Why did classic boxing skills die?

[Mendoza]

I have been watching some old boxing lately in the 1920's to 1950's. While the films quality, audio, and announcers do not compare to what we have today, I am often treated seldom seen ring skills of the crystal clear modern era.

The way I see it, four classic ring skills are seldom seen these days.

Can someone tell me what happened to body punching? Sure, we see it from time to time, but it is not as it used to be.

Can someone tell me why there is such little feinting to set up offense? The best fighters used feints to set up their offense or defense.

Can someone tell me why few modern fighters learned how to counter punch? Counter punching is not easy, but we just do not see fighters seamlessly switching gears from defense to offense as we used to.

Can someone tell me why the loser in those days had 2x the heart of the losers in the modern era?

I have my own ideas, but I'd like to read a few first.

[McGrain]

I'll have a tip at feinting.

I think feinting is - and fighter's do still do it and some are really good at it - a part of overall strategy. It's harder now to invest in speculative strategies because boxing matches are shorter - 12 rounds. Feints are also really, really, really hard to teach and learn. There are issues of balance, defence and technique, it opens up a whole new avenue for trainers and students. If you can pass without studying, a lot of people will.

Some of these things, I don't agree with you. Counterpunching is alive and well, Hopkins is amongst the best counter-punchers that have breathed, JM Marquez is another very good one, and was better before the John fight. Mayweather.

Ricky Hatton uses body punching very much as a part of his repetoire, but I will say that refereees are far less likely to allow boxers to fight out of clinches, there is now real pressure on him to keep a fight clean which did not exsist before.

Who showed more heart than Rafael Maquez in his losing effort against Vasquez though? The last time?

[stonerose]

Alot of the new breed of fan see hattons style as wrestling or even cheating in some cases when it is in fact a classic and old-school way of fighting.

[zadfrak]

Lack of great trainers. When all those big name old guys retired from the sport in the early 80's, you only had a few still in the game. You just didn't have the rotation of greats to come up and take their place & since the Futch departure, it's even gotten worse.

[DamonD]

There's also that MTV generation effect...everything quicker, faster, bigger, stronger.

The highlight reel knockout that's so beloved. How you actually work up to the knockout, whatever struggles you may have had to get there simply ignored in favour of that bang-bang-bang as a fighter reels around the ring from a heavy attack. That becomes the popular image, what defines the entire fight rather than what actually happened up to that point.

[Senya13]

About 90% of the film from that time span is displaying only mediocre skills, despite the fact that mostly the film of top fighters has survived. Only few selected fighters are showing skills above mediocre, same as it is now. Wrong premise.

[OLD FOGEY]

On body punching--after watching Wlad-Rahman last weekend, the referees have killed it. Rahman's only real chance was to get inside and then work Wlad over, but the referee would hop in the instant Wlad grabbed him. In the old days, they allowed fighting to go on while in close if the arms were free. Wlad has clumsy clinching skills. He might have paid a price for that fifty years ago. Now the ref jumps in and they are soon back at long range.

Example--watch Tunney-Dempsey 1 and compare Tunney's clinching skills to Wlad's.

[mr. magoo]

In addition to the list of valid responses already given, I will ad that modern fighters of the last 15 years have placed too much emphasis on being bigger and stronger than their contemporaries. Size and strength seems to have replaced emphasis on polishing skills and improving speed, stamina, etc. Technique seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur from a lot of different aspects.

[Duodenum]

Nobody will be surprised that I lay a lot of the blame on the abolition of the 15 round distance. OLD FOGEY and zadfrak also made excellent observations.

Heavyweight size and strength at the world class level would be reduced considerably in importance if the 15 round distance was properly restored. Strategy and tactics would again rise in emphasis.

Boxers also simply don't compete as much anymore, and a defeat becomes a major blemish in such a situation, where losses were once allowed as valuable learning experiences for up and comers.

[PowerPuncher]

All those skills are used today, its just some neglect aspects of boxing in all eras, your only going to watch the better fighters from the past, today you'll watch the not so great fighters too.

Also bodypunching isn't always advisable, hooks to the body leave you open to counters

[janitor]

There are fighters today who display all these skills to the same extent as the top old timers.

They are becoming less numerous however.

I think that many fighters who would have been slicksters in the 30s or 50s are being developed as punchers today.

[dav8d777]

The weight class focus always changes for one thing. In the 50's there was a focus on middleweights, in the 80's there was a focus on welter and middle. That made fighters look a lot more skillful because the smaller guys are more skillful.

The major heavyweights today are more skillful than heavyweights in some eras such as the early 80s and early 30s.

I don't know how it's going to shake out now with these massive men coming out of Russia. It may really be the biggest hit to demonstrated boxing skills yet. It's still better than watching one of those 80s wrestling matches with Tubbs or Tucker....

[mcvey]

I have been watching some old boxing lately in the 1920's to 1950's. While the films quality, audio, and announcers do not compare to what we have today, I am often treated seldom seen ring skills of the crystal clear modern era.

The way I see it, four classic ring skills are seldom seen these days.

Can someone tell me what happened to body punching? Sure, we see it from time to time, but it is not as it used to be.

Can someone tell me why there is such little feinting to set up offense? The best fighters used feints to set up their offense or defense.

Can someone tell me why few modern fighters learned how to counter punch? Counter punching is not easy, but we just do not see fighters seamlessly switching gears from defense to offense as we used to.

Can someone tell me why the loser in those days had 2x the heart of the losers in the modern era?

I have my own ideas, but I'd like to read a few first.

1.Fighters today are rushed in to title fights ,they dont have time to develop their skills

2.The emphasis is on staying unbeaten ,hence they are carefully matched to play to their strengths, and not asked questions , inside the ropes.

An example . Jimmy Maclarnin,one of the great Welterweight Champs had 61 fights before he fought for the Welter title.
Among his opponents were
Jackie Fields
Fidel Labarba
Pancho Villa

Also very experienced veterans like
Bud Taylor 56-9-7
Memphis Pal Moore 134-34 -31
Joe Glick 102-33-16
Sergeant Sammy Baker 90-7-3
Stanislaus Loaysza 47-7-3
Ray Miller 59-23-9
Sid Terris 97-7-3
Louis Kid Kaplan 84-11-18
Billy Wallace 58-15-23
Tommy Cello 56-22-26
Sammy Fuller 45-10-2
Young Jack Thompson 60-23-13
Al Singer 56-6-2
Billy Petrolle 105-19-13
Lou Brouillard 75-7-1
Benny Leonard 183-18-11

THESE WERE BEFORE HE GOT A SHOT AT THE WELTERWEIGHT CROWN, WHERE HE MET YOUNG CORBETT WHO HAD A 104-8-22 RECORD.

Maclarnin was managed by Pop's Foster who loved him like a son and became his legal guardian ,[leaving his estate to him when he died].

Foster was considered to be very careful at matchmaking his "Boy", yet Jimmy met all, styles ,shapes and sizes,he had his share of defeats but really learned his craft .Today a Hopkins or a Toney is called Old School,and called an ATG, maybe they are, but back then every contender was Old School, and had learned his trade the hard way ,on the job.

[Stonehands89]

Also bodypunching isn't always advisable, hooks to the body leave you open to counters
Wrong.

Hooks to the body do not leave you open to counters if you know how and when to throw them. In fact, they can be perfectly safe -to wit: slip the right cross outside low and throw a left hook to the body. No chance to get countered. Slip the jab outside low and throw a right hybrid hook to the ribs then follow up with a left hook to the sternum. No chance to get countered.

[Dempsey1238]

thumbless gloves also.

[Jack]

You can't just say "trainers have got worse" and leave it at that. There has to be some reason why they've got worse. Looking at the more technology a trainer has, you'd have to assume that the standard of trainers is better than it ever has been. Aside from new machines and things of that nature to improve a fighters physical attributes, modern trainers such as Freddy Roach have 100 years of video, newspaper reports, books and so on, at their fingertips. Given these advantages, what logical reason could ther be behind trainers getting worse?

I'm not saying it's impossible. It could be the case that not one modern trainer has the eye for boxing, like they had in the past. I do think that if there's an argument to be made, it will be that modern trainers are now better.

Maybe these techniques wouldn't work in boxing today? You mention body punching, which is interesting. Boxers are now wearing larger gloves, have higher trunks and a thicker cup than before. All this means that body punching will obviously be harder to perfect. Look at someone like Bob Fitzsimmons who specifically targetted one part of the body. This couldn't happen now. The equipment the fighters use dictates the style they fight in, which, as I've said before, is why a boxer like Winky could not compete in the late 1800's using his style.

Besides all that, if these techniques would work in the modern era, why wouldn't the fighters be taught how to do them? It doesn't make any sense.

[BOGART]

1.Fighters today are rushed in to title fights ,they dont have time to develop their skills

2.The emphasis is on staying unbeaten ,hence they are carefully matched to play to their strengths, and not asked questions , inside the ropes.

An example . Jimmy Maclarnin,one of the great Welterweight Champs had 61 fights before he fought for the Welter title.
Among his opponents were
Jackie Fields
Fidel Labarba
Pancho Villa

Also very experienced veterans like
Bud Taylor 56-9-7
Memphis Pal Moore 134-34 -31
Joe Glick 102-33-16
Sergeant Sammy Baker 90-7-3
Stanislaus Loaysza 47-7-3
Ray Miller 59-23-9
Sid Terris 97-7-3
Louis Kid Kaplan 84-11-18
Billy Wallace 58-15-23
Tommy Cello 56-22-26
Sammy Fuller 45-10-2
Young Jack Thompson 60-23-13
Al Singer 56-6-2
Billy Petrolle 105-19-13
Lou Brouillard 75-7-1
Benny Leonard 183-18-11

THESE WERE BEFORE HE GOT A SHOT AT THE WELTERWEIGHT CROWN, WHERE HE MET YOUNG CORBETT WHO HAD A 104-8-22 RECORD.

Maclarnin was managed by Pop's Foster who loved him like a son and became his legal guardian ,[leaving his estate to him when he died].

Foster was considered to be very careful at matchmaking his "Boy", yet Jimmy met all, styles ,shapes and sizes,he had his share of defeats but really learned his craft .Today a Hopkins or a Toney is called Old School,and called an ATG, maybe they are, but back then every contender was Old School, and had learned his trade the hard way ,on the job.



I agree with a lot here and sadly fighters aren't as active today as in the past. But being rushed into title fights might also have a lot to do with there being four belts instead of one. If there was just one belt today then most guys who get title shots woulnd't get one and if there were four belts in the past then a lot of guys would have gotten their shots much quicker.

[mr. magoo]

You can't just say "trainers have got worse" and leave it at that. There has to be some reason why they've got worse. Looking at the more technology a trainer has, you'd have to assume that the standard of trainers is better than it ever has been. Aside from new machines and things of that nature to improve a fighters physical attributes, modern trainers such as Freddy Roach have 100 years of video, newspaper reports, books and so on, at their fingertips. Given these advantages, what logical reason could ther be behind trainers getting worse?

I'm not saying it's impossible. It could be the case that not one modern trainer has the eye for boxing, like they had in the past. I do think that if there's an argument to be made, it will be that modern trainers are now better.

Maybe these techniques wouldn't work in boxing today? You mention body punching, which is interesting. Boxers are now wearing larger gloves, have higher trunks and a thicker cup than before. All this means that body punching will obviously be harder to perfect. Look at someone like Bob Fitzsimmons who specifically targetted one part of the body. This couldn't happen now. The equipment the fighters use dictates the style they fight in, which, as I've said before, is why a boxer like Winky could not compete in the late 1800's using his style.

Besides all that, if these techniques would work in the modern era, why wouldn't the fighters be taught how to do them? It doesn't make any sense.

This post brought up a lot of interesting points. I enjoyed reading it. ;)

[Ischbaad]

None of the four skills have been lost. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

[Senya13]

The equipment the fighters use dictates the style they fight in, which, as I've said before, is why a boxer like Winky could not compete in the late 1800's using his style.
Ever heard of George 'Elbows' McFadden?

[Senya13]

As a sample, extracts from a report of one of McFadden's fights with Gans:


Here was Gans, conditioned to the minute and demonstrating with every move his great cleverness and wonderful ring generalship; there McFadden, showing probably a bit stronger despite the short notice given him to prepare for a contest. He lost none of his reputation for being the "Prince of Blockers."

Many a blow did Gans shoot across that were if not for that wonderful guard would have laid the New Yorker down for the doleful count of ten.

Out shot Gans's well-known left jab, but McFadden was there with his usual block. Gans tried the same blow many times, but penetration of that guard might be likened to a rifle-ball trying to tear its way through a fort's wall. He could do nothing, and McFadden, by way of a reminder to Gans that he was in the fight, shot a right-hander into the colored man's stomach. It had the force of a sixty-mile gale behind it, and Gans uttered his disappointment with a grunt. It was a mix-up to the gong and both going easy.

Then came the second round. Gans tried something new--a right-hand hook. It was as effective as his left jab, McFadden was there to ward the blows off, and he did, at the same time shooting a few across to the colored man's face occasionally.


Doesn't sound similar to recent Winky's fights?

[Mendoza]

Wrong.

Hooks to the body do not leave you open to counters if you know how and when to throw them. In fact, they can be perfectly safe -to wit: slip the right cross outside low and throw a left hook to the body. No chance to get countered. Slip the jab outside low and throw a right hybrid hook to the ribs then follow up with a left hook to the sternum. No chance to get countered.


True, but how many boxers can do this on a regular basis?

[PowerPuncher]

Wrong.

Hooks to the body do not leave you open to counters if you know how and when to throw them. In fact, they can be perfectly safe -to wit: slip the right cross outside low and throw a left hook to the body. No chance to get countered. Slip the jab outside low and throw a right hybrid hook to the ribs then follow up with a left hook to the sternum. No chance to get countered.

Few would want to slip a shot and counter to the body while the head is wide open unless up against a serious height disadvantage. Its simply not the best counter shot

Any punch can be countered if you counter quick enough. Even when you've just slipped a shot you can be countered

Now on bodyshots, less chance on being countered if your leaning on your mans chance, unless he can get his uppercut off

[Bokaj]

I don't see any lack of skill in today's boxing. Sure, Valujev is hardly a slickster, but considering his huge size he isn't all that bad. I don't think there have been many more skilled boxers than for example Hopkins and Mayweather. Toney is another very skilled guy, but not terribly fit though. And there's probably more coming through.

If you look at the best over the last 25-30 years you have guys like Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, Whitaker, de la Hoya, Chavez etc and also pretty skilled big guys in Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis and Wlad. That doesn't look bad at all to me.

[AliFrazier71]

Its like any profession. How can someone learn all the tricks of the trade if they only apply them once, or twice a year? You can't. How can someone expect to be the best cook, the best surgeon, if they only use their skills semi annually. Fighters of the past learned all these skills because they fought more often against all types of styles. Even when they didnt have regular fights, they were fighting exhibitions. They were always using, or being forced to continually learn and apply these skills-it became second nature.

In the past, fighters could only make money by fighting, there really wasn't any other outlet. Today, fighters can make additional money outside of the ring, which is good for them, but not necessarily us the fans. That's why when I hear that todays fighters are better fighters than those of the past, I don't buy it. Boxers today may be stronger, faster, whatever you want to say, but boxers of yesterday were better fighters because they learned all skills and fought more often. You can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't use it, you won't be better than the person who has primitive equipment but uses it on a daily basis.

[Stonehands89]

True, but how many boxers can do this on a regular basis?

In Mexico it's taught the day after little boys learn to walk.

[Stonehands89]

Few would want to slip a shot and counter to the body while the head is wide open unless up against a serious height disadvantage. Its simply not the best counter shot
Again, not necessarily. What's easier to move -your head or your body? The answer explains why elusive fighters are often countered to the body by guys who know what they are doing and who understand investment.

Any punch can be countered if you counter quick enough. Even when you've just slipped a shot you can be countered
Wrong. If you are not in position to throw a punch, for example after the guy counters your right cross by stepping inside and at an angle and lands a left hook to your ribs, you can't counter that. You're not in a position to throw a damn thing. You have to reposition first. You may even have a tough time repositioning because those shots hurt.

Now on bodyshots, less chance on being countered if your leaning on your mans chance, unless he can get his uppercut off
I think it's time for you to consider the mechanics of the examples I gave you. There's no way that an uppercut can be thrown effectively when the guy just slipped your shot and is at one side under your extended arm. You can try to throw one, but only if you want to be ridiculously off balance and open to a monster counter or three.

[Cobra33]

There is a counter for EVERY PUNCH THROWN.