Boxing then and now - Not the same sport!!

Always a moot subject rating Jeffries, Dempsey, Corbett with Ali, Holmes and the like......It probably shouldn't be done at all because after watching some old fights with the pioneers I've realised that you needed different skills to succeed then than you do in the modern era...Probably obvious to many..

Mauling - Watch how Corbett and Jeffries try to grab their opponents and use their weight to lean on opponents and try to take their legs...Mauling was such a big part of Boxing and a skill in itself...Now with the referee breaking it up at every opportunity it becomes redundant.....

Bodypunching - Much more important over 25 - 45 rounds than it is now........Still an art....

Cuts - If you had a cut it wasn't fight ending then like now so durable guys just carried on..and probably didn't need to rally etc..

Durabilility and stamina - You can't dance over 45 rounds....If Ali doesn't stop Jeffries and he wasn't the hardest hitter.. can he go 45 with Jeffries mauling and trying to take his legs?????...

Boxing isn't the same sport ....whereas I'd pick Ali to beat all the oldies in the modern era...not so sure he would back then..

Like it or not.....Ranking is a redundant exercise as...

Boxing today isn't the same sport!!!! Different skills are needed to succeed!!

Nice continuation from your last thread Truss.

100% right when you say it. The sport is completely different, but that's progress aint it?

The mythical lists can tell us one thing but actually having the guys fight is another.

Would Corbitt or Fitzsimmons have beaten the likes of Ali or Lewis? It would depend SOLELY on whos terms they are fighting.

People forget that the "old-timers" fought with nothing more than a strap of leather around their hands and fought over 15 rounds in some cases, month after month after month...

Boxing isn't the same sport... but it's nice to see the roots.

What is common is to always rank fighters based on how they would fare over 15 rounds, and this isnt fare.

Boxings fans will always want to rank fighters, the fairest way to do it im not sure.

fair...

Decent and very true post Truss, i think some people under estimate the sheer toughness of the old time fighters as well those blokes had almost superhuman stamina and ability to endure severe punishment sometimes for a whole afternoon in the full heat of the sun.

The age old argument is how would the old fighters do in the modern era and vice versa.
Take Dempsey,Corbett Jefferies put them around in the modern era but bear in mind they would have top trainers,top sparring,fitness coaches modern gym facilities and everything a modern fighter would have so I think they would do pretty good,could a modern day fighter hack it in the old era over 45 rounds and with none of the modern day perks I've mentioned above, I'm not so sure.

Truss mate, the world is changing. I'm 32 and am known amongst friends as an old soul. Things change, they get diluted. Totally agree, name me (without being gay or out) the last time you can use the word romantic in boxing. You used to be able to......

Excellent article Trussman66. Sullivan -a rough-house guy who would be too much of a b*stard over 25 rounds to lose to,say ,Michael Moorer.Yet the latter would no doubt be the better "boxer" over twelve rounds with a good ref on his side(like the big moustacied German ref).
It was pointed out here the other day how Fitzsimmons looked dreadful on tape ,hardly being the picture of skill that we have come to expect from Mr.Moneybags etc. However,he's an all-ti me great.Jack J, whose best stuff we don't really have on tape.
Your thrust that there should not be any comparisons of ages(if that's what you mean)well yes it's like comparing two very different beasts in a wildlife jungle.Anyway,Trussman, who would win in a fight between a leopard and a sabre-toothed tiger??!

Nico the gman wrote:The age old argument is how would the old fighters do in the modern era and vice versa.
Take Dempsey,Corbett Jefferies put them around in the modern era but bear in mind they would have top trainers,top sparring,fitness coaches modern gym facilities and everything a modern fighter would have so I think they would do pretty good,could a modern day fighter hack it in the old era over 45 rounds and with none of the modern day perks I've mentioned above, I'm not so sure.

But you have to flip it, the modern guys would be completely different in there mindsets with what they know everything would be different, if we were to just throw a prime Modern guy into that old era without any preparation yes he would probably get beat but same if you threw an old era fighter into the modern era with no preparation for it.

I agree that the sport has evolved but personally I think it would be easier for later generation boxers to go back and be successful in the early era's than vice versa. Somebody like John L was outboxed by a guy employing what are essentially bread and butter basics for later generation fighters. Find it far more difficult to believe John L could be transformd into a competitive modern day fighter than a top heavyweight over the last 50 years could go back and beat him using the skills they already have. The evolution was a natural process in order to maximise success.

Manos

So you think a modern boxer could go back and boxer not just 15, but god knows how many rounds utilising the style they currently use?

I'd like to see someone go back and try to take on someone like Greb, a massive in your face volume puncher. Lets not also forget they were fighting a ridiculous amount per year.

You can go on about technical this, technical that - But if they went back to pre 1960 do you think they could handle fighting (in Grebs case 40+ times in a year from memory) umpteen times a year and much much longer fights?

I don't think you for one minute can categorically say yes. By all means try though.

When you do fantasy fights it's normally a one off though, not a 40 fight plan.

Scott, therein lies the problem. It'd be like asking Don Bradman to step up and have a go at T20/ODIs and debating whether he'd score more runs than say Tendulkar has at the format.

Uncovered pitches, stick of rhubarbs 'n all that. When a sport has changed the fundamentals will always remain. A left hook is still a left hook, power is still power. The sport has evolved in terms of rules that has altered styles, but it hasn't changed what was there from the beginning i.e. technique. And as the styles comment rule changes have altered the techniques used.

Impossible to compare eras that are so far apart as a result.

Yep, even stylistic changes: when you consider that maybe fighters from that era held their hands low, you have to consider that 4oz gloves don't offer as much protection as 12oz and so reflexes/distance will be more important.

Think there is a risk when people talk about the old time era they don't always define clearly what is meant by old time. Most historians would agree that pre 1920's the rules in place at the time, such as the allowance of holding and mauling, the length of fight and the transition from bareknuckle to gloves means it would not be too much of a leap to say boxing was virtually a different sport, however as the length of the fights shortened and the rules came to resemble what we see today there was something of a quantum leap in terms of styles with guys like Leonard and Dempsey utilising and perfecting combination punching and bobbing and weaving.

This means specualating on how Sullivan or Corbett would perform against Tyson or Lewis is probably a little tricky, it is certainly reasonable and possible to speculate as to how a Benny Leonard and Duran fight would pan out. For me the era in which comparisions are probably unfair is perhaps further back than many people often assume and is also a little shorter in terms of time frame than is often credited.

coxy0001 wrote:Manos

So you think a modern boxer could go back and boxer not just 15, but god knows how many rounds utilising the style they currently use?

I'd like to see someone go back and try to take on someone like Greb, a massive in your face volume puncher. Lets not also forget they were fighting a ridiculous amount per year.

You can go on about technical this, technical that - But if they went back to pre 1960 do you think they could handle fighting (in Grebs case 40+ times in a year from memory) umpteen times a year and much much longer fights?

I don't think you for one minute can categorically say yes. By all means try though.

I think adjustment is neccessary, but I think it would be easier for the more modern fighters to adjust going back, than the earlier fighters to adjust going forward.

Also there are several other points. 40 round fights were not really norm even back then and it was even less likely that they ever went 40 rounds. I would guess the average number of rounds scheduled for a Greb fight for example was about 10 rounds and whilst he did fight more often it was against a more mixed bag of competion. He wasnt fighting all time greats over 40 rounds every couple of weeks.

Fighters nowadays dont fight at longer intervals because they cant cope with a busier scheduled, its simply because they dont need to. I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter, especially if the competition he is facing is mixed and often well beneath him.

I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter

Why don't guys who are fringe contenders fight more than 3/4 times a year? Why do promoters and boxers frequently get quoted (i can provide numerous if you like) saying they're off for a rest and they'll then decide who to fight next after said good earned rest??

Two scenarios, and lets take Greb and BHop - who would have more issues?

Greb dropping down to 12? As you said, he fought lots of shorter fights against lesser known opponents.

Or Bhop having to extend himself to not just 15, but well beyond that in terms of rounds? Having never gone for such a distance?

manos de piedra wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Manos

So you think a modern boxer could go back and boxer not just 15, but god knows how many rounds utilising the style they currently use?

I'd like to see someone go back and try to take on someone like Greb, a massive in your face volume puncher. Lets not also forget they were fighting a ridiculous amount per year.

You can go on about technical this, technical that - But if they went back to pre 1960 do you think they could handle fighting (in Grebs case 40+ times in a year from memory) umpteen times a year and much much longer fights?

I don't think you for one minute can categorically say yes. By all means try though.

I think adjustment is neccessary, but I think it would be easier for the more modern fighters to adjust going back, than the earlier fighters to adjust going forward.

Also there are several other points. 40 round fights were not really norm even back then and it was even less likely that they ever went 40 rounds. I would guess the average number of rounds scheduled for a Greb fight for example was about 10 rounds and whilst he did fight more often it was against a more mixed bag of competion. He wasnt fighting all time greats over 40 rounds every couple of weeks.

Fighters nowadays dont fight at longer intervals because they cant cope with a busier scheduled, its simply because they dont need to. I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter, especially if the competition he is facing is mixed and often well beneath him.

Have to pick you up on your Greb point, Manos.

1922 to 24 - over about 15 months - he fought - Gibbons, Tunney (x2), Loughran (x3), Roper (x3) (a decent HW, not a big HW, but a HW) Shade, Wilson. That's 11 top fighters. Plus a host of reasonable, but not elite fighters. That's a pretty good resume and I can't think of a fighter today who has the fundamentals and the fitness to do it. Floyd's fundamentals are excellent but his hands wouldn't hold up to that much punishment.

As such - are you sure that a modern fighter could go back and fight in the past?

Where's Azania when you need him... no, wait!

Good point Oxxieroxie, agreed.

coxy0001 wrote:Where's Azania when you need him... no, wait!

Working on a Rocky Marciano tribute website.

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Where's Azania when you need him... no, wait!

Working on a Rocky Marciano tribute website.

I heard he was spending the next 40 years re-mastering every single bit of footage of every pre 1940 fighter there is.

coxy0001 wrote:

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Where's Azania when you need him... no, wait!

Working on a Rocky Marciano tribute website.

I heard he was spending the next 40 years re-mastering every single bit of footage of every pre 1940 fighter there is.

Working on a Harry Greb highlight reel.

Whilst D4 watches endless re-runs of Mayweather highlight videos, interspersed with Manny being punched in the face, in the 606v2 pit of Tartarus.

Be warned ye sinners, be warned.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Manos

So you think a modern boxer could go back and boxer not just 15, but god knows how many rounds utilising the style they currently use?

I'd like to see someone go back and try to take on someone like Greb, a massive in your face volume puncher. Lets not also forget they were fighting a ridiculous amount per year.

You can go on about technical this, technical that - But if they went back to pre 1960 do you think they could handle fighting (in Grebs case 40+ times in a year from memory) umpteen times a year and much much longer fights?

I don't think you for one minute can categorically say yes. By all means try though.

I think adjustment is neccessary, but I think it would be easier for the more modern fighters to adjust going back, than the earlier fighters to adjust going forward.

Also there are several other points. 40 round fights were not really norm even back then and it was even less likely that they ever went 40 rounds. I would guess the average number of rounds scheduled for a Greb fight for example was about 10 rounds and whilst he did fight more often it was against a more mixed bag of competion. He wasnt fighting all time greats over 40 rounds every couple of weeks.

Fighters nowadays dont fight at longer intervals because they cant cope with a busier scheduled, its simply because they dont need to. I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter, especially if the competition he is facing is mixed and often well beneath him.

Have to pick you up on your Greb point, Manos.

1922 to 24 - over about 15 months - he fought - Gibbons, Tunney (x2), Loughran (x3), Roper (x3) (a decent HW, not a big HW, but a HW) Shade, Wilson. That's 11 top fighters. Plus a host of reasonable, but not elite fighters. That's a pretty good resume and I can't think of a fighter today who has the fundamentals and the fitness to do it. Floyd's fundamentals are excellent but his hands wouldn't hold up to that much punishment.

As such - are you sure that a modern fighter could go back and fight in the past?

Well Im going to have to disagree with you on the likes of Roper, Shade and Wilson being top fighters. They were decent at best (Roper barely had a winning record) so that very much reduces his ratio from 11 to 6 top fighters in my view. It also includes three losses if I am not mistaken (Tunney x 2) and Loughran. So in all honesty I dont see a Moore, Foster, Spinks or even a Hopkins being incapable of going 8-3 against the above in a 15 month period.

Greb, incidently would be in the upper time limit of the period I was refering to in my initial post which was primarily the early and transitional phses of the start of boxing. I think the sport had developed further by the time of Greb/Tunney etc and I dont think coincidental that Tunneys more scientific and strategic approach was so successful.

You cant compare skills and how they would fare as the approach to boxing in styles, training, diet, technique and out of the ring lifestyle has changed beyond recognition.

But if you are comparing I think you can compare records by looking at defeats, fighters they beat, how many other top 10 fighters they beat.
For instance the fact Harry Greb beat fighters from LW to HW, the fact he beat every Hall of Fame fighter he ever fought and the fact his style was so unorthodox even today leave me in no doubt he should be regarded as the greatest MW of all time.
Would he have beaten Hagler - not sure because its impossible to transport Greb and his style into the boxing world of the 80's.

It also includes three losses if I am not mistaken (Tunney x 2) and Loughran

You have to look at the fact that some of Grebs defeats were newspaper decisions, the first Tunney loss was said to be very controversial with most observers giving it to Greb but it was in Tunneys hometown so...

coxy0001 wrote:

I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter

Why don't guys who are fringe contenders fight more than 3/4 times a year? Why do promoters and boxers frequently get quoted (i can provide numerous if you like) saying they're off for a rest and they'll then decide who to fight next after said good earned rest??

Two scenarios, and lets take Greb and BHop - who would have more issues?

Greb dropping down to 12? As you said, he fought lots of shorter fights against lesser known opponents.

Or Bhop having to extend himself to not just 15, but well beyond that in terms of rounds? Having never gone for such a distance?

Again because they can afford to. When they say they are resting, for a serious boxer anyway this does not mean simply doing nothing and sitting on the coach. They will still keep in training.

The dynamics of boxing have changed and the demand to see fringe fighters regularly isnt there or neccessary these days. Fighters could fight much more regularly as long as they manage the competiton levels they are fighting. The focus is being on the best possible shape coming into the ring which incorporates fights, training camps and periods of rest to allow the body to recover. Fighting every couple of weeks is not ideal and if it isnt neccessary then fighters wont do it.

No - Tunney 1 was a win and Tunney 2 was (arguably) a robbery. Loughran was 3 wins. As for Roper fought Jack Johnson and Gibbons. Knocked out the German HW Sampson-Korner in a round. Renowned as being a big puncher. Drew with Billy Miske and Battling Levinsky. Beat Gunboat Smith. Hardly an average fighter.

As such - Greb's record would not be 8-3 - but wining all but 1, and that loss being highly debatable.

Anyway - if Greb is too late, I apologise for sidetracking the debate.

Greb was noted as a high volume pressure fighter. Seems to be a classic swarmer style fighter from most reports so I dont see why it should be overly difficult to imagine how his style would effect later fighters like Hagler.

Greb was also 30/40 years after the birth of gloved fighting so I think its fair to say boxing had developed and evolved by then.

oxring wrote:No - Tunney 1 was a win and Tunney 2 was (arguably) a robbery. Loughran was 3 wins. As for Roper fought Jack Johnson and Gibbons. Knocked out the German HW Sampson-Korner in a round. Renowned as being a big puncher. Drew with Billy Miske and Battling Levinsky. Beat Gunboat Smith. Hardly an average fighter.

As such - Greb's record would not be 8-3 - but wining all but 1, and that loss being highly debatable.

Anyway - if Greb is too late, I apologise for sidetracking the debate.

I guess it depends what exact period you are starting or ending with in terms of Grebs run. Will have to disagree with you on Roper I think his record suggest to me he was just an average fighter. Certainly cant see him having a claim as a top fighter with his record.

manos de piedra wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter

Why don't guys who are fringe contenders fight more than 3/4 times a year? Why do promoters and boxers frequently get quoted (i can provide numerous if you like) saying they're off for a rest and they'll then decide who to fight next after said good earned rest??

Two scenarios, and lets take Greb and BHop - who would have more issues?

Greb dropping down to 12? As you said, he fought lots of shorter fights against lesser known opponents.

Or Bhop having to extend himself to not just 15, but well beyond that in terms of rounds? Having never gone for such a distance?

Again because they can afford to. When they say they are resting, for a serious boxer anyway this does not mean simply doing nothing and sitting on the coach. They will still keep in training.

The dynamics of boxing have changed and the demand to see fringe fighters regularly isnt there or neccessary these days. Fighters could fight much more regularly as long as they manage the competiton levels they are fighting. The focus is being on the best possible shape coming into the ring which incorporates fights, training camps and periods of rest to allow the body to recover. Fighting every couple of weeks is not ideal and if it isnt neccessary then fighters wont do it.

Well going by what you've just said i'm going to say that Greb, with 12 weeks of 'rest' and then 12 weeks of a proper training camp would not only beat any modern MW of the last 50 years but would comprehensively batter them.

Guys who aren't big names in terms of selling arenas, on a PPV platform don't actually earn that much. Once they've paid for the backroom staff, training, accomodation they don't actually have a huge amount left over. Yet you still see these same guys only fighting 3 times a year or so.

To suggest they could fight more times a year than they do is based on what? Because all i hear in post fight interviews is them saying they're going on holiday and taking a break etc. Jeffries fought (and beat) Goddard, (Pete) Jackson & Sharkey inside 3 months roughly, i guess by your thinking Vitali could do exactly the same if you took him back in time.

coxy0001 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

I dont honestly believe fighting more regularly would require massive amounts of adjustments for a modern fighter

Why don't guys who are fringe contenders fight more than 3/4 times a year? Why do promoters and boxers frequently get quoted (i can provide numerous if you like) saying they're off for a rest and they'll then decide who to fight next after said good earned rest??

Two scenarios, and lets take Greb and BHop - who would have more issues?

Greb dropping down to 12? As you said, he fought lots of shorter fights against lesser known opponents.

Or Bhop having to extend himself to not just 15, but well beyond that in terms of rounds? Having never gone for such a distance?

Again because they can afford to. When they say they are resting, for a serious boxer anyway this does not mean simply doing nothing and sitting on the coach. They will still keep in training.

The dynamics of boxing have changed and the demand to see fringe fighters regularly isnt there or neccessary these days. Fighters could fight much more regularly as long as they manage the competiton levels they are fighting. The focus is being on the best possible shape coming into the ring which incorporates fights, training camps and periods of rest to allow the body to recover. Fighting every couple of weeks is not ideal and if it isnt neccessary then fighters wont do it.

Well going by what you've just said i'm going to say that Greb, with 12 weeks of 'rest' and then 12 weeks of a proper training camp would not only beat any modern MW of the last 50 years but would comprehensively batter them.

Guys who aren't big names in terms of selling arenas, on a PPV platform don't actually earn that much. Once they've paid for the backroom staff, training, accomodation they don't actually have a huge amount left over. Yet you still see these same guys only fighting 3 times a year or so.

To suggest they could fight more times a year than they do is based on what? Because all i hear in post fight interviews is them saying they're going on holiday and taking a break etc. Jeffries fought (and beat) Goddard, (Pete) Jackson & Sharkey inside 3 months roughly, i guess by your thinking Vitali could do exactly the same if you took him back in time.

Yes and these fringe/lower level fighters usually hold regular jobs and dont rely on boxing as their sole source of income. They arent boxing on the odd undercard and then hitting the Bahamas for a holiday. If a prospect is highly rated or luckily enough to sign a decent contract with a good promoter then they may be able put their job aside and focus full time on training but this is basically trading the job for the gym if they are serious about their career.

My suggestion that they could fight more times a year is based on the fact that boxers are generall fit guys and are well capable of fighting more than 12 rounds every few months. Like I said, the emphasis has shifted now. This wasnt because old time guys were just fitter or stronger it was because the sport evolved and emphasis shifted. The impact of television was massive for one.

Ive no problem believing Vitali could beat those three in the space of three months. Id say Vitali could probably have put a beating on any other heavyweight in the world outside his brother the day after his fight with Adameck. The reason he takes time off is because he can afford to. He doesnt need to fight every couple weeks. Just because he doesnt, doesnt mean he cant. Are you saying you think Vitali is not physically capable of fighting once a month?

If you had a hypothetical teleport machine I think its easier for Vitali to go back in time and compete in Jeffries era, fighting once a month if neccessary than it would be for Jeffries to arrive in this era and obtain the neccessary skillset to compete over effectively for 12 round fights which is the basis of my argument.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:No - Tunney 1 was a win and Tunney 2 was (arguably) a robbery. Loughran was 3 wins. As for Roper fought Jack Johnson and Gibbons. Knocked out the German HW Sampson-Korner in a round. Renowned as being a big puncher. Drew with Billy Miske and Battling Levinsky. Beat Gunboat Smith. Hardly an average fighter.

As such - Greb's record would not be 8-3 - but wining all but 1, and that loss being highly debatable.

Anyway - if Greb is too late, I apologise for sidetracking the debate.

I guess it depends what exact period you are starting or ending with in terms of Grebs run. Will have to disagree with you on Roper I think his record suggest to me he was just an average fighter. Certainly cant see him having a claim as a top fighter with his record.

Read my first post - I said 22-24. Not afterwards where he was blind in 1 eye.

Besides the point - if we're thinking in terms of pioneers and fathers of the sport - the ie Sullivan, Jeffries and Corbett - I take your point that for them to fast forward 100 years - learning to fight over 12 rounds does change things. You can wear someone down over 50 rounds whereas you'd have to push the pace a lot to wear them down over 12.

Boxing didn't change overnight, however - and pundits that saw early fighters, observed the changes and still were prepared to back those pioneers of the sport. This could be purely nostalgia.

To be able to fight over 40 rounds and then 10 rounds a week later shows an incredible skillset, along with excellent concentration. In boxing, there's always the lucky punch. That's the point with Roper - he was supposed to have been 1 hell of a puncher, hence Greb handling him a couple of weeks after a different fight shows how the deep understanding of the skills of the sport that Greb had, along with his powers of concentration. Powers of concentration that I don't see in modern fighters. Someone like Vitali - great fighter though he is, is upright and stiff in his defence. Relies upon his arms, limited head movement. Yes, the early HWs would struggle with size - however their defence should not be underestimated. Those that saw Johnson up to Ali reckoned they never saw a fighter as good at slipping and counter punching as Johnson. Certainly haven't seen one since.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:No - Tunney 1 was a win and Tunney 2 was (arguably) a robbery. Loughran was 3 wins. As for Roper fought Jack Johnson and Gibbons. Knocked out the German HW Sampson-Korner in a round. Renowned as being a big puncher. Drew with Billy Miske and Battling Levinsky. Beat Gunboat Smith. Hardly an average fighter.

As such - Greb's record would not be 8-3 - but wining all but 1, and that loss being highly debatable.

Anyway - if Greb is too late, I apologise for sidetracking the debate.

I guess it depends what exact period you are starting or ending with in terms of Grebs run. Will have to disagree with you on Roper I think his record suggest to me he was just an average fighter. Certainly cant see him having a claim as a top fighter with his record.

Read my first post - I said 22-24. Not afterwards where he was blind in 1 eye.

Besides the point - if we're thinking in terms of pioneers and fathers of the sport - the ie Sullivan, Jeffries and Corbett - I take your point that for them to fast forward 100 years - learning to fight over 12 rounds does change things. You can wear someone down over 50 rounds whereas you'd have to push the pace a lot to wear them down over 12.

Boxing didn't change overnight, however - and pundits that saw early fighters, observed the changes and still were prepared to back those pioneers of the sport. This could be purely nostalgia.

To be able to fight over 40 rounds and then 10 rounds a week later shows an incredible skillset, along with excellent concentration. In boxing, there's always the lucky punch. That's the point with Roper - he was supposed to have been 1 hell of a puncher, hence Greb handling him a couple of weeks after a different fight shows how the deep understanding of the skills of the sport that Greb had, along with his powers of concentration. Powers of concentration that I don't see in modern fighters. Someone like Vitali - great fighter though he is, is upright and stiff in his defence. Relies upon his arms, limited head movement. Yes, the early HWs would struggle with size - however their defence should not be underestimated. Those that saw Johnson up to Ali reckoned they never saw a fighter as good at slipping and counter punching as Johnson. Certainly haven't seen one since.

Well there is a period between 1922-24 where Greb does fight Roper 3 times, Shade and Wilson and posts losses to Tunney x 2 and Loughran (1922-07-10 to 1924-01-18) so unless you specify exactly what time frame in months you are specifying then it pretty ambiguos and open to interpretation.

His eye trouble reportadly began in 1921 incidentally which is before the timeframe you are mentioning.

I dont see Roper troubling an elite fighter, modern or past. He might be a guy with a punch but to describe his as a top fighter I think is being generous.

Vitali is a range fighter that controls distance and has a good jab. He also has the size and physicality to be abe to mix it up close. His style of fighting would be novel for the early days of boxing which still heavily emphasised body punching, crouch and rush an grappling. This required getting close to your opponent which is the sort of thing thats very difficult to do against Vitali and when you add in his massive size advantage I cant see those early guys being able to match it with him. He doesnt need to emphasise head movement or slipping because his control of range and distance with his size and jab has rendered it unneccessary. I would agree that somebody like Johnson I would imagine would make him miss more and be defensively cuter than his current opposition.

So Truss what you actually meant to put in the title was:

Boxing then and now - Same sport - different tactics!!

I hate to be pedantic - actually I don't. But since we're both at it:
http://www.harrygreb.com/blind_eye_chronology.html

Roper 1 is frequently seen (coxscorner repeats the same story, as does 1 of his biographies) as the moment he became definitively, permanently 1 eyed.

Agreed, if you don't specify months, you can pick a period where Harry drops decisions.

However - equally, if you pick months you come up with a run that includes Dempsey once (arguably twice), Loughran 3 times and Gibbon - along with the "lesser fighters" - who, in my opinion (but, I agree, not yours) like Roper, Shade and Wilson.

Should be said, that Roper can't be seen as worse than the likes of Shannon Briggs or Monte Barrett. I don't see any of the current champs able to fight them as well as mandatory defences so frequently.

Defensively they aren't up to it. My point in terms of skill and concentration - absolutely required if you're fighting a championship fight of 40 rounds - where 1 slip could land you out cold. Its not the same today.

Im not really sure how or what someone like Bob Roper translates into the modern game to be honest. His record is too patchy and Ive no idea if he was ever considered a contender for any title. It would be hard to imagine he was on the stregth of his record, but I suppose its largely besides the point.

Other than the fights with Lewis and Byrd which for seperate reason would mean Vitali was incapably of fihting soon after, I dont think fighting regulalry wold trouble him. He could figh guys like Adamek, Brigges, Johnson, Peter and so on every other week barely breaking sweat and you could probably count on one hand the number of decent shots they land.

Defensively I think hes fine because his style would see him avoid punishment from fighting at range which in those days would really cause fighters problems. Thats before even considering the huge size advantage he has.

We will probably disagree on this but I think if you put Vitali (or most of the decent later heavyweight champs) back against the Sharkeys, Fitzsimmons, Corbetts, Ruhlins, Jeffries etc they cope far better than vice versa with their more evolved styles.

What about Barbados Joe Walcott or Joe Gans? Surely as complete and well rounded fighters as one could hope to come across regardless of era.

your always going to have your old and modern preferences, but your never going to be able to prove it conclusily either way. there are to many sticking points on both sides of the arguement, i've no doubt in 70-80 years time if any of us are lucky enough to still be alive we will be saying that none of these modern day fighters would last two minutes against the old time greats, lewis, tyson, mayweather, klitchskos, calzaghe. whether that will be true or not will probably still be debated on 606v53. although i think the old timers did have better stamina than the moderns, a much better work ethic, fighting frequentlly i dont think that matters too much. how would any of the old timers deal with a prizefighter tornement with 3 rounds, no time to warm up or no advantage for been super fit. 4,6,8 and 10 round fighters are very common these days, a quick starter doesnt need ridiculous stamina, he would be at more of a advantage using his training time on tecnique or strength training. another point is a lot of the fights from the old days would be stopped on a TKO now, long before the fight made it into the 13th and onwards.

Im not really too sure what exactly defines "old" and "modern" or where this cut off point occurs. My argument relates specifically to the formative years of gloved boxing. The switch from London Prize Rules to Queensbury, the switch from bareknuckly to gloved etc. The first 25 years or so of gloved boxing. I think this period so alot of development, change, switches in methods and emphasis on skills, greater tactical considerations and so on. This would be expected for what was essentially a new or evolved kind of sport that was growing and developing.

I dont believe boxing is a sport that can be perfected. There are too many variables. I also dont believe boxing is a sport that gets incrementally better. That is to say each newer era improves on the previous one. I think it peaks and troughs depending on various weights categories in various eras and so on. Neither do I believe boxing has been steadily getting worse since it began. Certain elements have been in decline and certain elements have been improved so there has been trade offs which I think tend to provide a balance. The popularity of the sport has been declining for instance, but there has also been constant improvements in the areas of nutrition, understanding of the body, performance maximisation and so on so these kind of things provide a balance. I think in some earlier eras fighters tended to fight too often but nowadays I think they generally fight too infrequently. So again theres a trade off.

The pioneer sort of fighters and the converts from the old LPR and bareknuckle eras I think would be at a distinct disadvantage to those in later eras. The didnt have the same understanding or knowledge of methods and techniques that are were widely known, taught and improved on in later years. They were finding and developing these things out for themselves and as such I think their skillsets were generall inferior to their equivalents in later years. For example most will know that Jim Corbett beat John L Sullivan using a jab and hit and move kind of strategy that was considered very novel in the day. Whilst I would not say this strategy has ever been perfected I would bet good money that by later standards it was actually pretty mediocre for the reason that people had been building on, improving and teaching that strategy over decades and what was then a very rare technique and style had become commonplace and widely taught.

This is why I think later finders would find it easier to go back to those times and be succussfull than the the early boxers would be going forward. I think the sport had advancent in many ways and skillsets, strategies and techniques had improved in general. Later generations had the benefit of decades of development and improvements to avail of that the early fighters simply didnt have available to them.

i think boxing has a element of natural selection, what is suited to the changing enviroment (rule changes ie holding, using the head, holding down, fewer rounds) sticks and is improved upon and what doesnt dies out. that isnt to say a dinosaur would get beaten by a crocodile, just that the modern version is better suited to the modern enviroment, or to put it another way modern boxers are better suited to fight over 12 rounds, there styles are designed around the rules and trends of other boxers around at the moment. they are also better suited to handle other factors like the press and media. who would have given floyd mayweather the time of day in the 20s or 30s, yet today his personality makes him 25 million easy every time he goes out there. on the flip side you had boxers back in the old days who had huge problems fighting black fighters, in this day and age you wouldnt even be given a stage to show your talents in the ring. never mind people talking about your greatness 80 years later.

I guess in simpler terms I think those very early era fighters were cruder and I would favour the more refined and developed skills of later generations to succeed against them. I think their overall superior skillset more than compensates for any adaptions the may have to make. I dont think it works in the vice versa anywhere as successfully.

I don't think you can compare current day boxers or those from the last 40 years with those who operated in the early part of the 20th century for many reasons.

As Manos said I think the 'older' fighters were definitely far more crude and basic in some departments however they had a superior level of toughness, grit and shear determination, plus stamina in later rounds which modern day fighters haven't been tested at.

Also the majority of modern fighters fight far less often than in the past and therefore are bound to have more losses on their records and also the numerous 'no contest's often awarded.

We have no idea how various modern greats would fair if you took them back 20 years and they had to fight numerous fights a year rather than just 3 at an absolute push for big time fighters, removed of all their nutritional, strength and conditioning guidance and not mention possible PED's! It is feasible though to suggest they would fair worse than their current record shows.

However, a great fighter from the past is likely to improve if they trained and fought now with all the aforementioned advantages.

Also, when discussing weight classes, a lot of the old fighters were much smaller and therefore when comparing with the modern era you have to consider the old fighters in a division or two below to compare to now.

Wondered how long it would be before modern nutrition and trining methods were wheeled out.

Do think people over exaggerate the era where comparisons would struggle to be made, the likes of Leonard and Ross were fighting in the 20s and 30's does anyone genuinely believe they would not be able to survive in todays light weight or welterweight divisions?

Mdern nutritin, sprt science, perfrmance training and s frth is hardly some kind of quackery though. Its a definate advantage that modern fighters have to avail of. I think its a terribly romantic notion that working in a blacksmith or down a mine shaft and fighting the odd club fighter at the start of your career is better preparation than one offered by a modern gym with the benefits of personal trainers, nutritionists and so on. The article posted a while back on Holyfields training and the difference a conditioning trainer made to his performance level highlights the improvements that can be made thanks to the better knowledge and methods used today.

The misconception seems to be that if you give a regular joe a nutritionist and conditioning trainer that he will suddenly be able to beat someone like Fitzsimmons over night. This obviously isnt the case and I dont think many would argue that. But if you gave Fitzsimons the benefits of these modern methods I think he realises more potential and sees increased performance. It cant turn a bad fighter into a great one but in instances where the gap in talent is not massive it can be an advantage and make the difference.

The era that I refer to generally would be 1880-1910 where the most development occurs and by 1930 I would say its pretty much levelled out.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what this special modern "nutrition" is and why it's superior.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what this special modern "nutrition" is and why it's superior.

Its pretty simple really and Im sure there is endles amounts of information on the internet about it. We have a far greater understanding of how the body works now, what foods bring out the best peformances, what diets are best for building musle, losing weight, burning fat, increasing stamina etc

Its a bit silly to dismiss it as some kind of myth or as having no merit when its massive in professional sports these days. As I said above, if the talent is not there in the first place its not going to make you a great fighter but there are definate tangible benefits to it which have been medically and scientifically proven.

I'm not dismissing it as a myth, simply questioning how effectiv it is. It's not like modern fighters are all physically superior. There have been powerful fighters in all shapes ad sizes in every era, tough fighters, durable fighters, weight hoppers, short guys who could much bigger foes and tall fighters who could shrink down to lower divisions. I just can't quite grasp why the vast, vast majority of fighters since 1920 haven't had Jimmy Wilde's power, nor Pep's skill, Langford's ability to go up through weights if being modern is an advantage.

We have featherfisted Paulies today.
Limited Pavlik's.
Haye's with next to no volume punching.
All at world level.

There's nothing in the modern game that convinces me we've achieved any kind of superiority.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm not dismissing it as a myth, simply questioning how effectiv it is. It's not like modern fighters are all physically superior. There have been powerful fighters in all shapes ad sizes in every era, tough fighters, durable fighters, weight hoppers, short guys who could much bigger foes and tall fighters who could shrink down to lower divisions. I just can't quite grasp why the vast, vast majority of fighters since 1920 haven't had Jimmy Wilde's power, nor Pep's skill, Langford's ability to go up through weights if being modern is an advantage.

We have featherfisted Paulies today.
Limited Pavlik's.
Haye's with next to no volume punching.
All at world level.

There's nothing in the modern game that convinces me we've achieved any kind of superiority.

Well firstly you need to look at are these fighters taking advantage of these benefits. Being an alcoholic like Pavlik or a glutton like Toney means no conditioning trainer or nutritionist in the world will help you.

The misconception seems to be that the modern techniques automatically make you a better fighter/athlete than a past fighter. This is not the argument. The best trainer in the world, the best conditioner, the best nutritionist etc will never be able to make David Haye as good as Ali. Theres too big a talent gap and too many other variables to at work.

The point is that modern techniques are better equipped to get the best out of Haye - if he chooses to avail of them. That is to say would Haye born now, be better than Haye born 100 years ago? Assuming they are born with identical characteristics and abilities then the advancement in techniques, knowledge and nutrition and so on will mean hes in a better position now to maximise his potential from this compared with 100 years ago.

Likewise Malignaggi was always going to be born featherfisted but nowadays there is more chance he can improve on it and other areas than in the past.

Similarly great past athletes like Jeffries would be even better had they been able to avail of the greater science and information we have today.

Manos

How has science changed regarding eating a healthy diet? I mean has protein, carbs etc changed over the year? I mean these guys must've been superhuman to go 20+ rounds if they hadn't stuffed themselves full of everything they needed.

How much good do supplements do? I took them for the best part of 3 years and noticed little to no difference.

Has a punch bag evolved from the past? Were various drills for training etc not around 100 years ago?

Please, modern nutrition? Give me a break. Does it not strike you a bit funny how guys go 12 and are completely fu**ed? Yet guys in the past, without all this "modern nutrition" could go for round after round, sometimes well past 20?!!??!

Modern nutrition my ASS