Boxing then and now - Not the same sport!!

First topic message reminder :

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!!

Maybe hugging for two and a half minutes a round had something to do with it...

For me nutrition may help an athlete a little to set a higher pace in a shorter fight, but means very little when it has been pointed out fighters without such benefit went 20, 30 and 40 rounds sometimes in the heat of Nevada etc. I think fighters would benefit with some of the boxing knowledge today but nutririon means very little to me, if anything it shows what old timers were made of, someone mentioned that those older fights would be stopped on a TKO and that's true, but again it shows how tough they were and wouldn't be stopped easy by any modern fighter. It depends what the circumstances are for the fight, a lot of these old timers are judged by todays standards and rules which isn't fair. If modern fighters were to go back they would have to be prepared for a proper fight, guys like Tom Sharkey went in ready for war, and would be hovering over you after a knockdown ready to pounce again, it was rough in the ring back then. Some mentioned the gloves which is a good point, gloves today are padded round the back and can be used by the fighter to protect his head, you can imagine the state old timers hands must have been in once they retired. If a modern day boxer know he has 40 rounds ahead of him and no padded gloves to protect himself then he is going to fight a completely different fight.

Tour de france????

Endurance, stamina, speed..over a long period of time..

Again your missing the point. Nobodys saying fighters back then were unfit or couldnt fight long distance. Far from it. However they werent maximising efficiency which is what nutrition and sports science is all about. Maximising performance, getting the most out of what you put in. An increased understanding of the human body, nutrition in general, whats good and bad for athletes, what you should each to acheive various results has all improved and advancd over the years. To argue otherwise is embarrassing and is like saying doctors 100 years ago were as knowledgeable as today refusing to take into account advances in medicine. Its the same with sports. There is a much greater understanding.

Nobody is saying Sharkey and Jeffries couldnt fight 25 rounds under the sun be it today or 100 years ago but nowadays their training and diets would be much more efficient and they would get more out of their training for what they put in. Techniques and dietry knowledge have improved and advanced. The results are there, theres no doubting it. Jeffries today would have greater potential than Jeffries 100 years ago. Thats the bottom line.

and the records for the tour de france are continually been broken, as they are in 99% of sports, i honestly feel the fighters are the same type of people whether born now or 100 years ago, just the parimeters of the game of boxing have moved and therefore the fighters are best suited to there particular era. boxing now and then is as different as rugby league and rubgy union are.

Nutrition will not affect boxing skills, or mental toughness. What we are talking about is endurance, something old timers were masters at without modern day nutrition. A proper diet will give you more energy. Not improve your boxing skills. The transformation of boxing has nothing to do with modern day nutrition for me and more to do with rules that have been introduced for safety and boxing techniques that have advanced. There wasn't the same junk food around back then and what little was eaten would have been healthy.

Nobodys argued that nutrition was behind the changes in boxing, merely that its an improvement on previous eras due to an increased understanding.

No problem Manos, i have seen many people in the past use nutrition as a reason boxing has moved forward and why todays fighters are superior, for me it has very little to do with it considering how inactive fighters are today and the numbers of rounds they fight over, as i said previously though it will give a fighter a confidence to start a 12 rounder fast knowing he has the energy, but if they are not mentally prepared it can be burned up quickly by them being nervous etc.

money has changed boxing more than anything, it has changed the sport entirely, governing bodys, promoters, trainers, managers, and tv cheifs make all the decisions, control when fighters fight, how ofter, for how long, how they train what they eat how the behave to some extent, modern day boxers dont get into the game saying i need to get good at fighting 45 roudns straight, and take an absolute pasting for 15 rounds before i make my attack. they have to consider how to best prepare to beat an opponent over 4,6,8,10 or 12 rounds, how to look to the judges as your never hurt and in no danger whatsever of been knocked out. i dont know of a way to guess if an individual would perform better or worse in a different era at a different game against opponents born decades apart without admitting its an gut feeling at best

The Galveston Giant wrote:No problem Manos, i have seen many people in the past use nutrition as a reason boxing has moved forward and why todays fighters are superior, for me it has very little to do with it considering how inactive fighters are today and the numbers of rounds they fight over, as i said previously though it will give a fighter a confidence to start a 12 rounder fast knowing he has the energy, but if they are not mentally prepared it can be burned up quickly by them being nervous etc.

Likewise, Ive argued both sides of the modern v old debate and heard some pretty ridiculous arguments both ways. There are trade offs all the way through history. Certain things have better, certain things have got worse. For me better nutrition and diets as well as performance training is a definate plus but as I said it will only make a difference between two similarly levelled fighters. It cant be expected to make an average fighter an all time great but it can be expected to give him an edge over a similarly average fighter from the past who does not have access to this kind of knowledge or training.

Saying modern nutrition and training is like a red rag to a bull to some of the old time brigade as they seem to assume you are suggesting that Martin Rogan would beat Jim Jeffries or something when that isnt really the argument.

Modern boxers don't need to get into the game and start thinking about 45 rounds Eddy, but old timers did, they needed to pace themselves, and without padded gloves to protect themselves they couldn't stay in the pocket and cover up, judging the distance from the outside was more important. A lot of this isn't taking into consideration when judging them.

manos de piedra wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:No problem Manos, i have seen many people in the past use nutrition as a reason boxing has moved forward and why todays fighters are superior, for me it has very little to do with it considering how inactive fighters are today and the numbers of rounds they fight over, as i said previously though it will give a fighter a confidence to start a 12 rounder fast knowing he has the energy, but if they are not mentally prepared it can be burned up quickly by them being nervous etc.

Likewise, Ive argued both sides of the modern v old debate and heard some pretty ridiculous arguments both ways. There are trade offs all the way through history. Certain things have better, certain things have got worse. For me better nutrition and diets as well as performance training is a definate plus but as I said it will only make a difference between two similarly levelled fighters. It cant be expected to make an average fighter an all time great but it can be expected to give him an edge over a similarly average fighter from the past who does not have access to this kind of knowledge or training.

Saying modern nutrition and training is like a red rag to a bull to some of the old time brigade as they seem to assume you are suggesting that Martin Rogan would beat Jim Jeffries or something when that isnt really the argument.

Yeah there's no doubt if we have a level playing field nutrition will play it's part.

thats why i dont think you can compare them, there playing different sports. i think its best to compare them against there own peers. it is amazing the feat of endurance and tougness the old fighters showed and no question miles from anything required of todays fighters, but this isnt because they wouldnt be capable, its because they wouldnt be allowed for safety reasons. thats understandable for a sport that evolved from bare knuckle boxing, and gained the attension of the media and was put under the spot light.

eddyfightfan wrote:thats why i dont think you can compare them, there playing different sports. i think its best to compare them against there own peers. it is amazing the feat of endurance and tougness the old fighters showed and no question miles from anything required of todays fighters, but this isnt because they wouldnt be capable, its because they wouldnt be allowed for safety reasons. thats understandable for a sport that evolved from bare knuckle boxing, and gained the attension of the media and was put under the spot light.

I've no doubt that most modern boxers could cut it over the long haul Eddy, they just would have to fight at a lower intensity or risk burning out. At some point a lot of holding, or cuddling as some put it, would start aswell.

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

For the record - much of the modern "science" of nutrition is bogus and bunkum.

The evidence simply isn't there for the efficacy of supplements - to put it another way - the evidence is not of the quality that would change clinical medical practice. Were the supplements a drug - they would not be given a license.

I have heard sports nutritionists argue to me that maximuscle protein is better than myprotein protein because it is easier for the body to break down maximuscle. Utter tripe. Anyone who has seen pancreatic trypsin work will appreciate that this is nonsense. I have heard sports nutritionists argue to me that unless you take protein shakes within 20 minutes of exercise they don't work.

Its more fashion than science. Weight training (not powerlifting) for other sports goes through phases. 8 years ago - the full bench press - where the bar touches the chest before extension was in vogue. Now, 8 years down the line - the half bench is deemed safer and better - as you can lift more weight with less risk of injury.

So its not a case of looking on the internet and finding "modern training and nutrition" out.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

For the record - much of the modern "science" of nutrition is bogus and bunkum.

The evidence simply isn't there for the efficacy of supplements - to put it another way - the evidence is not of the quality that would change clinical medical practice. Were the supplements a drug - they would not be given a license.

I have heard sports nutritionists argue to me that maximuscle protein is better than myprotein protein because it is easier for the body to break down maximuscle. Utter tripe. Anyone who has seen pancreatic trypsin work will appreciate that this is nonsense. I have heard sports nutritionists argue to me that unless you take protein shakes within 20 minutes of exercise they don't work.

Its more fashion than science. Weight training (not powerlifting) for other sports goes through phases. 8 years ago - the full bench press - where the bar touches the chest before extension was in vogue. Now, 8 years down the line - the half bench is deemed safer and better - as you can lift more weight with less risk of injury.

So its not a case of looking on the internet and finding "modern training and nutrition" out.

No its not bogus at all. Its an actual branch of science. Trying to dismiss it as some kind of fad when there have countless results and measured improvements over decades of studies is silly.

We have a better unerstanding of how the hman body works now and what is needed to get the best out of it and maximise efficiency. Funny that in every tangibly measured sports improvements in diet, training methods and performance have resulted in beter performances due to better understunding and advancements made.

I find the dismissing of any kind of advancements made in boxing to be as silly as comments like Joe Louis couldnt hit a speed bag.