If the old-timers could criticize OUR boxing...

[cross_trainer]

Applying the standards of good boxing from the 19th century to modern stances, as the reverse is generally practiced. I occasionally find myself slipping into 19th century language, a consequence of reading too many manuals one after the other:


[Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links]


Fault: 20th century boxers have lessened their emphasis on linear punching, despite its proven superior efficiency vis-a-vis round blows. The latter are far easier to spot coming in from a distance, and at close range the knuckles damage sufficiently that straighter blows, which reach their target first, will more than compensate for a slight decrease in power. Their boxing stance is designed to facilitate round rather than straighter blows, despite the fact that the latter are inferior.

Fault: The toe of a 20th century boxer is turned in, decreasing considerably the power, straightness, accuracy, and effectiveness of the left lead.

Fault: The stance is too deep for rapid motion, which makes it more difficult to control range. Especially the case against a fighter who grapples above the waist, as is the case in LPR.

Fault: Hands are insufficiently outstretched to control the range or to stop blows with a greater margin for error from long range.

Fault: Combination punching requires that the individual enter into a zone that has far less room for error and skill than on the outside. This middle-range thinking is a consequence of excessive use of the mufflers.

Fault: Ducking and lowering one's body is a deplorable habit--it leaves one open not only to the uppercut, but to several species of chancery: one may be chanceried and uppercutted, chanceried and fibbed about the ribs and back, or chanceried and throttled into unconsciousness.

Fault: The head is excessively defended, while the body (extremely vulnerable to blows, which may occasionally prove fatal) is left with less protection than one would deem proper. The erroneous belief seems to be that the head cannot take care of itself adequately by hair's-breadth slipping. Lack of said slipping results in energy-wasting excessive head movement.

Fault: Reliance upon the gloves when blocking. This needs no explanation--it defeats the purpose of gloved fighting, e.g. to practice for situations when the mufflers are absent.

Fault: Feinting, the hallmark of a good boxer, is less frequently relied upon. Counterpunching and effective offense are therefore lessened.

Fault: Reliance upon the referee to force a halt to hugging, compounded by the readiness to enter middle range where hugging is more difficult to avoid.

Fault: Eyes insufficiently turned to one side, thereby preserving one side of one's vision from punishment--as most competent boxers will endeavor to inflict.

Fault: The hands are kept comparatively still, rather than being used in a slow cycloidal motion to keep one's adversary in the dark as to the intended target. Moreover, boxers do not seek to "get in time"--to shift the guard from slightly square to slightly linear to account for the difference in one's opponent's range.

Fault: Hands and arms are used in such a way as to endanger them if connected cleanly against with a solid punch.

[Pete47]

This is a very interesting list! It gives me something to think about. Could it be, that Boxing in former times was more oriented towards self-defense?

[janitor]

I am confident that the old timers would totaly ridicule modern technique particularly among the heavyweights. Certainly not all changes have been for the better.

There is always a tendency for fighters and trainers from the previous generation to see changes as retrograde steps.

The great bareknuckle fighter and trainer Larry Foley was highly critical of Jack Johnsons methods particularly his stance. Jim Jeffries and Jack Johnson did not think much of the technique of fighters of the 1930s, perhaps with good reason in some cases.

If I had to single out one area where the change has been genuinely retrograde it is the decline feinting and hand movment. If you put John L Sullivan in the modern ring this is one thing that he would be able to do far better than any contemporary heavyweight.

[China_hand_Joe]

Fault: Those newtimers throw punches that are too fast and must tire quickly as a result

[janitor]

Good point..but while Sullivan is feintin away..Tyson just hits him..game over.

I suspect it would not be quite that simple.

[janitor]

Has anybody ever considered that Lennox Lewis might have been lucky to fight in an era when few people could feint effectively at heavyweight?

Oliver McCall and Hasim Ramhan got their lucky breaks by accident. A guy like Max Schmeling or Joe Walcott might just be able to engineer one.

[McGrain]

If these guys could actually see each other fight I really don't think they would be to interested in ridiculing each other, and having actually watched each other both would pick up bits and bobs for using.

Maybe the old guys would fing the modern guys a bit soft for fighting so infrequently.

[cross_trainer]

Fault: Those newtimers throw punches that are too fast and must tire quickly as a result

It's a good thing we have correctly-timed film from the 1870's to determine how much slower they were.

[China_hand_Joe]

Why is it the footage doesn't make SRR look slow, but the rest do -questionmark-

[cross_trainer]

Why is it the footage doesn't make SRR look slow, but the rest do -questionmark-

Perhaps because Robinson was even faster than the film shows--and of course, this has no bearing on the supposed speed of guys who were never filmed (the pre-1900 guys I'm referring to).

More to the point, you don't refer to speed but to "sharpness" when criticizing old-timers--a rather indefinite quality which you have never elaborated upon. For all we know, that lack of perceived sharpness is attributable to your viewing old, grainy films.

[China_hand_Joe]

The only argument you will ever be able to come up with to defend the dark ages regards those magical 'intangibles' - if we measure the speeds of modern and dark age boxers with some calculations from the footage, it is a guarentee that overall the modern fighter is quicker - "but the war made them tougher!"

[cross_trainer]

The only argument you will ever be able to come up with to defend the dark ages regards those magical 'intangibles' - if we measure the speeds of modern and dark age boxers with some calculations from the footage, it is a guarentee that overall the modern fighter is quicker - "but the war made them tougher!"
How can you calculate handspeed in footage that is incorrectly timed?

In any event, I welcome you to try. How do you plan to measure the speed? And how do you plan to calculate handspeed from newspaper reports?

[cross_trainer]

too many negro champions.

Yep, they probably would criticize that. However, I chose to ignore the social aspects.

[TBooze]

too many negro champions.

What? Peter Jackson bemoaning that there are too many black champions?:huh

I choose to ignore your other thread, giving you the benefit of the doubt, but with comments like that, I start to question my judgement.

[China_hand_Joe]

How can you calculate handspeed in footage that is incorrectly timed?

In any event, I welcome you to try. How do you plan to measure the speed?You calculate by what scale the footage is off by

[cross_trainer]

You calculate by what scale the footage is off by

There are few indicators of exactly how "off" the footage is. Again, though--I eagerly await reading the speed studies that prove your views.

[Seamus]

locked-knee, slappers, who scramble about for their balance and occasionally have the guts to throw a haymaker telegraphed from the 1700's have little to fault the moderns.

I respect their contributions to the sport, but there is little to gleaned for modern fistic science.

[guilalah]

McGrain, post #7

If these guys could actually see each other fight I really don't think they would be to interested in ridiculing each other, and having actually watched each other both would pick up bits and bobs for using.




McGrain, that might be the single most sensible thing I ever heard said or written in the context of an oldtimers-vs.-moderns discussion. :happy

[McGrain]

McGrain, that might be the single most sensible thing I ever heard said or written in the context of an oldtimers-vs.-moderns discussion.

:lol:

I thank you sir.

[China_hand_Joe]

Has anybody ever considered that Lennox Lewis might have been lucky to fight in an era when few people could feint effectively at heavyweight?

Oliver McCall and Hasim Ramhan got their lucky breaks by accident. A guy like Max Schmeling or Joe Walcott might just be able to engineer one.

McCall almost certainly engineered his and you cannot put it past even a Rahman either.

I seriously doubt such moves are past even domestic level fighters today.

[GPater11093]

very interesting cant add much myself though

[TommyV]

Interesting stuff. Glad CHJ bumped this up. Same old Wealthy Elite aswell, aye? :lol:

[JIm Broughton]

Although I admit that it's very interesting to compare modern boxing to it's ancestors, It's really an exercise in futility as we're comparing two different sports. The rules are completely different as is the equipment used. In bareknucle boxing a fighter had to worry about headlocks, hip tosses, kicks and hair pulling not to mention being hit with and trying to protect bare knuckles. Boxing back then was more like the early days of the UFC rather than the Boxing we see today. Boxing in the early 1900's wasn't that far removed from the bare knuckle days. The gloves used were smaller and less solidly constructed than the ones used today so fighters still employed tactics and stances used by the bare knucklers to some extent. When the gloves got bigger and better and hand wrapping became more of a science (and safer too) Boxing srtategy and science changed. It's only natural. A fighter could let his hands fly with less chance of injury and he could block a punch with his gloves closer to his face since they were bigger and better padded. I also imagine mouth guards improved over the years which could help a fighter absorb a shot better to some extent also. As a result Boxing styles changed. No need to employ an extended guard or stand up straight and lean back to avoid a head choke hold or "Chancery" as it was called. Fighters over time brought the arms in close and the hands up to deal with the changes in equipment and rules that occured over the years. It's unfair to compare John L. Sullivan to Larry Holmes since they fought under vastly different times and circumstances with different rules. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that old and new fighters would probably pick up some pointers from each other and I think that's true. I'm sure that they could learn from each other. The old adage that "Form follows function" rings true here. Put Ali in the late 1800's and he would have to change a few aspects of his style. The same goes for Sullivan as well.

[Maxmomer]

Fault: Ducking and lowering one's body is a deplorable habit--it leaves one open not only to the uppercut, but to several species of chancery: one may be chanceried and uppercutted, chanceried and fibbed about the ribs and back, or chanceried and throttled into unconsciousness.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Dempsey1238]

Think the first thing they say is what???? Just 12 weak rounds.


fights to the finish parts the men from the boys, non of this pansy 12 round points wins that mayweather does. In a fight to the finish, Bat Nelson kills him.

The 12 rounders made todays fighters soft.

[cross_trainer]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Heh...I forgot about this old thread.

Apparently, I used a few older bits of boxing vocabulary. Basically, I'm saying that this:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

or this:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

can happen to you.

[amhlilhaus]

after getting over the shock of finding myself awakening 210 years later after a holiday (don't know how I got here) I find it shocking that today's 'boxers' only fight a mere 36 minutes for so called championship bouts. I also am dismayed to find that these contests are decided by a boxer lightly punching his opponent while moving around the ring scarecely damaging his opponent but being declared somehow a victor based on scientific points. looking back I see very few men in the last hundred years who would have attracted any backing from the fancy. there is one legendary man though, because of these modern rules whose record pales to what he might have accomplished in the london prize ring, his name being george chuvalo.

[janitor]

locked-knee, slappers, who scramble about for their balance and occasionally have the guts to throw a haymaker telegraphed from the 1700's have little to fault the moderns.

I respect their contributions to the sport, but there is little to gleaned for modern fistic science.

Do you think that Jack Blackburn could have been a sucesfull trainer today?

[lefthook31]

Technique in boxing has changed. Specifically defensively.
The old timers would be overwhelmed by how the pay scale has changed. That in itself changed the whole mentality of a fighter.
Why should a fighter walk through a brick wall when he knows hes getting enough money to retire on? The whole purpose of boxing has changed, specifically on the championship level where the most competitive fights are made.

[janitor]

Technique in boxing has changed. Specifically defensively.
The old timers would be overwhelmed by how the pay scale has changed. That in itself changed the whole mentality of a fighter.
Why should a fighter walk through a brick wall when he knows hes getting enough money to retire on? The whole purpose of boxing has changed, specifically on the championship level where the most competitive fights are made.

True enough.

Back in the day, a world class fighter could end up back working on the docks if he didn't deliver.

Even a champion knew that he would be fortunate to make enough money to retire on.

Tended to focus minds a bit.