Old School Vs New School

First topic message reminder :

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 disagree that old school fighters were less skilled. Hopkins is one of the better technicians today and he has based his entire style on olden day fighters.

Fighters these days are more athletic but they don't know as much about fighting as they don't fight often enough.

No objection from me, the heavies of the kind of pick themselves. It'll be a nightmare sorting weight categories. None of those guys be matched against the modern heavies. I doubt Foreman and Co will get match-up.

Marciano (85kg) Tunney (87kg?) and Dempsey (86kg?) won't they be seriously out numbered if we agree on same day weigh-ins (which I think we should), afterall, they will be up against, potentially, 15 boxers (5 each from SML, LH, CW!).

Perhaps we should include more early heavies to even up the numbers? If we want this to be a fair competition, to determine who wins between old school and new school, we need comparative numbers. I think?

If you agree, I'll throw some more names in the hat.

walcott, schmelling, baer, bivins, loughran, langford, sharkey?

Are those ok? I may have trouble discussing most, but I'm sure others can with a certain amount of authority.

Adjusting fighters weight classes defeats the object of the task really, the real question should be, can a 190lb Dempsey beat a modern 220lb heavyweight?

This is a good idea in theory but it's probably going to end up with some moron again claiming that Jamie Moore would have walked through Robinson and Az (another moron) stating again that Manny would beat Marciano if Marciano boiled down to welterweight.

Just because something shares a name with something that shares the same name years later does not make it the same thing. In 1920 G.ay meant happy, in the 21st century it means something completely different.

The purpose of boxing, to make it fair, is to match men of similar weight. We should not change this fundermental rule of boxing on the condition a category shares a name, through time, rather than a weight.

I accept it will be difficult to categorise fighters, therefore we shouldn't. For the time being, at least, we will use the existing categories simply as a tool to assist us in picking fighters. Then, when all the fighters are chosen, we will match them up with opponents of similar weight, how boxing is meant to be!

3fingers wrote:Just because something shares a name with something that shares the same name years later does not make it the same thing. In 1920 G.ay meant happy, in the 21st century it means something completely different.

The purpose of boxing, to make it fair, is to match men of similar weight. We should not change this fundermental rule of boxing on the condition a category shares a name, through time, rather than a weight.

I accept it will be difficult to categorise fighters, therefore we shouldn't. For the time being, at least, we will use the existing categories simply as a tool to assist us in picking fighters. Then, when all the fighters are chosen, we will match them up with opponents of similar weight, how boxing is meant to be!

Weight when they weigh in or after they've rehydrated? As that's a different kettle of fish altogether. The old school fighters weighed in on the day.

I suggested in my second last post all fighters should weigh-in on the same day, therefore, todays fighters would be fighting at their ring weight (granted some of this will be informed speculation), hence, I suggested that, potentially, a large modern SMW could fight a small old school heavy because they would weigh the same. Thats boxing, is everyone in agreement thats fair?

All suggestions welcome...

Who do the modern heavyweights then fight? Bigger men who were getting beaten by their smaller contemporaries?

If old school contemporaries in excess of 200lb are included then they will fight them. If not, then they don't fight.

I think we are in agreement that the big guys that the little guys were beating (Willard, Canera, Baer) aren't in the same category as Foreman, Ali and Lewis. The aforementioned names are not in anyones top 25 heavyweights, are they?

My suggestions for old school light-heavies:

Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Bivins and Sam Langford

??

superflyweight wrote:Az (another moron) stating again that Manny would beat Marciano if Marciano boiled down to welterweight.  

That was a particular Az beauty. Still not entirely sure what he meant, but, boy, did he stick to his guns (as ever)

To be honest if Marciano did boil down to welterweight I'd have a fair crack at knocking him out. Boxthis - its just his way of bigging up mayweather which for some reason has to be at the expense of manny

I've selected five fighters to represent the Old School Middles against the modern greats. My knowledge is not amazing so they may need to be changed...

Harry Greb, Freddie Steele, Tiger Flowers, Dick Tiger, Charley Burley?

So far....

Heavies
tunney, dempsy, louismarciano, ywalcott, schmelling, baer, bivins, loughran, langford, sharkey

Lightheavies
Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Bivins and Sam Langford

Middles

Harry Greb, Freddie Steele, Tiger Flowers, Dick Tiger, Charley Burley

3fingers I would be tempted to chuck Zale and La Motta in the middles in place of Flowers and Steele, no reflection on them just think they are guys more on here will be familiar with.

I'd have Tunney in the light heavies rather than in the heavys. Nailed on top 5 at the weight. Loughran shouldn't be in with the heavys.

Would probably chuck Ketchel into the middles, nice to have some of the older old timers in there.

Rowley wrote:3fingers I would be tempted to chuck Zale and La Motta in the middles in place of Flowers and Steele, no reflection on them just think they are guys more on here will be familiar with.

Lamotta was an oversight on my part Jeff. I'm more than happy to include Zale (and his predecessor Graziano). I don't think it's necessary to exclude people, afterall, You and Chris are probably the only people who'll comment on the head-to-heads (this thread has bombed). A lot of knowledge disappeared from the boards in 2013.

To be honest I don't know much about some of the names i put forward....but there's plenty time for me to watch some footage before they square off against the New Schools.

superflyweight wrote:I'd have Tunney in the light heavies rather than in the heavys.  Nailed on top 5 at the weight.  Loughran shouldn't be in with the heavys.  

Hey Super,

I didn't realise I'd rated Loughran at heavy, I rated him light-heavy too. I'm not too concerned I rated Tunney at heavy though, because everyone will be facing-off against opponents of similar weight. My preoccupation at the moment is not omitting the big names. We can discuss fighters most effective weights when everyone is chosen.

It would be nice if someone selected the other weights.

Heavyweight

Dempsey, Marciano, Johnson, Jeffries and Louis vs Ali, Holmes, Foreman and any two of Frazier, Lewis or Liston

Light Heavyweight

Tunney, Moore, Charles, Conn and Henry Lewis vs Foster, Spinks, Jones, Saad Muhammad and Qawi

Middleweight

Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, Robinson, Walker and LaMotta vs Monzon, Hopkins, Hagler, Toney and Martinez

Welterweight

Robinson, Gavilan, Walker, Armstrong and Ross vs R. Leonard, Hearns, Griffith, Napoles and Mayweather

Lightweight

B. Leonard, Canzoneri, Ross, Ambers and Gans vs Duran, Whitaker, Mayweather, Mosley and Chavez

Featherweight

Pep, Saddler, Driscoll, Attell and Kilbane vs Sanchez, Hamed, Arguello, Saldivar and Pedroza

Bantamweight

Brown, Herman, Ortiz, J. Lynch and Escobar vs Pintor, Zarate, Jofre, Donaire and Chandler

Flyweight

Wilde, Villa, LaBarba, Genaro and Perez vs Lopez, Harada, Kingpetch, Chitalada and Wonjongkam

Rough guess of what I would do but was starting to struggle by the time I got down to bantamweight.

No Pacquiao?

Hamed instead of Barrera/Morales?

That speeded things up HH. A little different to my list but feel free to go ahead and say how you feel some of those fights would pan out.

.....Though later I'd like to adjust for weight and incorporate same day weigh-ins for the "moderns".

As a Featherweight i'd have Hamed above all of them, his accomplishments at the weight far outstripped the others. Pacquiao, Barrera, Marquez and Morales are difficult to pin down to a single weight, i'd possibly swap out Pedroza for Barrera but El Terrible did his best work at super bantamweight. Pacquiao in particular hasn't hung around a particular weight long enough for me to rate him higher than the more establised stars in the divisions.

Was trying to find a place for miske but that Light Heavy division is absolutely stacked

3fingers wrote:That speeded things up HH. A little different to my list but feel free to go ahead and say how you feel some of those fights would pan out.

.....Though later I'd like to adjust for weight and incorporate same day weigh-ins for the "moderns".

What you'll find is that the better modern boxers aren't big rehydrators and the majority of them were before same day weigh ins anyway, if we go back to Harry Greb in the 20's he used to pile on up to 7lbs after the weigh ins when fighting at middleweight anyway.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

3fingers wrote:That speeded things up HH. A little different to my list but feel free to go ahead and say how you feel some of those fights would pan out.

.....Though later I'd like to adjust for weight and incorporate same day weigh-ins for the "moderns".

What you'll find is that the better modern boxers aren't big rehydrators and the majority of them were before same day weigh ins anyway, if we go back to Harry Greb in the 20's he used to pile on up to 7lbs after the weigh ins when fighting at middleweight anyway.

Is that true, or is it more of the case that lots of the better modern boxers have moved up in weight and still dominated despite being smaller in stature?

Genuine question.

The better modern fighters win because of skill not size, of the 24 hour weigh in crop you're talking about Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Trinidad and Barrera. None of them would be outweighing there old school counterparts by much if anything.

Surely its advantageous to have a size and skill advantage, hence fighters dehydrate to make weight? I'd guess there aren't too many successful fighters above welterweight that don't put on at least half a stone for fight night (said names excluded).

If we take the Welterweights for example they are either before 24 hour weigh ins or Mayweather who doesn't rehydrate.

For instance Jones is a 175lber who should be compared to Charles and Moore not Marciano and Dempsey.

exactly.....because they wouldn't weigh the same    

After Jones has rehydrated he'd weigh roughly the same as both Dempsey and Marciano on fight night.

Never saw Jones listed any higher than 180 lb on fight night when he was a Light-Heavy, HH, albeit not all of his fights had in-ring weights listed in the broadcast. The bigger Light-Heavies he fought (Hall, Tarver etc) generally had half a stone or so on him by the time that first bell rang. Jones was never really a big Light-Heavyweight and claimed as late as 2008 that he could still make Super-Middle. Marciano and Dempsey weren't that big in relative terms, but I'd still feel comfortable classing them as bigger men and fighters in all senses than Jones.

Think Jones absolutely drained himself dry to make Middleweight, was still a pretty ample Super-Middle and then was more or less nothing more than average in terms of size at 175 and above.

Then again Chris we're comparing him to two heavyweights who barely scaled over 180lbs when they won their world titles, Jones is the smaller man but he's a good example of why using fight night weights isn't quite fair on the modern lot.

So have we got all the fighters picked now? Ready to go on to the next stage?

HH, In you previous posts you said that 'good modern fighters don't rehydrate' then you suggest a few names that don't (jones being one of those you put forward), then you say Jones should be compared to charles and moore, presumably for the very reason you suggested (he doesn't rehydrate). Then, bizarrely, in your subsequent posts you say 'when Jones rehydrates he'd weigh roughly the same as Marciano'??

Thats a huge contradiction. IF I could vote again in the 606 awards I'd definately vote for you in the stubborn as mule category. You NEVER back down, regardless of the knots you tie yourself in.

Yup I'm happy to move on. Judging from the above it'll be fun deciding who matches up against who.... and at what weight!

3fingers wrote:HH, In you previous posts you said that 'good modern fighters don't rehydrate' then you suggest a few names that don't (jones being one of those you put forward), then you say Jones should be compared to charles and moore, presumably for the very reason you suggested (he doesn't rehydrate). Then, bizarrely, in your subsequent posts you say 'when Jones rehydrates he'd weigh roughly the same as Marciano'??

Thats a huge contradiction. IF I could vote again in the 606 awards I'd definately vote for you in the stubborn as mule category.  You NEVER back down, regardless of the knots you tie yourself in.

Yep

3fingers wrote:HH, In you previous posts you said that 'good modern fighters don't rehydrate' then you suggest a few names that don't (jones being one of those you put forward), then you say Jones should be compared to charles and moore, presumably for the very reason you suggested (he doesn't rehydrate). Then, bizarrely, in your subsequent posts you say 'when Jones rehydrates he'd weigh roughly the same as Marciano'??

Thats a huge contradiction. IF I could vote again in the 606 awards I'd definately vote for you in the stubborn as mule category.  You NEVER back down, regardless of the knots you tie yourself in.

I agree I've tied myself up within my own argument, it's quite hard to understand all this rehydration garbage, I was using Jones and Marciano as an example of why its so confusing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:[
I agree I've tied myself up within my own argument, it's quite hard to understand all this rehydration garbage, I was using Jones and Marciano as an example of why its so confusing.

Basically what you said was...... 'I agree, however.....'

Like I say, stubborn as a mule

It takes a big man to admit when they're wrong without introducing caveats...apologies for making fun. Forgive me.

How do you see Archie Moore vs Jones going?

Might be unpopular.....But I'd edge towards Jones via decision.

I don't think Moore could outbox Roy, personally. A common theme when this fight gets discussed is the idea that Jones sweeps up a lot of the early to middle rounds with his speed and unorthodoxy, which leaves Archie bewildered, before Moore gradually starts catching up with Jones, imposing his will on him, cracking his code mentally and wearing him down to a stoppage.

But Jones never had a question mark over his stamina and his defence didn't tend to leak any more in the twelfth round than it did in the first. Moore had a history of starting slowly, often taking counts along the way, before roaring back late to turn the tide (Durelle I, Johnson IV, Marshall I etc) but none of those fighters were as slippery and tough to pin down as Jones, and nor were any of them as heavy-handed as Jones, or possessed his cutting edge in the finishing department. Jones' style was so different that it left opponents particularly vulnerable in the early goings when they hadn't had a chance to look at it. That, combined with the aforementioned slow starts which Moore was prone to, lead me to believe that Jones would have a decent chance of stopping Archie, but it'd have to be early on.

As the fight wears on, I think Moore becomes the more likely man to get a knockout if there is one. Jones' power did seem a little easier to handle as fights went towards the late stages at 175, and Moore would only need to find one big opening, given that Jones made technical errors which usually went unpunished thanks to him making up for it with incredible reflexes and athleticism - and I guess you'd also have to question whether or not Roy could take a plumb hook on the chin from Moore in light of what happened when people did eventually start finding his chin with regularity, even if he was a little past his peak by then.

But against the grain, I'd have to say that I'm not fully convinced he'd be able to find that opening and exploit it. It's one that I've slowly changed my mind on over the last year or so, but right now I'd go with Jones via decision in competitive but not all that close fight. Maybe a bit closer over fifteen, as we at least know that Moore would still likely be knocking on Jones' door with real purpose in those final minutes, whereas we can't be sure of that with Jones.

I'd view it as I might view any future Rigondeaux-Donaire fight, no matter how many times they rematched. Donaire (Moore in this case) could always take the other man, Rigondeaux (Jones) out with one big shot at any time, which keeps it interesting, but in general just can't land that one shot and can't outbox them.

Archie Moore all the way. The only thing Jones had on him might have been a bit of speed but Moore knew every trick in the book and had experience in literally hundreds of fights. When you look at Borenard Hopkins hanging about today I could imagine Moore being like 100-0 if he fought nowadays. One of the greatest boxers of all time without question.

I tend to agree with Chris on this one, Jones is too quick and slippery for Moore, the difference in speed is quite drastic. Moore might know every trick in the book but it didn't help him beat Charles or Burley, much of Moores legend is based on his age and longevity. Head to head against the best 175lbers I don't think he matches up quite as well. It's one thing finding a way to beat a slow plodding journeymen like Durelle but another to do it against Jones.

Jones LKO

LOL

Prime Jones is the best fighter who has ever lived. How can anyone pick against him.

Gene Tunny beats them all on his day