Old School Vs New School

I remember a time on the board when New School Vs Old School was often debated.

My position is that modern boxers are typicaly more skilled than those of yesteryear (I'll pick an arbitrary date, say 1955, but I'm happy for this to be changed).

However in one-on-one fights, correcting for differences in weight, they would not be as disadvanted as some make out against there modern counterparts.

By 'correcting for weight' I mean Jack Demsey would no longer be fighting at heavyweight, therefore he shouldn't be pitted against either Klitschko. To complicate matters further, and this will require some speculation, we will have to agree on, when discussing hypothetical matchups, whether the fighters weigh-in the day of the fight or the day before and what they would weigh on fight night.

For a long time I held the position that brilliant highly skilled modern boxers would invariably win these match-ups, however after considering the relative success of limited modern fighters, such as Maidana, Steve Collins, Mickey Ward etc, my opinion has somewhat changed, so I now think old world boxers wouldn't fair to bad.

It will be interesting to discuss the weights the old guys would fight at, the weights the modern boxers would feel safe fighting at if they weighed in the day of the fight (should we agree thats the criteria), and most importantly the outcome of any match-ups we propose.

The thread could run like this:

Part One - agreement on the date which constitutes old world boxing.

Part Two - unified selection of old world boxers

Part Three - unified selection of modern contemporaries

Part Four - agreement on time of weigh-in, what they would weigh on fight night, sorting of weight catagories thus potential match-ups.

Part Five - discussion on how we see the fights panning out.


So that's it, simple.

Part One - What date shall we choose? 1955? Or is that time too transitionary? Was this the period when Old-Boxing became New-Boxing, thus the lines too blurred? Do we need to choose an earlier era?

I guess conversations like this are not as popular now that az, imperial ghosty and manos de piedra are not around.

Its sunday - everyones at church resenting their wives for forcing them there and Tino is locked in a playroom wishing he was at church

1954 is an odd date to choose when the likes Robinson, Charles, Moore and the BMR had already done their best work. There's no specific date in time when old became modern, regardless of era Moore and Charles beat every 175lber around since Jones.

Is Az banned then?

Well it's a nice idea for an article, 3fingers, and would generate plenty of cracking debate if / when it gets off the ground.

As others have said, the main issue here is trying to pinpoint when exactly boxers of yesteryear started boxing a little more like the ones we see today, and as HH says I think you'd definitely have to go back further than the mid fifties.

Have said before that, for me, the one great fighter who expanded the parameters of technique and skill set in his own era and really laid the best blueprint for the successful styles we've since was Gene Tunney. There is footage available of some of the fantastic fighters which went before Gene, such as Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Jimmy Wilde etc, and you can see the raw talent and skills that each of them had, but I feel that their techniques and the techniques of many of their opponents hadn't quite become as polished as someone like Gene.

Obviously making the transition between bare knuckle, London Prize Ring Rules boxing and the gloved Queensberry rules was never going to be an overnight thing, and I personally feel that it took those initial thirty years or so for their to be enough experienced trainers, enough studies of contemporary fighters using the new rules and enough experimenting from the fighters themselves to really make the majority of fighters look as if they could easily be transplanted in to the modern era without having to make any adjustments.

If you look at some of the most notable fighters who emerged in the decade or so after Tunney left the stage (Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross etc) I think you have more fighters who similarly look the equal of anyone around today in terms of style, too.

Everyone's going to have their take on it and hopefully we can all contribute to selecting what fighters we'd match up against each other, but I think maybe going back to Tunney's peak years (so around 1923-1928) might be a decent cut off point, if we have to select one. Just my take.

There is also the question of how much difference the modern training has had on the fighters and I don't really think theres much there. Certainly, fighters can get fitter quicker but thats offset by the infrequent fights and blowing up between bouts to obscene levels. Theres also the weight draining which may have an impact on stamina levels. The skill levels havent realy gone up or down but the depth has to some extent because thats where the money is.

I think for the transitional periods you can look to the eastern european fighters for a hint of how long it takes for the changes to take place. Their transition from the more upright amateur stance to the golovkins, lomachenkos, etc has taken about 20 years and seem to be on a course to shake off that tag. Give em another ten years and you'll see a golden age for them.

Like EVERY other sport, boxing has improved dramatically over the past 50 years.

I'm not sure that it has - not in the last 20 or so - Size has played too much of a part in recent fights

50 years ago next month Ali (Cassius Clay as he was at the time) beat Liston for the heavyweight world title, now I can't see either of them losing to any current heavyweights.

Thanks for the Part 1 input guys.

It's difficult to pinpoint a time when 'old boxing' became 'new boxing', partly because such a time does not exist because the evolution of sport is gradual.

Tunney is often cited as revolutionary, regarding ring craft, one of the fathers of 'hit without being hit'. Tunney was blessed with pugalistic intellegence, and he, himself, was probably to credit for his ringcraft rather than any coach or new coaching ideaology.

Some are blessed with natural pugilistic inteligence, almost an instinct. And when this instinct is combined with athletic ability then 'legends' can be born.

I believe these legendary fighters influence the future of boxing, their success inspires young fighters and changes the coaching fraternities mindset and ideas. The speed at which Tunney changed the future of boxing was probably impeded due to the primitive media at the time.

In a certain era coaches must have realised that the aquisition of proper technique, by would be boxers could, in somepart, offset any defficiencies in pugalistic intelligence, and/or potentially counter a sluggers aggression.

Tunney and the like were exceptions amongst sea of sluggers. A day in time does not exist when everyone woke up in the modern era. However, a decade must exist where the ratio of technically profficient fighters outnumbered the sluggers. This was probably began with the realisation that new techniques could be taught, and act as compensation for those born without an innate ringcraft.

Floydd Patteson, Archie Moore, Ray Robinson all 1950's, were these exceptions? For everyone of those, was there not a succsefull fighter devoid of any semblence of technique (Lamotta, Marciano etc)?

I think the tipping point for technique may coincide with the introduction of television?

Once we've come to a unanimous verdict on the date we'll start picking fighters, hey?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:50 years ago next month Ali (Cassius Clay as he was at the time) beat Liston for the heavyweight world title, now I can't see either of them losing to any current heavyweights.

They would be cruiserweights if around today.

Thanks for the Part 1 input guys.

It's difficult to pinpoint a time when 'old boxing' became 'new boxing', partly because such a time does not exist because the evolution of sport is gradual.

Tunney is often cited as revolutionary, regarding ring craft, one of the fathers of 'hit without being hit'. Tunney was blessed with pugalistic intellegence, and he, himself, was probably to credit for his ringcraft rather than any coach or new coaching ideaology.

Some are blessed with natural pugilistic inteligence, almost an instinct. And when this instinct is combined with athletic ability then 'legends' can be born.

I believe these legendary fighters influence the future of boxing, their success inspires young fighters and changes the coaching fraternities mindset and ideas. The speed at which Tunney changed the future of boxing was probably impeded due to the primitive media at the time.

In a certain era coaches must have realised that the aquisition of proper technique, by would be boxers could, in somepart, offset any defficiencies in pugalistic intelligence, and/or potentially counter a sluggers aggression.

Tunney and the like were exceptions amongst sea of sluggers. A day in time does not exist when everyone woke up in the modern era. However, a decade must exist where the ratio of technically profficient fighters outnumbered the sluggers. This was probably began with the realisation that new techniques could be taught, and act as compensation for those born without an innate ringcraft.

Floydd Patteson, Archie Moore, Ray Robinson all 1950's, were these exceptions? For everyone of those, was there not a succsefull fighter devoid of any semblence of technique (Lamotta, Marciano etc)?

I think the tipping point for technique may coincide with the introduction of television?

Once we've come to a unanimous verdict on the date we'll start picking fighters, hey?

No they wouldn't, both of them weighed in excess of 220lbs on a regular basis, regardless of size they would embarrass any heavyweight around today.

I don't think there is a tipping point in regards to technique, we still have world champions around today with low skill sets like Froch, Stevenson or Matthyse. Even today the sluggers/brawlers still outnumber the boxers, for every Mayweather there is a Margarito, Hatton, Gatti, Baldomir, Maidana, Lopez, Soto Karass or Provodnikov.

very unfair on Stevenson. Quebec golden gloves champ pre prison, silver medal at the commonwealth games post prison. Quite skilled

As Chirs has already said I always consider around 1920s as the era the sport transitioned into the modern era. Inevitable there would be a time period where techniques would change based on the movement from the LRR era to the Queensbury rules, but think this was also the time when fights reduced in length to similar to the modern era and also point scoring began to mirror how it is, or at least should be scored now.

Think around this era is certainly the first time you can watch guys and see no reason why they could not compete now. I am thinking of guys like the aforementioned Tunney and also a personal favourite of mine in Benny Leonard. Will take some convincing that because Ricky Burns has access to some protein shakes Leonard does not start as anything other than a white hot favourite against him.

As most will know I am of the belief boxing was generally stronger back many years ago. Far too simple to say other sports have got better, ergo boxing will have. For one many sports such as golf and motor racing are equipment driven in a way boxing isn't. Also to say this overlooks many factors such the frequency with which fighters fight, the overly cautious nature of modern match maiking and the decreasing number of participants, all for me of which have served to reduce the quality of the sport overall.

That is not to say the best would not compete in any era, talent is talent. However do think the modern game does not serve to really develop and create greatness. As I have said previously Hopkins is still able to compete at nigh on 50 year old. That is not because he is a genetic freak defying all laws of ageing. It is on the back of the experience he has gained over his 50 odd fights. One does have to ask how good would he be with that level of experience and the body of a 25 year old. The answer as far as I am concerned is as good as some of his old time counterparts.

Froch is a world championship bronze medalist doesn't mean a lot in the pro game.

lost 0 rounds in 2013.

None of this deceives my eyes and from my point of view he isn't a technically skilled boxer, he's got good power but not much else.

Maybe your right, maybe there are as many sluggers, but not in the old sense of the word sluggers.  Most succesfull sluggers throw their shots with 'correct form' or 'modern form'. Ricky Hatton, for example, has a textbook left hook to the head, dips his knees for the left hook to the body, peffect slip while maintaining a high guard (mostly), and pefect foot movement when combing the sidestep and pivot to get round his opponent to find openings. These are not the actions of a cliché d crude old time slugger. Sluggers exist today but their technique has evolved, much in the same way 'skilled boxers' has too, only with sluggers the emphasis has been more on the techniques more appropriate to their style.

What date would do you suggest we go for HH?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No they wouldn't, both of them weighed in excess of 220lbs on a regular basis, regardless of size they would embarrass any heavyweight around today.

I don't think there is a tipping point in regards to technique, we still have world champions around today with low skill sets like Froch, Stevenson or Matthyse. Even today the sluggers/brawlers still outnumber the boxers, for every Mayweather there is a Margarito, Hatton, Gatti, Baldomir, Maidana, Lopez, Soto Karass or Provodnikov.

Ali was barely over 200 lbs back in those days and Liston was a fat 215 lbs. Both would be tiny HW's by todays standards. As Larry Holmes said the other night, you can't afford to give up 3 or 4 inches and a shed load of weight in the HW division.

You wont find many if any boxers who throw a better short right cross than Marciano while LaMotta had very good head movement. To be honest I wouldn't consider Hatton to be any more skilled than either of them, there's more than one way to win a boxing match, the more technical fighter isn't always the victor.

I would say post war and pre war otherwise we end up with 30 years of history up against near on 85 years.

Sonny Liston a fat 215lbs, you are kidding me right, so you think they both get beaten by the majority of the current world level crop then?

Guys (Mayweather and HH) can we keep disputes about weight for Part 4 of the thread please?

Rowley and Chris,

My only concern is if we accept the 1920's as Old Boxing, and everything thereafter Modern Boxing, then the old boxers will be seriously disadvantaged in terms of numbers when it comes to match-ups.

Sorry 3fingers, might have got the wrong end of the stick a bit. When I suggested the roundabout mid twenties as a cut off point, I meant that we take all fighters for this thread from that point in history onwards to ensure that they're all basically fighting in the same way, with the ones from the twenties to, say, the sixties being the 'old school' ones and the ones from the sixties onwards being the 'new school' ones, if that makes sense.

Just thinking....

maybe we get round this by having three periods?

1) Old Time Era (pre 1930)?
2) Transistional Era (1930 -1959)
3) Modern Era (1960 - present)

Just read your post chris, what you propose sounds ok to me, what about everyone else?

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No they wouldn't, both of them weighed in excess of 220lbs on a regular basis, regardless of size they would embarrass any heavyweight around today.

I don't think there is a tipping point in regards to technique, we still have world champions around today with low skill sets like Froch, Stevenson or Matthyse. Even today the sluggers/brawlers still outnumber the boxers, for every Mayweather there is a Margarito, Hatton, Gatti, Baldomir, Maidana, Lopez, Soto Karass or Provodnikov.

Ali was barely over 200 lbs back in those days and Liston was a fat 215 lbs. Both would be tiny HW's by todays standards. As Larry Holmes said the other night, you can't afford to give up 3 or 4 inches and a shed load of weight in the HW division.

Ali was 6ft 3 modern technology,training dieting, you think a trainer like Angelo Dundee allows Ali to go in the ring under 200ilbs in todays game, give over.Holyfield moved up from Cruiserweight and didn't do too badly did he.

Difference is Holyfield is actually Evan Fields - Taking a bit of "Help" makes going from 190 to 215 a much more manageable transition. Although I remain on the fence over whether "Help" really does add anything to a fighter.

3fingers wrote:Just read your post chris, what you propose sounds ok to me, what about everyone else?

I'd take the silence as a 'yes', personally.......

What about dividing it into quarters so we don't completely overlook the pioneers like Fitzsimmons.

1890-1920 vs 1921-1950

1951-1980 vs 1981-present

I think 'old boxing' became 'new boxing' when TV coverage became mainstream, ie 1950's. Pre 50's boxing consisted of a mass of small hall shows, post 50's centered on less frequent huge televised events.

HH, I couldn't offer much in the way of pre 1920, but if others could then fine.

I think with my suggestion of three categories and your suggestion of four might make things a little complicated? For simplicities sake, chris' suggestion of pre and post 1960 might be best? If not, then the three or four categories path will be a hard but interesting slog.

The sooner decide on the categorisation the quiker we can start fighting..., I mean discussing which fighters to include from each era

kingraf wrote:Difference is Holyfield is actually Evan Fields - Taking a bit of "Help" makes going from 190 to 215 a much more manageable transition. Although I remain on the fence over whether "Help" really does add anything to a fighter.

Doesn't add anything in terms of skill, but in terms of improved athleticism its very useful, not to mention it adds nothing but just lean muscle when moving up in weight class.
Its one of the most major factors and game changers in the improved performance of athletes over the past 50 years. Far more so than improved diets/nutrition etc.
Go back in time and give someone like Dempsey "help" and he'd probably be punching through walls.

Never been on the bicycle myself - but Holy went 18-0 with 14 knockouts before heavyweight... Went 24-10-2 with 12 KO as a serious heavyweight (discounting his "comeback" 2011). Doesn't seem to have brought his power with him. Although I concede coming up 25 pounds and maintaining your stamina does seem... Interesting.

Looking at it, I probably gave Evans too much lee-way for when his career could still be regarded as a career, but I do maintain that he certainly didn't bring the power he possessed at CW.

kingraf wrote:Never been on the bicycle myself - but Holy went 18-0 with 14 knockouts before heavyweight...  Went 24-10-2 with 12 KO as a serious heavyweight (discounting his "comeback" 2011). Doesn't seem to have brought his power with him. Although I concede coming up 25 pounds and maintaining your stamina does seem... Interesting.

On the flip side I guess you can argue that Evander would have had less than the 12 KO's without any assistance.
While punching power is highly technical (a top HW boxer would obviously have more punch power than a top powerlifter/weightlifter despite being considerably weaker), I think its fair to say that there generally is a correlation between strength and punching power - An increase in strength should also equate to an increase in punch power due to the increase in force one can generate.

I've heard Mariusz Pudzianowski doesn't hit very hard... Not sure I believe that there is a strength/power correlation, from what I've heard Frazier wasn't quite Mr. Incredible in the gym neither were/are most boxing pros. Evans could of course be the proof, but I don't know. In terms of power, I'm an adherent of Bruce Lee's one inch theory. Of course a 250lbs body which uses it the same as a 200lbs body will get more power, but I'm more of a believer in body mechanics than merely strength.

kingraf wrote:I've heard Mariusz Pudzianowski doesn't hit very hard... Not sure I believe that there is a strength/power correlation, from what I've heard Frazier wasn't quite Mr. Incredible in the gym neither were/are most boxing pros. Evans could of course be the proof, but I don't know. In terms of power, I'm an adherent of Bruce Lee's one inch theory. Of course a 250lbs body which uses it the same as a 200lbs body will get more power, but I'm more of a believer in body mechanics than merely strength.

There are lots of variables to consider. For instance, Mariusz's lack of punch power is probably talked in comparison to some of the other MMA HW's like JDS. Compared to the guys with vastly superior technique, Mariusz falls behind but against a guy of a similar bodyweight and technique, I'm sure Mariusz punches a lot harder. Stamina also probably plays a part in Mariusz's issue. Every punch gets less and less forceful as the minutes tick by.
What was said about Frazier? Was he actually weak in the gym or just a tad lazy?
Lets not forget that Bruce Lee did perform weight training exercise to build his strength - he surely therefore acknowledged that a strength increase was beneficial to being a better fighter/striker.
If we also look at arguably the hardest puncher in boxing's history in George Foreman, he was also probably the physically strongest too.

Wow this thread has gone off on a tangent...

Crows are pretty clever, watched this video once.... there was a glass beaker with some water in and maggot floating on top of it, the water was to shallow for the crow to reach it so it picked up stones and dropped them untill the water rose enough so it could reach the maggot. Displacement, archimedes, eurika. Took humans ages to work that one out.

Frazier didn't lift weight. Which means he was both lazy and weak in the gym, I suppose.

Yeah, Lee lifted weights, but Lee did a lot of things. Hard to pinpoint what was effective and what wasn't. Ingesting hash did nothing for me, when I tried it. I buy the one inch theory because it's worked for me...


Foreman said in his autobiography that he never lifted weights much as a kid, either. Not sure about his overall level of strength - How often was he physically overmatched, so as to judge his relative strength, pushing Frazier away to keep knocking him down doesn't really count... Otherwise Wlads performance vs Povetkin has him up there

I'd like to suggest that, whatever fighters end up getting picked (if they ever do), Holyfield isn't one of them, please.....

I'd like to apologize to 3fingerz - Generally when I'm involved in threads goin haywire - I know when it happened. But here: one minute we're discussing Evan Fields, the next we're debating whether or not ingesting hash really helps with recovery....
:Sorry:

PEDs or not we cannot take away Holyfields chin, heart or resilience.

I personally don't think there's much correlation between strength and power, it just appears to be a natural talent.

Haha! It's ok kingraf.

So how do you want to go about picking the old timers from roughly 1920-1970 then, 3fingers? Are we picking a certain amount per weight class or something?

Pre and post Muhammad Ali, he seems to be the barometer of modern boxing, fits in quite well with your 1960's idea Chris.

Chris I think a few from each of the original eight categories seems the most intituitive way of doing this. Only problem is we might end up omitting talent due to numerical restrictions. If we create an upper limit of, say, five fighters per category (limit, not a target) then there's less potential to disregard worthies.

To maintain the structure of the thread and stop it descending into chaos (ha, yeah right!) we shouldprobably begin with choosing the heavy's, then work through the weights in descending order (I was going to suggest starting at flyweight and working up but I think beginning at the heavies allows greater participation by board members, and makes the start of the thread a bit more interesting).

It's V2's thread so we'll just see how things pan out. ?.

So on with the pre-1960's heavies.......

...but bear in mind when selecting that some of them will be pitted with the modern cruisers, even lightheavies.

Dempsey, Tunney, Louis and Marciano, for me. Not sure there's really an outstanding fifth candidate between 1920 and 1959 for the Heavies. Liston did a lot of his best work spread between the late fifties and early sixties, but given that his title reign didn't come until 1962-1964 I wouldn't use him here.