fighters are from vastly different eras, (say the 1920's and the 1990's) find fighters in between these eras and compare them to them.
You may need pencil, paper, graph paper, but it can be done.

You need to watch film, take hard serious looks at fighter's complete records, read books, newspaper articles, and listen to other people opinions. Of course it ultimately is just an opinion, but it can be an informed one.

>>>Not to diminish all the work and research you and people like yourself have put into compiling list of fighters and where they rank but I don't think that it is nessesary to have to put in ten years of research for a person to compile an educated list of their own. I agree it takes a certain amount of knowledge and effort to come up with a worthwhile list and I applaud the people who do but it is just boxing not rocket science. Most people on this board who put list together do so in good faith and are usually open to hear other people's ideas. Usually they very somewhat which is very normal. It is just a discussion board and I think most people who come here seem to have a laid back attitude and are more interested in the exchange of ideas rather than trying to prove everyone else wrong as to establish some type of intelctual superiority.<<<

Very good point, but as I am sure you have noticed, some people would rather pretend like they know everything instead of actually admitting that they don't...but the proof to such is in the posts!

Being that I mentioned no names it's kind of funny that you would speak up first Decagon! I guess in reality you actually do realize that you don't know much...most everyone else here already knew, but it's good to see that you may be starting to grasp reality a bit as you are evidently living with a guilty conscience of being so fake...remember, the first step is admitting...then you can work on the other problems you need to work on!

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:Exactly. Most of those fighters Langford fought wouldn't be able to compete against a modern heavyweight who specializes in the jab, combinations and bodyshots over 12 or 15 rounds. It's silly of you to rank him so high, even though he might be outpointed by a few of the guys in our current, shitty, heavyweight division. Langford simply didn't have the sustained combination punching to compete with a lot of the all-time greats.

Langford fought actually pretty "modern" - fast, slick, powerful, varied punch arsenal. Jack Johnson had a much more "pre-modern" style than Langford - slow, defensive, upright. And many people have JJ in their top 5.

This said, we seem to read from a similar page as regards difficulties to rate fighters from different eras. To be honest, I've grown tired of arguing why a 1990s fighter woulda shoulda coulda be ranked higher or lower than a 1910s fighter. There is simply no good basis to make this assessment.

It makes more sense to (i) rank fighters within a limited time period, say a decade; and (ii) rank decades by their competitiveness, prowess compared to the previous and the susbequent decades, and excitement. From a combination of both, one can get a sense of the importance of a fighter, but not of "who woulda coulda shouda have beaten who".

In regard to comparing prowess to previous and subsequent decades; I agree that you certainly can do that. For example you can compare the decade of 1910-1919 to the 1920's.

But how do compare a fighter from the 1910's to the 1990's?
What you need to do is then extend your comparisons. Since you can compare the 1920's to the 1930's, then you should be able to compare 1910-1919 to the 1930's.
Since you can compare the 1930's to the 1940's; you can then compare 1910-1919 to the 1940's and so on. You can compare compare vastly different eras. You just have to do a lot more research and thinking.

You can do the same with individual fighters. for example, take Pinklon Thomas (Basically 1980's fighter), Lennox Lewis (came a little after Thomas, with some overlap), and John Ruiz(came after Lewis with some overlap).
Lewis was certainly better than Thomas, but the difference between him and Ruiz is even greater.
So of the 3, Lewis is # 1, Thomas #2, and Ruiz is #3. You can continue to do that with anyone. If two fighters are from vastly different eras, (say the 1920's and the 1990's) find fighters in between these eras and compare them to them.
You may need pencil, paper, graph paper, but it can be done.

You need to watch film, take hard serious looks at fighter's complete records, read books, newspaper articles, and listen to other people opinions. Of course it ultimately is just an opinion, but it can be an informed one.

You're right, this is the only way of doing it; but the larger the distance between periods the less clearcut the picture. And once you are at 1910s fighter vs. 1990s fighter, the picture is very unclear and blurred.

For example, to say James J Corbett had little skill would be a very un-informed opinion / /

>>>For example, to say James J Corbett had little skill would be a very un-informed opinion<<<

Very, very un-informed!

The more "modern" technique of boxing started really settling in during the late teens and early twenties, but of course there are many of the older fighters who are exceptions, such as Terry McGovern, Joe Walcott and many, many others though there are some who are under the impression, based entirely on guessing, that the early fighters were either "caveman-like" in they're style, or that they always fought in the same manner that they posed for pictures, you know the early, funny looking pugilistic pose, but both of those kinds of assumptions are just plain and simply ignorant and unfounded!

Those are the same kinds who do not have the ability to grasp and understand history in written words and unless it is something that they can see on television then they ignorantly make blind assumptions. Those types have almost no ability to comprehend what the early sports journalists described in they're very, very detailed writings...it's what I would call the new school of "If I can't watch it, I can't learn it!"

Decagon wrote:Hey, if ranking fighters is too difficult for you, don't do it. Most of us have been doing this for five or ten years, and there are tons of problems we've faced:

• Comparing fighters who haven't fought before
• Judging a fighter of which there is little or no film available
• Comparing fighters of different eras
• Comparing fighters who used the same-day weigh-in system to fighters who used the day-before weigh-in system
• Comparing fighters who've taken steroids to fighters who haven't taken steroids
• Comparing fighters who've drawn the color line to fighters who haven't drawn the color line
• Dealing with newbies who think their rankings are the end-all
• Ranking fighters based on film vs. ranking them based on fighters they've beaten
• Comparing absolutely primative fighters like Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons to fighters who actually had a little skill, like Chris Byrd and Tim Witherspoon
• Comparing fighters of weak eras (Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott) to fighters of stronger eras (Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield)
• Comparing fighers with a lot of defenses against weak competition (Joe Louis) to fighters with fewer defenses against better competition (Rocky Marciano)
• The mob
• Multiple titles
• Idiots who think that the Klitschko brothers are worth a shit
• The size difference between heavyweights after 1965 and fighters before 1965

Hey, if it's too tough for you, try collecting stamps.

This is a great post...

It lays out some of the problems faced when comparing fighters and these debates are really the crux of the whole 'who is the greatest argument.' How you come to navigate these questions will have a bigger impact determining your conclusions than the fighters themselves.

Dec

If someone with a quaint old style was top of their division 100 years ago wouldn't it make sense that they would be at least close to the top in today's divisions? The HW's are slightly different due to size but Fitzsimmons could be a top MW today, couldn't he? He'd have to adjust his style etc... but there's nothing going on today that he couldn't learn.

I guess the danger here is that we have to use a fair amount of imagination.

You're pretty scathing about the old timers and raise some interesting points. It's obvious from your posts though that these are not flippant remarks.

Ezzard wrote: I guess the danger here is that we have to use a fair amount of imagination.

This may be the problem with many peoples’ perception of ANYTHING to do with the past. They view old films and are unable to accept the fact that things were different 100 years ago, and they will be even more different 100 years from now. It doesn’t mean they were worse, just different. Clearly most of the styles seen on film from 90-100+ years ago were different than what we’re used to seeing, but who’s to say that they were inferior? Almost everybody when confronted with something they don’t understand simply shrugs their shoulders and proclaims it inferior to what they know. Usually it’s because it might take some effort to learn and understand something different.

Think about how many fights you have seen where a top “modern” fighter gets befuddled by a boxer using a slightly different style? Most “modern” fighters have so few fights that they don’t get exposed to many different styles. And because there are so many fewer boxers and trainers now that there are probably also fewer styles that are taught, so boxers get less exposure to variety. So it may be likely that these “quant old styles” could be quite effective against a “modern” style. And exactly what is a “modern” style? If you compare two recent top p4p fighters like Roy Jones and James Toney, their styles are completely different. In fact, RJJ’s style looked very “amateurish”, as he kept his hands at his sides, led with hooks and uppercuts and seldom used the jab to much success.

dempseyfire wrote:For example, to say James J Corbett had little skill would be a very un-informed opinion / /

Well, in the Fitzsimmons-Corbett titlefight Corbett does certainly not look like a modern heavyweight - he holds his hands low, fights only from the distance, throws no combinations. Sam Langford 10, 15 years later looks much more modern than Gentleman Jim. Allthewhile, one has to acknowledge that in his time Corbett was seen as outstandingly skilfull and as revolutionizing boxing, owing in large measure to his footwork.

Corbett was a product of his time, and we should expect nothing else. And this was the time before boxing had developed into what it is today. Which makes quality comparison not only difficult but of limited value.

P

What joker voted for 1970

Decagon wrote:Hey, if ranking fighters is too difficult for you, don't do it. Most of us have been doing this for five or ten years, and there are tons of problems we've faced.

Were the ratings succesful?

I think a great example of styles can be seen by Winky Wright against the supposed dynamos of today! Wright uses a very simple jab, jab, jab right hand with excellent defense, which is certainly more old-school than it is modern.

Well, we all see what Wright does to pretty much everyone he faces. God knows the extremely modern style of Trinidad found out what only a jab and right hand can do...another great example of simple boxing mechanics over the supposed "better" style of today is the recent Calzaghe-Lacy bout!

Just because a fighters tries to look pretty and stylish in the ring, as they do today, it certainly does not make them effective compared to someone that just simply knew how to fight...and the old timers certainly knew how to fight...even if some did look ugly in they're style! I'll take effectiveness over style any day!

And how can anyone possibly think a “modern” fighter with 40-50 fights can be a better fighter than someone with 300 fights? Especially when many of the 40-50 fights are against setups? While it’s not true of all early 20th century fighters, many of them fought 20+ fights a year and ended up with 200-300 career fights. And of lot of the fights were against fighters they had never seen before and who probably presented them with challenges and styles you can never get with a modern engineered career.

Decagon wrote:

The Great John L wrote:And how can anyone possibly think a “modern” fighter with 40-50 fights can be a better fighter than someone with 300 fights? Especially when many of the 40-50 fights are against setups? While it’s not true of all early 20th century fighters, many of them fought 20+ fights a year and ended up with 200-300 career fights. And of lot of the fights were against fighters they had never seen before and who probably presented them with challenges and styles you can never get with a modern engineered career.

Buck Smith has had almost 200 fights, yet he never beat anyone in the top 20. Just because you have a lot of fights doesn't mean that you're any good. Sonny Liston only had 54 fights. Which fighter, in particular, that had 200 or 300 career fights do you think was better than Sonny Liston? Rocky Marciano only had 49 fights. Which fighter, in particular, that had 200 or 300 career fights do you think was better than Rocky Marciano? Evander Holyfield only had 48 fights. Which fighter, in particular, that had 200 or 300 career fights do you think was better than Evander Holyfield?

Fighters in the old days had to fight that much because they didn't make very much money per fight. The ones that did, like Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney, usually fought once or twice a year. I'd rather have my fighter in the gym, preparing for the important fights, than in the ring twice a month.

Langford, Greb, Robinson, Pepp. There are many other early fighters that had 200+ fights as well, but their records are not complete. Yes, they did fight more often because they were paid less. That’s another reason that made them better fighters. They had to fight to survive.

Dempsey fought quite frequently until he was able make money from his celebrity. And he didn’t spend much time in the gym between fights. And certainly “modern” fighters don’t either. HWs in particular seem to spend their spare time either at the lab, or at the local Pizza Hut.

And don’t be dissin’ Buck!!

I think Buck Smith beats Ricardo Lopez 2 out of 3

I've seen the Corbett-Fitz film and James J looks fairly modern to me-JUST like ALi . . .dancing footwork, hands down, double jabs, some combos.

Funny how you lambast Corbett for "only fighting on the outside" while a main criticism of that era is too much infighting and clinching!