Originally Posted by jabsRstiff
"This "evolution" is an ignorance birthed out of a lack of knowledge of the sports history."
Excuse me? You have the wrong guy with that statement. My knowledge of the sport and its history is just fine.
The evolution is plain to see. Is it drastic? No, it's subtle....and there's a reason it took place.
Don't take offense. I appreciate the pioneers of the sport as much as the next guy, but I'm not gonna ROMANTICIZE with them the way I think you and some others here do.
And I still say that it's because that old film does not represent anything like what they actually looked in action, and sometimes what looks to be film blotches is actually like that on their bodies is because of the amount of blood splashing about,...... the old film hides 80 % of whats going on. Another thing that disadvantages the old timers is the fact that just for them to be on film means they were old men by the time they started rolling the cameras...... It's not Jim Corbett's fault or any of the others, that 99% of all fights from that first 1897 film until the late 1940's were never filmed..... It's even worse if you follow Cricket or Rugby League or any other sport,.......... Boxing is actually lucky to have as much film from those days,...... and only because Boxers were the most popular sportsmen. It's a pity there are boxing fans who don't appreciate this.