Appreciating Rocky

First topic message reminder :

Morning

Since this fighter is one of the most beloved/underrated/overrated on the board I'd like to take an opportunity, once and for all , to memorialise some thoughts on him.

From what I've read and learned about Rocky Marciano over the many years in the beginning he was an acquired taste; it took a long time. But, even the sceptics soon become Marciano believers. He apparently was clumsier in sparring than many could imagine a ham-‘n’-egger against most half-decent boxers in the gym wearing his 16-ounce gloves that looked like the fluffy pillows from Debenhams the wife keeps buying for some reason each week. I see the flaws what the doubters see on tape don't get me wrong, but every guy who looked like they boxed rings around him, the ones who pinned his ears back, the ones never missed him with jabs, came out of the ring looking like he was dropped from a 10-story building and landed flat-footed. Rocky's cuffing, pawing, mauling, grazing shots, flicks to the sides when he was tied-up on the inside, impacted them like they'd been bumped by a rhino. From ringside many reporters said when Rocky landed, the only evidence was an "OOPH!" grimace and quiver.

Rocky was ponderous. Fighters could see the punches. They weren't surprised; they were beat down, every sparring partner who looked sensational against him, said the same thing exiting the ring: "I hurt all over." The wonderkinds and Robinson-clones that watched Rocky in the gym or at the Garden and licked their lips at a future match thought of him like cancer: He could only happen to the other guy.

Off a stat sheet, any number of guys now would be favoured over him, but doing it in the ring proved it would be a sobering experience. The lads yesterday Jeff, Windy, Chris etc mentioned how Archie one of the toughest creatures on earth held Rocky in the highest esteem.

There are certain dimensions to his game, that are not immediately obvious, that quickly became apparent to anybody who shared a ring with him from Louis to Ali.

I cant remember who said "it hurt to bump into him", but they probably summed it up best. He could seemingly make an oponent hurt for every second of every round, and he was a lot more unpredictable than people think.

This is one fighter who definitely had the devil inside him.

I tend to rate him in the listings higher than most, Rocky is my number 3, not the most glamorous c.v I accept, however his undefeated feat and winning streak is yet to be replicated in any era at the heavyweights top level, that is proof to me thats how difficult it is.

Thanks and have a great day.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Charles, Walcott and Moore were still highly skilled, far more adept fighters than anyone we have fighting in the top division today.

Comparing them to the Ali of the Holmes fight is ridiculous.

Do you believe that those guys, at the time they fought Rocky, would be contenders or champions today?

Chris Byrd, Michael Moorer, Michael Spinks, Roy Jones Junior, and David Haye haven't done too shabbily.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:An appallingly weak period in HW boxing history. Comparable only to today.

1915, Willard dethrones Johnson, and makes ONE defence in four years.

1928 to 1937, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer and Braddock - each talented but flawed - play ' pass the parcel ' with the title and muster THREE successful defences among them.

1956 to 1962, D'Amato refuses to let Patterson fight the dangerous contenders, even though Floyd has the guts and the character to face them.

Marciano defended against the best of his day, all but two of them HOFers.

Charles, Walcott and Moore were either blown up LHW or old men. Its irrespective that they were HOFers. Holmes beat the best HW in history who as is agreed was old, past it. To be blunt...shot to pieces. I'm not saying that Moore et al were as shot as Ali but they were past it nevertherless.

Charles was two years older than Rocky. Walcott was in the form of his life, as was Moore.

Shall I - for the twentieth time - print out a list of Holmes' challengers ?

Charles had seen better days. Moore was a LHW who started off as a middleweight fighting a heavy. Many of the guys Holmes beat would have been champions in that era imo. Certainly Witherspoon would have been (tim not Chad )

I also forgot to mention Holyfield, a natural cruiser, in my post, above.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Charles, Walcott and Moore were still highly skilled, far more adept fighters than anyone we have fighting in the top division today.

Comparing them to the Ali of the Holmes fight is ridiculous.

Do you believe that those guys, at the time they fought Rocky, would be contenders or champions today?

Chris Byrd, Michael Moorer, Michael Spinks, Roy Jones Junior, and David Haye haven't done too shabbily.

In a period of multiple belts, far to many have claimed a title which has been seriously undeserved. I see Byrd in the same way I see Francesco Damiani and Akinwande. Contenders and nothing more.

Moorer got lucky in that he fought a sick Holy. Spinks for a birthday, Xmas and father's day present all in one. RJJ beat a belt holder. Haye is a belt holder. When Holmes reigned he held the WMC and then the IBF belt, but was recognised as THE man.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Charles, Walcott and Moore were still highly skilled, far more adept fighters than anyone we have fighting in the top division today.

Comparing them to the Ali of the Holmes fight is ridiculous.

Do you believe that those guys, at the time they fought Rocky, would be contenders or champions today?

Chris Byrd, Michael Moorer, Michael Spinks, Roy Jones Junior, and David Haye haven't done too shabbily.

In a period of multiple belts, far to many have claimed a title which has been seriously undeserved. I see Byrd in the same way I see Francesco Damiani and Akinwande. Contenders and nothing more.

Moorer got lucky in that he fought a sick Holy. Spinks for a birthday, Xmas and father's day present all in one. RJJ beat a belt holder. Haye is a belt holder. When Holmes reigned he held the WMC and then the IBF belt, but was recognised as THE man.

While I share your views on SOME of the fighters I mentioned, it isn't the point, is it ? You asked if Charles & co. could compete today. If Byrd, etc., could, then the answer is ' yes. '

Ezzard Charles is one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. So is Moore.

And I have reservations that the Charles who lost to Rocky would win any belt. The Charles of 2-3 years prior could and probably would have. Not Moore though.

azania wrote:And I have reservations that the Charles who lost to Rocky would win any belt. The Charles of 2-3 years prior could and probably would have. Not Moore though.

We'll agree to differ on Charles.

As to Moore, I don't believe he could be heavy champ, either.

Could Bob Foster, who fought both Ali and Frazier ? Billy Conn and John Henry Lewis, who fought Louis ? Tommy Loughran, who challenged Carnera ? Young Stribling, who challenged Schmeling ? Georges Carpentier or Tommy Gibbons, who challenged Dempsey ? How about Philadelphia Jack O'Brien or Stanley Ketchel, ( a middleweight !!! ) who padded out Jack Johnson's reign ?

Marciano isn't the only champ to take a challenge from a lightheavy, and Rocky, himself, only weighed around 185lb.

Not to mention that your man Holmes LOST his crown to a lightheavy.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:And I have reservations that the Charles who lost to Rocky would win any belt. The Charles of 2-3 years prior could and probably would have. Not Moore though.

We'll agree to differ on Charles.

As to Moore, I don't believe he could be heavy champ, either.
Could Bob Foster, who fought both Ali and Frazier ? Billy Conn and John Henry Lewis, who fought Louis ? Tommy Loughran, who challenged Carnera ? Young Stribling, who challenged Schmeling ? Georges Carpentier or Tommy Gibbons, who challenged Dempsey ? How about Philadelphia Jack O'Brien or Stanley Ketchel, ( a middleweight !!! ) who padded out Jack Johnson's reign ?

Marciano isn't the only champ to take a challenge from a lightheavy, and Rocky, himself, only weighed around 185lb.

We agree on something.

Some of those guys would have a chance (based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game 8) ) would have a chance today based on Haye being chinny imo. Never in a million would they beat any of the Klits.

As for spinks, only the judges and Holmes haters would see any of his fights as anything other than a win for Holmes. Interestingly though, Holmes was 48-0 at the time of the Spinks "loss".

Judges Marciano fans you reckon?

Scottrf wrote:Judges Marciano fans you reckon?

Or Holmes haters. Larry hardly ever got the breaks. His schooling of Cooney was deemed a close fight by the judges until the KO.

based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game
_______________________________________________________

Too right, have always felt Moore and Charles would be better if they got rid of that annoying habit of slipping punches or blocking them with their elbows we have fortunately seen the back of in the modern game

azania wrote:

Some of those guys would have a chance (based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game 8) ) would have a chance today based on Haye being chinny imo. Never in a million would they beat any of the Klits

So Foster and the other lightheavies I mentioned would have a chance, in your opinion, but Moore, who in my opinion is second only to Charles at lightheavy, doesn't ?

By the way, Holmes' opponents, during his peak years, had accrued an average of EIGHTEEN fights. Marciano's opponents, during his prime, had an average of SIXTY FIVE, much of it against the very best fighters of the day. I'm not saying that Marciano is necessarily better than Holmes, but I am saying that he is a genuine contender for a berth among the ten elite heavies.

rowley wrote:based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game
_______________________________________________________

Too right, have always felt Moore and Charles would be better if they got rid of that annoying habit of slipping punches or blocking them with their elbows we have fortunately seen the back of in the modern game

With the modern stuff, Moore would have been a ripped LHW, who would be stronger and faster. Add that to his natural talent he would have been a donimant champ.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Some of those guys would have a chance (based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game 8) ) would have a chance today based on Haye being chinny imo. Never in a million would they beat any of the Klits

So Foster and the other lightheavies I mentioned would have a chance, in your opinion, but Moore, who in my opinion is second only to Charles at lightheavy, doesn't ?

By the way, Holmes' opponents, during his peak years, had accrued an average of EIGHTEEN fights. Marciano's opponents, during his prime, had an average of SIXTY FIVE, much of it against the very best fighters of the day. I'm not saying that Marciano is necessarily better than Holmes, but I am saying that he is a genuine contender for a berth among the ten elite heavies.

Windy, I mentioned Haye as he is a paper champ. I do not consider him a world champ (I'm not making the rules as I go along here). I've been consistent all along in my views of what consititutes a champ (Ring Belt etc).

In Rocky's time those guys fought on a fortnightly basis almost. They fought for wages.

Once again, if you read my earlier posts, I said I would rank Rocky in the top 10 ATG based on his achievement. In a H2H fight, he would lose to over 50 other HWs.

azania wrote:In Rocky's time those guys fought on a fortnightly basis almost. They fought for wages.

What difference does that make ?

They still had experience and savvy, gathered from fighting the very best of their day, facing many different styles. Charles' resumé is among the best of any fighter, at any weight, in the entire history of boxing. Of course, he wasn't deemed to be quite at his best when he fought Rocky first time out, but he was still a great fighter, and a darned sight better than Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenbereger, Jose King Roman, Scott LeDoux, etc., and ON THE NIGHT his performances against Rocky were inspired.

Far too simplistic to suggest that a fighter, past his prime, is incapable of pulling a great performance out of the hat.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game
_______________________________________________________

Too right, have always felt Moore and Charles would be better if they got rid of that annoying habit of slipping punches or blocking them with their elbows we have fortunately seen the back of in the modern game

With the modern stuff, Moore would have been a ripped LHW, who would be stronger and faster. Add that to his natural talent he would have been a donimant champ.

What modern stuff do you refer to. Keep hearing people talk about these "modern techniques" without specifiying what they are and what improvements thet have reaped. D4 posted Manny's training regime the other day and there was nothing in there old timers could not have done. Think it is lazy to assume all old timers were completely naive about what was good and bad preparation. Read a biography of Freddie Welsh who was active way before Moore and he was already watching what foods he consumed and his training focused on not just boxing but muscle relaxation and subtleness and such like.

From what I can see the only things modern fighters (not all) do that old timers did not is weight training and pad work and as I have argued countless times in the past these technqiues can do more harm than good.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game
_______________________________________________________

Too right, have always felt Moore and Charles would be better if they got rid of that annoying habit of slipping punches or blocking them with their elbows we have fortunately seen the back of in the modern game

With the modern stuff, Moore would have been a ripped LHW, who would be stronger and faster. Add that to his natural talent he would have been a donimant champ.

What modern stuff do you refer to. Keep hearing people talk about these "modern techniques" without specifiying what they are and what improvements thet have reaped. D4 posted Manny's training regime the other day and there was nothing in there old timers could not have done. Think it is lazy to assume all old timers were completely naive about what was good and bad preparation. Read a biography of Freddie Welsh who was active way before Moore and he was already watching what foods he consumed and his training focused on not just boxing but muscle relaxation and subtleness and such like.

From what I can see the only things modern fighters (not all) do that old timers did not is weight training and pad work and as I have argued countless times in the past these technqiues can do more harm than good.

Elite athletes when in training eat a completely different food group (Toney notwithstanding), use different drinks, take additional suppliments (not Eval Field), train using facilities designed for each muscle group. Chopping logs and hitting huge tyres is good, but things have moved on somewhat.

azania wrote:Elite athletes when in training eat a completely different food group (Toney notwithstanding), use different drinks, take additional suppliments (not Eval Field), train using facilities designed for each muscle group. Chopping logs and hitting huge tyres is good, but things have moved on somewhat.

Is it BETTER or DIFFERENT ?

Let's, for a moment, assume that it's better. Better how ? Does it make a fighter stronger than another fighter without this diet, or does it simply mean that a fighter who utilizes these dietary aids reaches his peak QUICKER than one who doesn't ?

While contemplating your answer, ask yourself this :

How many of today's heavies could sprint 100yards in under eleven seconds and high jump six feet ?

Jeffries could. In 1904.

Marciano, by the way, is regarded by just about everybody as having been one of the very best conditioned heavyweights of all time. To say that the moderns come anywhere near to having his stamina belies all common sense.

Chopping trees always was and still is excellent exercise for a boxer, works the same muscles needed for punching, extends muscles rather than contracts them. Just because something is old does not mean it ceases to be valid or useful.

Whether there have been the radical developments in nutrition and training you claim still does not change the fact were Moore fighting now he would have had about 35 fights by the time he hit 30 rather than the countless more he had then, which means he could be the most ripped and nourished guy in the world with not a scrap of experience or ring knowledge to compliment his rippling physique.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:based on their talent if taught properly in the modern game
_______________________________________________________

Too right, have always felt Moore and Charles would be better if they got rid of that annoying habit of slipping punches or blocking them with their elbows we have fortunately seen the back of in the modern game

With the modern stuff, Moore would have been a ripped LHW, who would be stronger and faster. Add that to his natural talent he would have been a donimant champ.

What modern stuff do you refer to. Keep hearing people talk about these "modern techniques" without specifiying what they are and what improvements thet have reaped. D4 posted Manny's training regime the other day and there was nothing in there old timers could not have done. Think it is lazy to assume all old timers were completely naive about what was good and bad preparation. Read a biography of Freddie Welsh who was active way before Moore and he was already watching what foods he consumed and his training focused on not just boxing but muscle relaxation and subtleness and such like.

From what I can see the only things modern fighters (not all) do that old timers did not is weight training and pad work and as I have argued countless times in the past these technqiues can do more harm than good.

Elite athletes when in training eat a completely different food group (Toney notwithstanding), use different drinks, take additional suppliments (not Eval Field), train using facilities designed for each muscle group. Chopping logs and hitting huge tyres is good, but things have moved on somewhat.

Absolute no proof these have enhanced any improvement in performance, Jim Watt and Matthew Macklin both hit the nail on the head on ringside, you can do as many isometric drills, and take as many supplements as you like, but you cant beat roadwork and sparring.

Cheers Rodders

I'd like to know how these fitness aids improve the following :

Savvy
Tactical nous
Hand - to - eye coordination
Judgement of distances
Guts
Punch resistance
Timing
Reflexes
Determination
Ability to block, slip, duck
Balance
Correct punching technique
Ability to ' read ' an opponent

Anybody have any idea ?

I have no idea Windy but I can say with some degree of confidence that spending time in an actual boxing ring with another fighter who is trying to win would improve each and everyone of those things. Old timers did this frequently, modern fighters do it far less frequently. Guess which one I feel will develop these essential skills quicker and better.

And for those struggling to work it out it ain't the guy sat out of action for six months with a protein shake in his hand

rowley wrote:I have no idea Windy but I can say with some degree of confidence that spending time in an actual boxing ring with another fighter who is trying to win would improve each and everyone of those things. Old timers did this frequently, modern fighters do it far less frequently. Guess which one I feel will develop these essential skills quicker and better.

And for those struggling to work it out it ain't the guy sat out of action for six months with a protein shake in his hand

Exactly, jeff.

Fighters train to fight, and no amount of dips, squats, reps, can be better than the real thing. That was Eddie Futch's argument, that a fighter stays fitter, MORE ALERT, sharper, etc., by being in the ring more often, with the added bonus that he is coming up against a variety of styles, ( Ray Arcel's argument, ) in the process.

There's no better training for fighting than fighting.

Like with all other sports the standards in boxing keep improving with time. You'd never even hear this arguement on any other sports forum. Imagine say the All Blacks rugby team of the '60s compared to todays.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Like with all other sports the standards in boxing keep improving with time. You'd never even hear this arguement on any other sports forum. Imagine say the All Blacks rugby team of the '60s compared to todays.

So are you saying that modern fighters are better than the old timers.

Oh my goodness, Az. No offense but you are talking some real pap with this 'modern techniques and diet' schtick. Two words: Jeff Lacy. Looked much more the beefcake in comparison to the Welshman, but it didn't much help him.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Like with all other sports the standards in boxing keep improving with time. You'd never even hear this arguement on any other sports forum. Imagine say the All Blacks rugby team of the '60s compared to todays.

Smaller talent pool than ever before ; fewer trainers teaching the old skills, the opinions of men like Ray Arcel, who trained so many world champions from Benny Leonard in the twenties right through to Duran in the seventies, would suggest the opposite.

We also have plenty of film of the old timers to see with our own eyes that many old time skills such as elbow blocking, feinting, etc., have been neglected in modern times.

Which welter from today beats Robinson ?

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/myth.html

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Like with all other sports the standards in boxing keep improving with time. You'd never even hear this arguement on any other sports forum. Imagine say the All Blacks rugby team of the '60s compared to todays.

Smaller talent pool than ever before ; fewer trainers teaching the old skills, the opinions of men like Ray Arcel, who trained so many world champions from Benny Leonard in the twenties right through to Duran in the seventies, would suggest the opposite.

We also have plenty of film of the old timers to see with our own eyes that many old time skills such as elbow blocking, feinting, etc., have been neglected in modern times.

Which welter from today beats Robinson ?

It's like saying which is the best football team ever. Most would probably say the 1970's Brazil team. Which is fair enough, they were great compared to their contempories. Compared to todays standard they are nothing thoungh, and I'd back every Premiership and most Championship teams to beat them easily.

SRR was great in his day, and it's fighters like him that have helped to progress the sport to its pinnacle of today.

Boxing has progressed from the circus side shows of 50 years ago into a global sport.

Smaller talent pool than ever before

That's just not true though is it.

How many Phillipino kids took up boxing in the 1950's ?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Like with all other sports the standards in boxing keep improving with time. You'd never even hear this arguement on any other sports forum. Imagine say the All Blacks rugby team of the '60s compared to todays.

Smaller talent pool than ever before ; fewer trainers teaching the old skills, the opinions of men like Ray Arcel, who trained so many world champions from Benny Leonard in the twenties right through to Duran in the seventies, would suggest the opposite.

We also have plenty of film of the old timers to see with our own eyes that many old time skills such as elbow blocking, feinting, etc., have been neglected in modern times.

Which welter from today beats Robinson ?

It's like saying which is the best football team ever. Most would probably say the 1970's Brazil team. Which is fair enough, they were great compared to their contempories. Compared to todays standard they are nothing thoungh, and I'd back every Premiership and most Championship teams to beat them easily.

SRR was great in his day, and it's fighters like him that have helped to progress the sport to its pinnacle of today.

Boxing has progressed from the circus side shows of 50 years ago into a global sport.

I've been watching boxing for nearly fifty years and I reckon it has gone downhill.

How can it be better with fewer competitors, fewer fights, more titles, more weight divisions, more avoiding of the best competitors ?

The opinions of men like Futch and Arcel, who have seen several generations of boxing, including the modern era, are worth a darned sight more than ours. They saw it all first hand.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Smaller talent pool than ever before

That's just not true though is it.

How many Phillipino kids took up boxing in the 1950's ?

It is a documented fact.

Here's an article from the IBRO archives concerning Mike Silver's book, ' The Arc Of Boxing.'


Mike Silver has written the most definitive analyses of the classic “old school” vs. “new school” boxing debate I have ever read. This is a book that belongs on every fan’s bookshelf. It is an important work that reverberates with insight and wisdom, answering with startling clarity who deserves to be ranked among the greatest fighters of all time—and who does not.

Silver, a lifelong New Yorker, has carried on a love affair with the beleaguered sport since he trained as a youngster at the fabled Stillman’s Gym in the 1950s. Over the past few decades he’s been a promoter, as well as an inspector for the New York State Athletic Commission, and a renowned historian who has offered commentary on HBO, PBS and ESPN. Anyone who knows him will agree that when Silver talks boxing, you can’t help but listen.

In his new book, “The Arc of Boxing: The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science,” (McFarland & Company, 229 pages, 50 photos), Silver offers compelling evidence of the ongoing regression of boxing skills. He explains how—and why—the top fighters of the past 20 years are not on the same level as those who came of age during the sport’s Golden Age of talent and activity, which he defines as the 1920s to the 1950s.

When he writes that “unlike their golden age counterparts, one rarely sees today’s fighters—from rank novice to multiple belt holders—duck, parry, slip, sidestep, ride, weave or roll to avoid punches,” the reader is given a crash course in the lost arts of infighting, feinting, body punching, footwork, and counter-punching skills that used to be part and parcel of a seasoned contender’s repertoire.

Silver utilizes his own vast knowledge, as well as the insights of a respected array of panelists that includes trainers Teddy Atlas, Freddie Roach, Emanuel Steward and former lightweight champion Carlos Ortiz. In addition, over a dozen other experts, some of whom are old enough to have personally witnessed the greatest fighters of the past 70 years, offer their discerning comments. This may be the last opportunity to delve into the wealth of information and knowledge they have to offer concerning these issues.

Dozens of champs, both past and present, are scrutinized and evaluated. Floyd Mayweather Jr.’s fights with De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton are deconstructed, revealing weaknesses in Mayweather’s style that, the experts claim, would have been exploited by the top lightweight and welterweight fighters from previous decades.

“If Floyd was born 50 years earlier his athleticism and natural ability would be the foundation—not the end product—for his development into a seasoned and technically proficient fighter,” opines Silver.

Silver does not blame the modern day fighters for their inadequacies. He sees them as a product of their time. Many possess the raw talent but have no chance of reaching their full potential because fighters no longer have to “pay their dues the old fashioned way.” By fighting just 3 or 4 times a year against mediocre opposition, there is simply no opportunity to acquire the kind of extensive experience and bout-to-bout education that empowered the great fighters of the golden age.

The book reveals how the current vacuum of expert teachers/trainers has created “a fertile breeding ground for gimmickry and artifice that is of little use to a fighter.” An entire chapter is devoted to the misuse of weight training and the effects of steroid use. Even the popular and ubiquitous “punch pad” workouts are taken to task.

“Old school trainers rarely, if ever, used them,” writes Silver. “They believed that hitting the pads with the same combinations over and over had limited teaching potential and emphasized a robotic ‘bang, bang’ style of boxing. Their use did not encourage a fighter to think…everything that is taught with the pads achieved better results using the heavy bag.” The extent to which punch pad workouts are used, he adds, “is just another indication of the dumbed down quality of today’s boxing instruction.”

As Silver makes abundantly clear, today’s fighters are also impeded by the pressure to maintain an undefeated record. Promoters, managers and television executives have magnified the cost of defeat to the point that many former amateur stars are carefully navigated to maintain an unbeaten record while waiting to secure a lucrative TV appearance. This “must win syndrome” hinders the fighter’s progress. Over the past 20 years it has fostered a “mismatch culture” that minimizes the number of competitive matches because no fighter with any promise wants to take a chance on losing. When boxing was in its heyday, a defeat did not carry the same stigma that it does today. It was considered a normal part of the learning process.

Silver also places Bernard Hopkins’ decade-long dominance of the middleweight division in historical context. He gives Hopkins his due as a talented and well-rounded professional “by today’s standards,” but considers his placement among the all-time greats as unwarranted. He explains, “Great middleweight champions such as Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Freddie Steele, Mickey Walker, Marcel Cerdan and Jake La Motta could never have defended their titles 20 times over 10 years against the kind of brutal competition that populated the middleweight division from the 1920s to the 1950s. It is even more ridiculous to think any of these fighters—no matter how great—could have been ‘dominant’ in their respective eras as they approached their 40th birthday”. The conclusion reached is that Hopkins’ dominance of a division that was once considered the toughest in boxing is not proof of his greatness— it is proof of how far boxing has regressed.

Silver believes that if Hopkins campaigned 50 or more years ago his talents would be considered just average. He believes it would even be questionable if Hopkins would have been world-rated, let alone win a world championship. “Both Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins benefited from the worst assortment of challengers ever faced by a middleweight or light heavyweight champion since the advent of boxing gloves,” he asserts. “Is it any wonder they stood out as giants in a land of pygmies?”

Silver also exposes the fallacious nature of the absurdly high KO records of today’s fighters. Another eye-opening chapter debunks the myth that today’s 250-300 pound heavyweights (he calls them “dreadful dreadnoughts”) would have been too big for the “small” 190 to 210 pound heavyweight contenders and champions from the 1920s to the 1970s. He is particularly critical of media “faux experts” who, lacking both perspective and frame of reference, too often attribute greatness to ordinary fighters, thereby obfuscating the superior achievements and skills of the truly great fighters of the past.

“It is high time for boxing’s overused words ‘dominant’ and ‘great’ to be given a rest,” writes Silver. “Since the 1990s both words have been used to wretched excess. Let’s be perfectly clear: there are no great fighters today, and under the present circumstances it is impossible to produce one.”

Last, but certainly not least, he describes what he believes to be the severe damage done to boxing and boxers by what he calls the “alphabet-promoter cartels” who he says “have had a free hand in ruining the sport for the past 30 years.”

Although it might sound like it, Silver is not a curmudgeon or a knee-jerk believer in the myth that what’s old is always better than what’s new. He, as well as his panel of experts, persuasively state their cases while speaking with great authority and insight. After reading this entertaining treasure trove of boxing “insider” knowledge I felt like I had taken a graduate course in the finer points of the “sweet science.” The book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what happened to boxing.

This, from a man who has been involved in boxing, at every level, for well over half a century, and is commonly regarded as a world authority.

How can it be better with fewer competitors, fewer fights, more titles, more weight divisions, more avoiding of the best competitors ?

The opinions of men like Futch and Arcel, who have seen several generations of boxing, including the modern era, are worth a darned sight more than ours. They saw it all first hand.

I simply don't believe that there are fewer competitors and fights.

Next weekend there are 93 pro sanctioned fights.

This weekend in 1961 there were 49.

The opinions of old trainers and fans are just "it was better in my day" stuff.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

How can it be better with fewer competitors, fewer fights, more titles, more weight divisions, more avoiding of the best competitors ?

The opinions of men like Futch and Arcel, who have seen several generations of boxing, including the modern era, are worth a darned sight more than ours. They saw it all first hand.

I simply don't believe that there are fewer competitors and fights.

Next weekend there are 93 pro sanctioned fights.

This weekend in 1961 there were 49.

The opinions of old trainers and fans are just "it was better in my day" stuff.

Well, be that as it may, but it's a fact.

What are my opinions based on, then, as a fan of nearly fifty years ? While we're at it, what are yours based on ? Have you seen Benny Leonard, Ezzard Charles, Tunney, Joe Gans, Eder Jofre, etc. ?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

How can it be better with fewer competitors, fewer fights, more titles, more weight divisions, more avoiding of the best competitors ?

The opinions of men like Futch and Arcel, who have seen several generations of boxing, including the modern era, are worth a darned sight more than ours. They saw it all first hand.

I simply don't believe that there are fewer competitors and fights.

Next weekend there are 93 pro sanctioned fights.

This weekend in 1961 there were 49.

The opinions of old trainers and fans are just "it was better in my day" stuff.

Yup. That's exactly correct. This thread can be closed now. No further entries are needed. Move along people.

Show me these facts.

And yes, I have seen footage of the old greats, and I respect what they did. But to say for example that Gene Tunney would have a chance against Vitali Klitschko or Lennox Lewis is laughable.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

How can it be better with fewer competitors, fewer fights, more titles, more weight divisions, more avoiding of the best competitors ?

The opinions of men like Futch and Arcel, who have seen several generations of boxing, including the modern era, are worth a darned sight more than ours. They saw it all first hand.

I simply don't believe that there are fewer competitors and fights.

Next weekend there are 93 pro sanctioned fights.

This weekend in 1961 there were 49.

The opinions of old trainers and fans are just "it was better in my day" stuff.

Yup. That's exactly correct. This thread can be closed now. No further entries are needed. Move along people.

Priceless, isn't it ?

Boxing was a ' circus sideshow ' fifty years ago. Not the way I remember it. Of course, we didn't have anybody as good as Valuev, though.

Hang on a minute..........' circus sideshow '

Hmm.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Show me these facts.

And yes, I have seen footage of the old greats, and I respect what they did. But to say for example that Gene Tunney would have a chance against Vitali Klitschko or Lennox Lewis is laughable.

Find them yourself.

You could begin by reading the articles for which I provided links.

Simple question for folk. Do you believe a fighter will be better after 50 fights or 20?

Think most would agree 50 because you will have encoutered more so will know how to deal with more things so when confronted by differing things in fights you will know how to react, that is how experience works.

Now if we accept this seems reasonable to ask would you be a better fighter if you gained this experience at 25 or 45, the answer again seems simple because physically we are all better at 25 than 45 and that is true across the ages. For me that is the absolute key to why the old timers were on the whole superior, simply because they fought more and so gained experience which is key in any sport so much sooner.

We can surely all relate to this in our working lifes. I have been in my current job ten months and I can do my job quicker and to a better standard than 10 months ago because I have experience I can draw on I simply did not have then.

I've been following this thread for a couple days now, and it's frustrating at how blinkered some people can be. Take the argument about no other sport being subjected to the same rose-tinted nostalgia. Just look at George Best: he may not have had access to the kind of dietary analysis and hi-tech training equipment as players of today, but he seems to have done alright on a diet of Guinness and page three models.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Show me these facts.

And yes, I have seen footage of the old greats, and I respect what they did. But to say for example that Gene Tunney would have a chance against Vitali Klitschko or Lennox Lewis is laughable.

Find them yourself.

You could begin by reading the articles for which I provided links.

Happy to oblige, this is an old article I posted on 606 which provides participation figures and also the number of rounds taken to get a fighter to a title, which dovetails the points both myself and Windy were making

Few subjects raise the temperature or stimulate debate on these pages like the debate as to how mordern fighters compare with those from the perceived "Golden Age" I personally have always found the subject and debate fascinating.

Two points I have always put forward in support of those from yesteryear is the amount of participation in the sport back in the day and the schooling old time fighters received on their way up compared with their modern counterparts. I'm in the process of reading an absorbing book on this very subject by Boxing historian Mike Silver called The Arc of Boxing - The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science.

In amongst the many arguments Silver puts forward in support of his theory that boxing has declined over the years he puts forward some very interesting statistics relating to the two points above which I thought I would re-produce to get people's opinions.

In relation to participation in New York in 1925 there were 1890 licenced professional boxers rising to 2000 two years later, today there are approximately 50 registered in New York, a staggering drop and figures that are mirrored nationally. In the 20's and 30's there were between 8000 and 10,000 pros in the US whereas in 2006 there were only 2850 active boxers in the US. Seems fair to argue IMO that in an environment where fewer and fewer people are participating the talent pool is bound to diminish.

Perhaps even more eye opening though is the average number of rounds a fighters commonly fights before he wins his first world title. The figures below show this number for every ten yars since 1925 up to fairly recently.

1925 - 644
1935 - 478
1945 - 377
1955 - 417
1965 - 275
1975 - 245
1985 - 157
1995 - 106
2007 - 143

What this means is that a guy who wins a title nowadays will have fought on average some 500 rounds less than his counterpart in 1925. It seems obvious, or at least it does to me, a guy with 600+ rounds under his belt is going to be a more rounded and experienced fighter, more adept at coping with different styles and scenarios than a guy with not 150 yet, that seems to be just common sense.

Another point which I feel follows on from that is not just the lack of rounds but the lack of QUALITY rounds todays fighters have on their way up. Seems to me now the guiding principle with a prospect now is to get them to around the 20 fight mark with their 0 still intact. This was simply not the case in the 'golden age' fighters were matched to really learn their trade, to face every kind of style and opponent, be they southpaws, punchers, movers, counter-punchers, rough house fighters, the whole gamut and if they happened to pick up a loss or two along the way then so be it.

As such fighters were matched tough, Archie Moore was matched with Teddy Yarosz on his way up, Marciano was matched with Ted Lowry, Burley and Robinson were matched with Zivic (commonly billed as the dirtiest fighter of all time). It didn't matter if fighters picked up the odd loss as Moore did to Yarosz and Burley did to Zivic first time, they took the loss as worth the price to pay for the experience. The benefits of this approach are probably bst summed up by Sugar Ray Robinson when discussing his two fights with Zivic who simply stated "he taught me more in 20 rounds of fighting than anyone, he had all the answers, he was boxings dictionary"

Realise a lot of this comes across as a grumpy old man ranting but ask yourself when was the last time a young highly touted prospect was put in a fight that they started as anything less than a 60-40 favourite in. You may be able to come up with the odd one but they will be very much the exception rather than the norm. Read up about the old time greats and their records are littered with fights on their way up that were genuine pick ems. I am personally firmly of the opinion that this over cautious match making and obsession with unbeaten records is to the sports and fighters detriment.

Don't necessarily agree with the extent to which Silver argues the sport has declined but do find a lot of what he says and the evidence he provides fairly compelling but would be keen to hear what others think of his arguments and whether we feel the sport is in genuine decline.

The numbers are just the the US jeff. The sport is a lot more globalised now. Chris was supposed to find out the number of registered pro's for past years worldwide but never did.

Ok I suppose Boxing, unlike any other sport, must have got worse over the last 50 years for some vague unproveable reasons. Yes those old guys with their 'put your dukes up' style would have beaten modern greats easily. I guess modern trainers must have looked at footage of the skills and techniques of the old timers and just decided not to pass any of it on to the new crop. I bet in another 50 years time boxers will be coming to the ring with their gloves on the wrong hands and be unable to remember how to throw a punch. God things were better back in the day.

rowley wrote:Don't necessarily agree with the extent to which Silver argues the sport has declined but do find a lot of what he says and the evidence he provides fairly compelling but would be keen to hear what others think of his arguments and whether we feel the sport is in genuine decline.

That's exactly where I stand, jeff.

I believe that the modern greats, such as Floyd, Manny, the Fab Four, Holmes, RJJ, etc., are every bit as good as the greats of yesteryear, ( and vice versa, ) but IN GENERAL boxing has declined, and we don't see the true greats SO OFTEN now.

It's a fair point Chris but think the sport was pretty popular in Europe and Australia at the time and so if those areas had seen similar drop offs as the states is questionable whether small pockets of Asia will be sufficient to make up the shortfall because whilst there is no question countries like the Philippines have increased in participation there are still several massive population masses there such as India and China which have not really increased.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote: ...those old guys with their 'put your dukes up' style...

Have you even watched any of the guys from the eras in question?

, , a thousand times;

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Ok I suppose Boxing, unlike any other sport, must have got worse over the last 50 years for some vague unproveable reasons. Yes those old guys with their 'put your dukes up' style would have beaten modern greats easily.

That, alone, tells me you've never seen Robinson, Jofre, Tunney, etc.

Out of interest, how do you rate Harry Greb ?

Jukebox, sarcastic tone aside it is possible training has declined. Fighters back in the day fought every couple of weeks so cuts were fatal to their earning potential, because of that the ability to slip punches and avoid cuts was essential. With fighters fighting once every six months it doesn't matter greatly if they pick up cuts.

Is it beyond the imagination that this is an environment where the subtler aspects of defensive work will decline, with necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

This idea that skills will improve over time just because they will doesn't stack up. As windy as rightly argued, 500 years ago most men in England were proficent in horsemanship and with a sword, are we on the whole better with such skills than we were 500 years ago, no because on the whole we do it less and because we don't need these skills they have on the whole eroded.