Your Top 5 overrated fighters...

First topic message reminder :

Pretty simple, and should be a good way of revealing more on fighters the board may not have been aware of you not rating.

Mine, in order:

01) Roy Jones Jr: Unfortunately didn't stretch himself, looked good against pap opposition, fought bum after bum and almost bought boxing to its knees.

02) Manny Pacquiao: For someone so highly rated i find it a bit random that he has such a huge problem with a counterpuncher style of fighter.

03) Tito Trinidad: Stuffed by Bhop, robbed DLH and is still seen by some to be a great.

04) Mike Tyson: Prime this prime that. 2 years we should judge him on? I don't think so.

05) Barry Mcguigan: Seems to get rated as a great for his out of ring exploits rather than what he did in the ring.

There is a middle ground on this whole issue and as tends to be the case the truth lies somewhere in the middle. According to a lot of historians there was something of a quantum leap in terms of technique between 1900-1920 influenced by the change in length of fights and the gradual phasing out of techniques that were tolerated in the 1900's such as holding, grappling and throwing, also the introduction of bigger gloves with more padding influenced the range and frequency of punches fighters could throw and the defensive techniques they were able to utilise.

However this should not be used to infer the fighters such as Jeffries, Fitzsimmons etc were totally devoid of technique, as you can read countless newspaper reports, which are far more reliable than the remaining footage that speak of many of these fighters feinting to set up attacks, throwing punches in combinations and slipping and parrying punches. As others have said you can read back on reports of guys like Mace and Mendoza utilising such techniques which many would have you believe were unheard of until some 100 years later.

rowley wrote:There is a middle ground on this whole issue and as tends to be the case the truth lies somewhere in the middle. According to a lot of historians there was something of a quantum leap in terms of technique between 1900-1920 influenced by the change in length of fights and the gradual phasing out of techniques that were tolerated in the 1900's such as holding, grappling and throwing, also the introduction of bigger gloves with more padding influenced the range and frequency of punches fighters could throw and the defensive techniques they were able to utilise.

However this should not be used to infer the fighters such as Jeffries, Fitzsimmons etc were totally devoid of technique, as you can read countless newspaper reports, which are far more reliable than the remaining footage that speak of many of these fighters feinting to set up attacks, throwing punches in combinations and slipping and parrying punches. As others have said you can read back on reports of guys like Mace and Mendoza utilising such techniques which many would have you believe were unheard of until some 100 years later.

Exactly.

rowley wrote:There is a middle ground on this whole issue and as tends to be the case the truth lies somewhere in the middle. According to a lot of historians there was something of a quantum leap in terms of technique between 1900-1920 influenced by the change in length of fights and the gradual phasing out of techniques that were tolerated in the 1900's such as holding, grappling and throwing, also the introduction of bigger gloves with more padding influenced the range and frequency of punches fighters could throw and the defensive techniques they were able to utilise.

However this should not be used to infer the fighters such as Jeffries, Fitzsimmons etc were totally devoid of technique, as you can read countless newspaper reports, which are far more reliable than the remaining footage that speak of many of these fighters feinting to set up attacks, throwing punches in combinations and slipping and parrying punches. As others have said you can read back on reports of guys like Mace and Mendoza utilising such techniques which many would have you believe were unheard of until some 100 years later.

If we're saying 1900-1920 - Johnson's title reign began in 1908. Johnson was a widely accepted defensive master, fighting ever fight up on his toes. Except, Johnson learnt most of all of this from Choynski, who'd KOd him in 1901. Afterwards, in prison together, Choynski felt that a man on Johnson's talent shouldn't ever be getting hit. So Choynski taught him how to block parry and evade punches.

Choynski started boxing in the 1880s. Leading to the question who-taught-him? Furthermore - what was this old school fighter doing teaching a new school boxer the skills that made him so effective?

To some extent I agree with your point Jeff - it isn't as though the boxers before 1900 had no technique. However - unfortunately, it seems that any suggestion that techniques were adapted or had to change - as was quite reasonably suggested by manos yesterday is being taken by some members to mean that nobody before 1900 could duck, or throw a proper punch, or throw punches in combination.

This flies in the evidence of everything we've read and know on the subject.

oxring wrote:

rowley wrote:There is a middle ground on this whole issue and as tends to be the case the truth lies somewhere in the middle. According to a lot of historians there was something of a quantum leap in terms of technique between 1900-1920 influenced by the change in length of fights and the gradual phasing out of techniques that were tolerated in the 1900's such as holding, grappling and throwing, also the introduction of bigger gloves with more padding influenced the range and frequency of punches fighters could throw and the defensive techniques they were able to utilise.

However this should not be used to infer the fighters such as Jeffries, Fitzsimmons etc were totally devoid of technique, as you can read countless newspaper reports, which are far more reliable than the remaining footage that speak of many of these fighters feinting to set up attacks, throwing punches in combinations and slipping and parrying punches. As others have said you can read back on reports of guys like Mace and Mendoza utilising such techniques which many would have you believe were unheard of until some 100 years later.

If we're saying 1900-1920 - Johnson's title reign began in 1908. Johnson was a widely accepted defensive master, fighting ever fight up on his toes. Except, Johnson learnt most of all of this from Choynski, who'd KOd him in 1901. Afterwards, in prison together, Choynski felt that a man on Johnson's talent shouldn't ever be getting hit. So Choynski taught him how to block parry and evade punches.

Choynski started boxing in the 1880s. Leading to the question who-taught-him? Furthermore - what was this old school fighter doing teaching a new school boxer the skills that made him so effective?

To some extent I agree with your point Jeff - it isn't as though the boxers before 1900 had no technique. However - unfortunately, it seems that any suggestion that techniques were adapted or had to change - as was quite reasonably suggested by manos yesterday is being taken by some members to mean that nobody before 1900 could duck, or throw a proper punch, or throw punches in combination.

This flies in the evidence of everything we've read and know on the subject.

Too funny. You are attributing thought that I have never written. I have always said that those guys were good, but good for their time. Due to their lack of certain techniques that developed over time, their basic skills would not make them me able to beat guys who came later. Not to say they didn't have the talent to do so. newton didn't know about splitting the atom, but he's still one of the greatest scientist who ever lived.

azania wrote:Too funny. You are attributing thought that I have never written. I have always said that those guys were good, but good for their time. Due to their lack of certain techniques that developed over time, their basic skills would not make them me able to beat guys who came later. Not to say they didn't have the talent to do so. newton didn't know about splitting the atom, but he's still one of the greatest scientist who ever lived.

In his day, his scientific techniques would have been described as great and any other manner of adjectives. Doesn't mean people don't know more now.

The thing for me though to put the cat amongst the pigeons, if we are to accept, which we seem willing to do that fighting shorter fights with different rules or things permitted will lead to new techniques being developed for me it seems only reasonable to accept that if fighters are fighting less frequently it is not unreasonable to accept that certain techniques such as some defensive techniques will be lost as the need to avoid damage or cuts is reduced.

It is this that leads me to believe that the 1930's to 1950's represents the peak of the sport and whilst there are obviously guys in every era who would compete in any age they were thrust into the general strength in depth or level of technique generally has declined since that era.

You could say that not fighting as often means you have more time to prepare for your opponents so have better gameplans, and you will be less likely to be injured and have more time to get in specific shape for the bout. Swings and roundabouts.

The advancements in the range of medical assistance available to the corner must also play a part, meaning defensive skills are less crucial as any damage sustained can be repaired much more easily and thence not become such a significant factor.

rowley wrote:The thing for me though to put the cat amongst the pigeons, if we are to accept, which we seem willing to do that fighting shorter fights with different rules or things permitted will lead to new techniques being developed for me it seems only reasonable to accept that if fighters are fighting less frequently it is not unreasonable to accept that certain techniques such as some defensive techniques will be lost as the need to avoid damage or cuts is reduced.

It is this that leads me to believe that the 1930's to 1950's represents the peak of the sport and whilst there are obviously guys in every era who would compete in any age they were thrust into the general strength in depth or level of technique generally has declined since that era.

Yes definately to some extent. I think head movement nowadays is less of a neccessity because the size of the gloves allows you to block more effectively. The peek a boo style for example would probably have never really developed if gloves just remained thin strips of leather as its completely inneffective at avoiding damage then. Same with the crab shell defence.

But older fighters then would not have been as adept at covering up or utilising large sized gloves into their defence and their reliance on trying to duck and slip as opposed to cover up would have caused them problems in the modern game with bigger gloves.

azania wrote:Due to their lack of certain techniques that developed over time, their basic skills would not make them me able to beat guys who came later.

Fine - so what were these magical techniques that old timers didn't yet know?

And how do you know that the old timer didn't know them. Please don't say film again.

Union for me it is more an issue of there not being such a need to avoid cuts, if you know you are not going to be in action for six months a cut, whilst obviously better avoided are not too much of a worry. However if you are fighting once every month and earning at a level that makes this an absolute necessity getting a cut is a disaster. Definitely feel that some defensive techniques have suffered for the infrequency with which fighters are in action.

The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

Scottrf wrote:The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

No mate - if you get cut you lose and your family doesnt eat. That is the worry. IF I get cut ill get 30 percent of this fight and be ready to fight again by the next one in february - might as well give it a go and try to get a bigger purse for next time round.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

No mate - if you get cut you lose and your family doesnt eat. That is the worry. IF I get cut ill get 30 percent of this fight and be ready to fight again by the next one in february - might as well give it a go and try to get a bigger purse for next time round.

If Mayweather loses he's still eating, doesn't mean he's trying to lose. Is there any proof of guys getting cut more often now?

Journeymen still can fight 30+ times in a year, are they the best defensive boxers around?

Who are the guys Jones was supposed to have faced? I never really get this. Other than Michaelsewski in a scenario where blame could be apportioned to both sides, he basically fought everyone there was to fight at lightheavyweight a beat them easily. He even moved up to heavyweight when options in his division became thin.

Not at all but they dont get injured too much if they can fight 30 times a year do they?

Mayweather is a naturally defensive fighter, this is more for someone like Margarito/Pacman - how can you afford to risk your families income by charging in face first? so the better fighters who are not naturally inclined to be defensive must be defensive because a lack of a steady purse may mean that you/your family may starve.

Scottrf wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

No mate - if you get cut you lose and your family doesnt eat. That is the worry. IF I get cut ill get 30 percent of this fight and be ready to fight again by the next one in february - might as well give it a go and try to get a bigger purse for next time round.

If Mayweather loses he's still eating, doesn't mean he's trying to lose. Is there any proof of guys getting cut more often now?

Journeymen still can fight 30+ times in a year, are they the best defensive boxers around?

Huh? If a man could fight 25 rounds with 6oz gloves and his face isn't cut to shreds afterwards or even particularly marked up - I'd say he's got pretty good defensive abilities.

Like Johnson. Or Fitzsimmons (who was cut a couple of times to be fair - but as far as I remember, rallied to stop the opposition)

ShahenshahG wrote:Not at all but they dont get injured too much if they can fight 30 times a year do they?

Mayweather is a naturally defensive fighter, this is more for someone like Margarito/Pacman - how can you afford to risk your families income by charging in face first? so the better fighters who are not naturally inclined to be defensive must be defensive because a lack of a steady purse may mean that you/your family may starve.

No but ask the guys like Laight, Greaves, Thorpe, and one of the major reasons (aside from obvious skill, officials etc) one of the main reasons they would give for their losses will be lack of notice. It's obviously a factor.

They don't get injured often, but that doesn't mean their defence is great. When was the last time Pacquiao came out of a fight and couldn't fight in a month?

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

No mate - if you get cut you lose and your family doesnt eat. That is the worry. IF I get cut ill get 30 percent of this fight and be ready to fight again by the next one in february - might as well give it a go and try to get a bigger purse for next time round.

If Mayweather loses he's still eating, doesn't mean he's trying to lose. Is there any proof of guys getting cut more often now?

Journeymen still can fight 30+ times in a year, are they the best defensive boxers around?

Huh? If a man could fight 25 rounds with 6oz gloves and his face isn't cut to shreds afterwards or even particularly marked up - I'd say he's got pretty good defensive abilities.

Like Johnson. Or Fitzsimmons (who was cut a couple of times to be fair - but as far as I remember, rallied to stop the opposition)

Or their opponents was undermatched or had a poor offense. Any manner of reasons. There is also enough evidence of guys going into fights injured or with cuts which open up easily from that period.

Manny Pacquiao- Has battered exposed fighters since he fought De La Hoya at "Drainweight" - Clottey, Cotto (Catch), Marg (Catch), Hatton, Mosley (What?!) and everyone is like OMG! He is THE GREATEST. Marquez easily handeld him and should have been given the decision. But still, because of the hype, the judges over look.

Ricky Burns - A weird one here. He IS obviously great, but is it a case of warrens choice of fighters?? Time will tell i suppose.

Devon Alexander - The guy has been given some shocking decisions. St Louis need to wake up along with his stupid ass boss Cunningham

Lucian Bute - Now, this guy is actually good, i mean, he has been world champ for stupid amounts of time. HOWEVER, this guy has seriously fought nobody on his resume for me to stand up and go " You know what, this guy is great, look at who he has fought". Froch has fought Taylor, Abraham, Kessler, Pascal, Dirrell and now about to fight Ward. Now that generally IS class. Same as Kessler who has fought decent quality. Same as Ward who already has scalps over Kessler and Abraham.

Freddie Roach - Now i like the guy, think he is a great trainer. But for him to come out on www.boxingscene.com the other day and claim that Chavez JR wont fight Alvarez at catchweight of 156lbs because he does not agree with those type of fights is a JOKE. He blabbed on about " im not giving that s**t Alvarez an advantag". Does he realise that Pacman has had an advantage in possible every fight since De La Hoya?!?! He dont bang on about that. It is generally annoying. I hope team pacman fight Mayweather, please.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Due to their lack of certain techniques that developed over time, their basic skills would not make them me able to beat guys who came later.

Fine - so what were these magical techniques that old timers didn't yet know?

And how do you know that the old timer didn't know them. Please don't say film again.

The different variety of punched, hooks, jab, straight punches and much more. I gave an example of Lennox during his Pep days. He was world champ yet Manny Steward could still improve his jab and footwork when he started training him. The principal remains with old timers.

And please dont be silly and say that I've claimed that old timers didn't know how to throw a jab or punch straight etc.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=396104&cat=boxer
11

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=216597&cat=boxer
20

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?cat=boxer&human_id=65260
17 in 2010, not sure he’s fighting now.

Are these the world’s best defensive fighters? I don’t think fighting regularly shows you need great defensive skills. Maybe that susceptibility to cuts was more of a factor in being a boxer.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

No mate - if you get cut you lose and your family doesnt eat. That is the worry. IF I get cut ill get 30 percent of this fight and be ready to fight again by the next one in february - might as well give it a go and try to get a bigger purse for next time round.

If Mayweather loses he's still eating, doesn't mean he's trying to lose. Is there any proof of guys getting cut more often now?

Journeymen still can fight 30+ times in a year, are they the best defensive boxers around?

Huh? If a man could fight 25 rounds with 6oz gloves and his face isn't cut to shreds afterwards or even particularly marked up - I'd say he's got pretty good defensive abilities.

Like Johnson. Or Fitzsimmons (who was cut a couple of times to be fair - but as far as I remember, rallied to stop the opposition)

They often went to the body to protect their hands.

alma wrote:getting back to the point, surely the below is a ridiculous statement:

Roy Jones Jr: Unfortunately didn't stretch himself, looked good against pap opposition, fought bum after bum and almost bought boxing to its knees

Surely the fact that RJJ didn't necessarily fight the best around his weight class doesn't make him overrated?

He didn't stretch himself mainly because he was far superior to whatever was out there. McCallum called him the best boxer ever to enter the ring. High praise indeed.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The majority of cuts are from a clash of heads anyway, I'm not sure anyone is thinking their defence doesn't have to be good because they aren't fighting for a while. There's always been defensive and offensive styles.

No mate - if you get cut you lose and your family doesnt eat. That is the worry. IF I get cut ill get 30 percent of this fight and be ready to fight again by the next one in february - might as well give it a go and try to get a bigger purse for next time round.

If Mayweather loses he's still eating, doesn't mean he's trying to lose. Is there any proof of guys getting cut more often now?

Journeymen still can fight 30+ times in a year, are they the best defensive boxers around?

Huh? If a man could fight 25 rounds with 6oz gloves and his face isn't cut to shreds afterwards or even particularly marked up - I'd say he's got pretty good defensive abilities.

Like Johnson. Or Fitzsimmons (who was cut a couple of times to be fair - but as far as I remember, rallied to stop the opposition)

Or their opponents was undermatched or had a poor offense. Any manner of reasons. There is also enough evidence of guys going into fights injured or with cuts which open up easily from that period.

Both Fitzsimmons and Johnson famously fought awful opposition. You must be right. There is evidence of guys going into fights injured - Fitz fought Johnson with a broken arm - they were supposed to just spar but Johnson didn't fancy the risk and brutally stopped bob in 2. There were some fighters known for their propensity to cut. Sullivan-Kilrain was supposed to have been a bit of a bloodbath. I never claimed that everyone in that era was outstanding - that's nonsense. In every era there's going to be the fair share of dross as well as ability. And in an era where cuts were not uncommon - those fighters who didn't get cut must have had a pretty good defence, given that the 6oz gloves will do more damage to an opponents face.

azania wrote:The different variety of punched, hooks, jab, straight punches and much more.

Please provide your evidence for this statement. Stating that Lennox Lewis improved under Manny Steward is not acceptable proof that old timers didn't have the same variety of punches as modern boxers.

azania wrote:They often went to the body to protect their hands.

Please provide your evidence for this statement.

oxring wrote:Both Fitzsimmons and Johnson famously fought awful opposition. You must be right. There is evidence of guys going into fights injured - Fitz fought Johnson with a broken arm - they were supposed to just spar but Johnson didn't fancy the risk and brutally stopped bob in 2. There were some fighters known for their propensity to cut. Sullivan-Kilrain was supposed to have been a bit of a bloodbath. I never claimed that everyone in that era was outstanding - that's nonsense. In every era there's going to be the fair share of dross as well as ability. And in an era where cuts were not uncommon - those fighters who didn't get cut must have had a pretty good defence, given that the 6oz gloves will do more damage to an opponents face.

I'm not saying noone had a good defense, just that regular fighting isn't evidence of a good defense, hence the journeyman examples.

Body punching was considered far more prevalent back then to be fair. Remenant from the light gloved/bareknuckle era where punching to the head would damage unprotected hands more easily.

I understand. I also wouldn't say that regular fighting is evidence of a good defence and accept your journeyman examples. Although - Laight has lost over 100 fights but only been stopped 4 times - so his defence is probably reasonable - its his offence that leaves a lot to be desired.

There's a couple of Poles floating about who've lost 40 fights and been KOd in 37 - can't remember their names - will post them when I get the chance.

manos de piedra wrote:Body punching was considered far more prevalent back then to be fair. Remenant from the light gloved/bareknuckle era where punching to the head would damage unprotected hands more easily.

Also in clinches fighters did not tend to be parted, the expectation was very much that they would fight their way out, perhaps inevitable given this that body work was more prevalent.

Oxy I dont know if you're deliberately displaying some ignorance here or not. Read up on Lennox himself He credits Manny for improving his jab. Now it doesn't take a leap of faith to assume that the old timers who just started wearing gloves needed to learn a few things which boxer now take for granted. But if you believe that one boxer started fighting and knew everything there was to know about a relatively new sport then keep hold of that thought. Let the nostalgia continue. Evidence? Look at you tube but dont blame their poor technique on the film footage or speed of film. Thats a cop out.

Furthermore, it is widely accepted that gloves are there to protect the hands of fighters. It stands to reason that if you wear 6oz gloves you will be more succeptible to injuring your hands. But hey ho. Those oldies were better than those who came later. The Model T is better than any ford combustion engined car. The real McCoy indeed.

Sorry Az but using youtube as a tool to rate the old timers isn't worth the effort, i'll take eye witness accounts anyday over a bit poor quality film and the word of Gene Tunney probably means more than most. A man who never attributed praise to anyone because of his dislike of the barbarism of the sport, so for him to rate Corbett so highly speaks volumes.

People need to move on from this bareknuckle fallacy, John L Sullivan despite being known as a bareknuckle fighter did in fact choose to use gloves for the majority of his fights as was common place in the 1880's and 1890's.

Overall there may have been a rise in quality around the 1900 mark but thats not to say those that went before couldn't compete in later eras, into his 40's Fitzsimmons was still able to dispatch a great fighter in O'Brien in a few rounds, generalisations don't mean everyone was like that.

Do I use Pacquiaos inability to adapt to generalise that defensive techniques are going out the window and that all modern fighters are one dimensional or do I look at each fighter as a single entity?

Think of it another way:

What if over the next couple of years the sport introduced much smaller rings, allowed holding, hitting on the break, clinching, lengthened championship fights back to 15 rounds and authorized smaller gloves with far less padding. All of these changes made within just a few years.

How many fighters nowadays would be suddenly well equipped to deal with all this? Would they all suddenly be experts and well equipped to deal with these changes? Would their styles alter over night to accommodate the changes? I really very much doubt it. Is it not reasonable to assume that over the coming decade or two that styles and techniques would change and that future generations would be beter equipped to deal with the changes?

I think people get too hung up on better v worse arguments when I see it more as a shift in emphsis on different skills, styles and techniques. Its dictated by a needs must basis. Back then a different skillset was used to cope with the times. This changed over time. Its not that unreasonable to think later generations were better learned and equipped to deal with the changes.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sorry Az but using youtube as a tool to rate the old timers isn't worth the effort, i'll take eye witness accounts anyday over a bit poor quality film and the word of Gene Tunney probably means more than most. A man who never attributed praise to anyone because of his dislike of the barbarism of the sport, so for him to rate Corbett so highly speaks volumes.

People need to move on from this bareknuckle fallacy, John L Sullivan despite being known as a bareknuckle fighter did in fact choose to use gloves for the majority of his fights as was common place in the 1880's and 1890's.

Overall there may have been a rise in quality around the 1900 mark but thats not to say those that went before couldn't compete in later eras, into his 40's Fitzsimmons was still able to dispatch a great fighter in O'Brien in a few rounds, generalisations don't mean everyone was like that.

Do I use Pacquiaos inability to adapt to generalise that defensive techniques are going out the window and that all modern fighters are one dimensional or do I look at each fighter as a single entity?

I'd rather use my eyes than take for granted what a 3rd party claims. Moreover I'd always take what ex boxers claim with a huge dose of salt.

As for Pac example, once again you guys use extremes to make your point and those extremes lose its effect because they are ridiculous. Pac is not the best defensive fighter out there. never was and never will be. No matter what era he is in.

manos de piedra wrote:Think of it another way:

What if over the next couple of years the sport introduced much smaller rings, allowed holding, hitting on the break, clinching, lengthened championship fights back to 15 rounds and authorized smaller gloves with far less padding. All of these changes made within just a few years.

How many fighters nowadays would be suddenly well equipped to deal with all this? Would they all suddenly be experts and well equipped to deal with these changes? Would their styles alter over night to accommodate the changes? I really very much doubt it. Is it not reasonable to assume that over the coming decade or two that styles and techniques would change and that future generations would be beter equipped to deal with the changes?

I think people get too hung up on better v worse arguments when I see it more as a shift in emphsis on different skills, styles and techniques. Its dictated by a needs must basis. Back then a different skillset was used to cope with the times. This changed over time. Its not that unreasonable to think later generations were better learned and equipped to deal with the changes.

Except that many here claim that old timers adapted overnight.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Think of it another way:

What if over the next couple of years the sport introduced much smaller rings, allowed holding, hitting on the break, clinching, lengthened championship fights back to 15 rounds and authorized smaller gloves with far less padding. All of these changes made within just a few years.

How many fighters nowadays would be suddenly well equipped to deal with all this? Would they all suddenly be experts and well equipped to deal with these changes? Would their styles alter over night to accommodate the changes? I really very much doubt it. Is it not reasonable to assume that over the coming decade or two that styles and techniques would change and that future generations would be beter equipped to deal with the changes?

I think people get too hung up on better v worse arguments when I see it more as a shift in emphsis on different skills, styles and techniques. Its dictated by a needs must basis. Back then a different skillset was used to cope with the times. This changed over time. Its not that unreasonable to think later generations were better learned and equipped to deal with the changes.

Except that many here claim that old timers adapted overnight.

When in fact, for example, Dempsey never beat anyone if he had to return to a neutral corner after a knockdown.

azania wrote:
I'd rather use my eyes than take for granted what a 3rd party claims.

My eyes tell me Charlie Chaplin used to wak funny.

But who's to say nobody could cope with a change in the rules, all this debate seems to be based on it being new and different, what a load of absolute tosh, judge each fighter on there own individual merits rather than trying to guess based on the situation.

I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

azania wrote:Oxy I dont know if you're deliberately displaying some ignorance here or not. Read up on Lennox himself He credits Manny for improving his jab. Now it doesn't take a leap of faith to assume that the old timers who just started wearing gloves needed to learn a few things which boxer now take for granted. But if you believe that one boxer started fighting and knew everything there was to know about a relatively new sport then keep hold of that thought. Let the nostalgia continue. Evidence? Look at you tube but dont blame their poor technique on the film footage or speed of film. Thats a cop out.

Furthermore, it is widely accepted that gloves are there to protect the hands of fighters. It stands to reason that if you wear 6oz gloves you will be more succeptible to injuring your hands. But hey ho. Those oldies were better than those who came later. The Model T is better than any ford combustion engined car. The real McCoy indeed.

Thank you for your post.

There are a couple of inaccuracies here that I feel are worthy of mention.

azania wrote: Read up on Lennox himself He credits Manny for improving his jab

You don't need to read Lennox to know that Steward improved his jab. Watching him will do that.

It remains irrelevant with regards to this debate. We're not talking about a young fighter improving during his career - we're discussing the technical aptitude of boxers in the later nineteenth century.

You wrote:

azania wrote:The different variety of punched, hooks, jab, straight punches and much more.

Which implies to me that people in the latter 19th century lacked these abilities. Fleischer and Rose - both of whom lived until the era of Ali reckoned they had never seen someone with better straight punches than Fitz. I ask again - what is your evidence that old timers weren't able to throw these punches.

azania wrote: Now it doesn't take a leap of faith to assume that the old timers who just started wearing gloves needed to learn a few things which boxer now take for granted.

It does take a leap of faith - because it flies in the face of all the evidence which we have. Boxing in written history since at least 700BC, with reference to it being older. London Prize rules 1743/1838. Marquess of Queensbury 1865/7. Fitzsimmons wins his title in 1897.

Of course old timers needed to learn technique. That's why they were trained by the likes of Mendoza and Humphries.

Did Joe Louis have good technique? As far as we can tell he had every offensive punch in the book. Who taught him? Jack Blackburn - who was boxing at the turn of the century.

Did Jack Johnson have an excellent defence? Widely argued as one of the best the HW division has ever seen. This is in absolute, not relative terms. Who taught him most of his moves? Choynski, victim of Fitzsimmons and boxer at the turn of the century.

coxscorner wrote:An interesting comparison can be made by looking at two different boxing training manuals one published in 2000 and the other published in 1943 (Naval Aviation Training Manual 1st edition). The old National Police Gazette’s often had famous boxers demonstrate their techniques. Some of these types of techniques can be seen in the Naval Aviator boxing manual but are absent from the modern instruction book. The modern manual is not at all bad showing parries, covering, and ducking, slipping, as well as shoulder and forearm blocks. The older book however also explains stopping (or pinning/trapping), cuffing, weaving, shifting (quick shift, drop shift, rear shift), folding, and open glove blocking –catching the opponent’s leads in the butt of the glove. The older masters had a greater variety of defensive techniques at their disposal than what is being taught in most gyms today.

This does not mean that every boxer before the turn of the century could do all these techniques. But the masters could.

azania wrote:Look at you tube but dont blame their poor technique on the film footage or speed of film. Thats a cop out.

Please provide your film footage of the old timers demonstrating poor technique, such that I can explain how you are wrong. You see, youtube is a big site, with lots of videos.

Some examples I would like from you. Please show Jack Johnson demonstrating his defence. Fitzsimmons demonstrating how to deliver a straight punch, or his left hook to the body. Sullivan demonstrating combination and power punching. Corbett demonstrating his range of shots. Wilde's hooks to the head and body.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

Rubbish.

1. You admit you don't watch modern boxing.
2. You just wrote a post saying how people shouldn't generalise.
3. Plenty of old school boxers walked head first too.

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

Rubbish.

1. You admit you don't watch modern boxing.
2. You just wrote a post saying how people shouldn't generalise.
3. Plenty of old school boxers walked head first too.

That's not really a generalisation to be fair - Ghosty said the amount of top level fighters without defence makes me wonder at the absence of technique. Which accepts that there are some top level fighters with good defensive technique, just not enough.

1. I admit that I don't watch all modern boxing live but anyone who's worth knowing about I do watch.

2. Works both ways does it not, judge a fighter on them not the era, I could generalise Pacquiaos defence as the norm but that would overlook Mayweather, Hopkins, Marquez and Martinez.

3. Where have I ever said they didn't?

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

Rubbish.

1. You admit you don't watch modern boxing.
2. You just wrote a post saying how people shouldn't generalise.
3. Plenty of old school boxers walked head first too.

That's not really a generalisation to be fair - Ghosty said the amount of top level fighters without defence makes me wonder at the absence of technique. Which accepts that there are some top level fighters with good defensive technique, just not enough.

It's a generalisation phrased differently. You criticise Az for talking about an era he doesn't watch but then Ghosty makes these statements after saying he doesn't really watch modern boxing?

I don't even disagree that plenty of boxers don't have good defensive technique. It's just things like 'the art of slipping a punch is lost', 'no one knows how to faint', 'modern trainers have lost the knowledge of old'.

Even though I see these techniques week in, week out.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:But who's to say nobody could cope with a change in the rules, all this debate seems to be based on it being new and different, what a load of absolute tosh, judge each fighter on there own individual merits rather than trying to guess based on the situation.

I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

Becaue invariably somebody comes along with a hypothetical "who beats who" scenario and then proceeds to totally ignore any of these changes and the potential impacts they have.

Most of the old era boxers are rated on what they did in their era. Hence Jeffries, Fitzsimmons etc all are rated highly when in a modern ring their skillsets would put them at a disadvantage agaiinst an all time great.

Plus half of this thread has been about trying to establish whether any changes even occured which people have been essentially disputing. Im all for rating fighters based on their era but occasionally the debate stretches into comparing across eras which is how these debates usually start in the first place.

I just thinks theres an unreasonably amount of resistance to the idea that boxers of later generations were better equipped to deal with the changes that occured than the fighters in the transitional period.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

Rubbish.

1. You admit you don't watch modern boxing.
2. You just wrote a post saying how people shouldn't generalise.
3. Plenty of old school boxers walked head first too.

That's not really a generalisation to be fair - Ghosty said the amount of top level fighters without defence makes me wonder at the absence of technique. Which accepts that there are some top level fighters with good defensive technique, just not enough.

It's a generalisation phrased differently. You criticise Az for talking about an era he doesn't watch but then Ghosty makes these statements after saying he doesn't really watch modern boxing?

Edit - I criticise Az for talking nonsense about an era he doesn't watch.

With regards to Ghosty - I had no idea he didn't watch modern boxing - but in some respects I agree with his point. A blind man throwing darts at a board is going to hit the bullseye some of the time.

Besides - given that Ghosty's been discussing JMM/Pac3, Wlad-Haye - it seems to me like he's watched some of the more recent high profile modern fights.

oxring wrote:Besides - given that Ghosty's been discussing JMM/Pac3, Wlad-Haye - it seems to me like he's watched some of the more recent high profile modern fights.

So has seen great defense by JMM, good ring generalship from Wlad, Haye ducking/slipping etc.

...And the inability of a boxer to throw more than 2 punches and the ability of a different boxer to get inside...

oxring wrote:...And the inability of a boxer to throw more than 2 punches and the ability of a different boxer to get inside...

Yeah I guess, if you like to focus on the negatives of the modern era and the belt politics rather than the matchups. All that seems to get talked about is what belts are on the line, who is the real champ, rather than the fights.

Oxy

So watching Lewis and his improved jab will suffice but watching old timers and their techniques will not suffice. We have to take the word of a 3rd party for more info on 3rd timers. Btw I posted a couple of you tube vids earlier. Its on Page 3 (something I believe you're used to looking at ). Double standards Oxy. Oh i get it. The footage of old timers is poor so we should discount that.

Of course Blackburn was a great trainer. Do you think he stopped learning boxing after he hung up his gloves and all he taught Louis was what the oldied did? Get real hombre. He saw other fighters and how their techniques developed and applied them to a model pro in Louis. You seem to believe that a new sport has stood still since its inception. Plainly ridiculous.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I personally agree with Oxy with regards to defence, the amount of top level fighters around at the moment who have no form of defence makes me wonder where these new techniques have gone, what about the likes of Wladimir Klitschko who only seems able to throw 2 different punches?

Rubbish.

1. You admit you don't watch modern boxing.
2. You just wrote a post saying how people shouldn't generalise.
3. Plenty of old school boxers walked head first too.

That's not really a generalisation to be fair - Ghosty said the amount of top level fighters without defence makes me wonder at the absence of technique. Which accepts that there are some top level fighters with good defensive technique, just not enough.

It's a generalisation phrased differently. You criticise Az for talking about an era he doesn't watch but then Ghosty makes these statements after saying he doesn't really watch modern boxing?

Edit - I criticise Az for talking nonsense about an era he doesn't watch.

With regards to Ghosty - I had no idea he didn't watch modern boxing - but in some respects I agree with his point. A blind man throwing darts at a board is going to hit the bullseye some of the time.

Besides - given that Ghosty's been discussing JMM/Pac3, Wlad-Haye - it seems to me like he's watched some of the more recent high profile modern fights.

I watch enough of it to give a considered opinion. You on the other hand dont appear to watch it instead rely on the written word for your opinions it would seem. You cant have it both ways. Criticize me for apparently not watching it then claim the footage is poor so we should discount it.