Todays athletes aren't always better

[B-Bomber]

That's a good point actually. Why do there seem to be fewer great trainers these days, passing down their knowledge to the next generation? Are there too few guys that want to be pro boxers these days or too few people willing to learn and pass down those teachings? I was thinking of this more recently too with the tragic passing of Manny Stewart this week.

In my opinion it is because the sport has changed.
Some of the most famous trainers of the past had a double role.
They were not only trainers, but teachers.

When a new kid entered a gym he was taught basic principles, not only boxing.

I am not a great historian, as far as boxing is concerned, so I am sure other people could give you more and better examples; but I'd think of young Tyson and Cus D'Amato.

In his first few professional bouts, and the amatorial bouts I managed to watch, he always went to congratulate his opponent after a fight.
He showed respect toward more experienced guys in his first few professional fights, by always jabbing and boxing for at least one round.
When he defeated Holmes he did not showboat or threaten to eat anybody's children, but showed great respect by saying that he'd have lost against a prime Holmes.

If he acted like that, it was surely not because of the education he received as a kid in the Bronx, but because of Cus' teachings.

Today, when fighters lose, instead of taking the blame and train harder they fire their trainers. Tyson himself is an example of this in his later carreer.

Nowaday's champions (in all sports) tend to be spoiled, rich children, IMO mostly because of the envinroment they mature in. An envinroment where parents "invest" on a child, in order to make him a champion.

[them_apples]

A common arguement for those who believe that the boxing greats of the past would be enable to compete with their counterparts of today is that athletes have evolved beyond comparison due to modern nutrition and sports science and the like. I don't believe this is quite true though.

Yes in events that reward pure strength or pure speed, such as weightlifting and sprinting the records of the past bear no comparison to the records of today. Today's athletes are stronger and faster. But if you look at athletic events that rely on technique as well as power or speed the records do not fall as quickly, there is not such a chasm between todays records and previous records.

Jesse Owens was an all-time great Olympian. His times in the 100 metres sprint, an event based on pure speed, are laughable when compared to the top sprinters today. His world record from 1936 of 10.2 would not have seen him anywhere near qualifying for the Olympic final this year in London. But in the long jump, a technical event which rewards speed only when applied with good technique the world record Jesse Owens set in 1935 of 8.13 would actually have enabled Owens to have medalled in London. This years Olympic bronze medallist Will Claye of USA jumped 8.12 metres. Britains gold medal winner Greg Rutherford jumped 8.31, a distance that could have been bettered by long jumpers of the 1960's. In fact the long jump world record has not progressed since Mike Powell jumped 8.95 in 1991 and the Olympic record has not progressed since Bob Beamon jumped 8.90 metres in 1968. That jump from Beamon was a world record for 23 years.

It's not just the long jump. In other technical disciplines world records often go many years without being broken. In the triple jump Jonathan Edwards world record has stood for 12 years. Only 9 men have been able to better the distance of 17.89 that was first set by Brazilian Joao Carlos Oliveria 37 years ago. The high jump record has not been broken since 1993. The height jumped to win this years Olympics could have been bettered by high jumpers from the 1970's.

Boxing is a technical discipline. It is not always the quickest or the strongest that wins. It is about how you use your speed and how you use strength. If 1930's Jesse Owens is capable of beating most of todays long jumpers then I don't see why Benny Leonard would be incapable of beating todays lightweights. Or why Joe Louis would be unable to beat todays heavyweights.

great post. I always thought this. It's that and boxers were tough as hell back then. The second day weigh in kinda let's fighters come in anywhere from 5-10 lbs heavier on avg then same day weigh ins though. But I agree. I think boxing peaked in the 70's. The 80's had a lot of good boxers as well.

If I had to pick one boxer on his best day that I can't see losing, It's Roberto Duran.

At Lw, and watching his 2 fights at WW where he was actually in shape, he looks damn near unbeatable there too.

[McGoorty]

Okay, it looks like the stats don't really exist. Using an estimate from 2008 that I'm reading off wiki, there are about 7 billion people today. In 1930, there were about 2 billion. So there are about 3.5 times more people today. Add to it that the underdeveloped countries back then pretty much didn't have access to boxing, and Russia and Eastern Europe weren't producing any pros that I know of. That means that in order for the numbers of boxers back then to be the same as today, the developed countries would've had to produce a lot more boxers back then to match today's world numbers (I'm guessing at least 10 times more, maybe higher). Also, because of today's higher population and living standards, the athletes (the ones weeded out of the total population) today have a higher starting point than in the past. So I'll stay skeptical.

I have already stated a FACT that Australia had many times the boxers we have now, old Australian boxing magazines had a registry of all the professional boxers active in the country, it was like 25 times as many boxers in this country back then, these magazines are available on Ebay and whole seasons are available. In my grandfathers day nearly every boy had done some boxing training, there were not as many sports back then downunder. you either played one of 3 football codes, cricket, tennis or BOXING and I knew many of them. basically it was the done thing to box... and if you couldnt you got beat up.

[McGoorty]

That's a good point actually. Why do there seem to be fewer great trainers these days, passing down their knowledge to the next generation? Are there too few guys that want to be pro boxers these days or too few people willing to learn and pass down those teachings? I was thinking of this more recently too with the tragic passing of Manny Stewart this week.

I think its more of a case of the link to guys like Foley and Fitzsimmons was severed somewhere (many peeps dont seem to realise that apart from being a great of the ring, Bob was also a great trainer, his legacy is enormous, read Rob Snells newsletter on Kid McCoy for an example).... also I believe with the advent of television that fashion (not clothing or such) has a bit to do with it,,,,,, thousands tried to imitate an Ali or Leonard or Hagler or a Tyson which may be a problem because all fighters are built a bit differently, a great trainer will highlight the fighters particular attributes, Joe Louis's style had a lineage back to guys like Joe Gans, but it was mostly Loius's natural gifts that were utilised. Joe wasnt built to take the type of punishment which a Marciano or Basilio would have thought little of.. if he had tried to imitate Jack Dempsey he would have been a patsy.... so thats why trainers are important... they must have a great talent for observing. A good book to read would be Frank Klaus's Book on the art of infighting, I read that and realised just how much know how seems to have been lost, Klaus was one of the great infighters of all time.

[McGoorty]

In my opinion it is because the sport has changed.
Some of the most famous trainers of the past had a double role.
They were not only trainers, but teachers.

When a new kid entered a gym he was taught basic principles, not only boxing.

I am not a great historian, as far as boxing is concerned, so I am sure other people could give you more and better examples; but I'd think of young Tyson and Cus D'Amato.

In his first few professional bouts, and the amatorial bouts I managed to watch, he always went to congratulate his opponent after a fight.
He showed respect toward more experienced guys in his first few professional fights, by always jabbing and boxing for at least one round.
When he defeated Holmes he did not showboat or threaten to eat anybody's children, but showed great respect by saying that he'd have lost against a prime Holmes.

If he acted like that, it was surely not because of the education he received as a kid in the Bronx, but because of Cus' teachings.

Today, when fighters lose, instead of taking the blame and train harder they fire their trainers. Tyson himself is an example of this in his later carreer.

Nowaday's champions (in all sports) tend to be spoiled, rich children, IMO mostly because of the envinroment they mature in. An envinroment where parents "invest" on a child, in order to make him a champion.

Very true, when Bob Fitzsimmons taught a guy how to box, he didnt just teach him how to fight and to congratulate a conqueror... he taught nothing more than an entire way of life and a philosophy for a right and proper way to live.... at least according to Bob,.. Fitz was more like a Spartan or a Roman stoic like Cato Caesar Hater

[Capaedia]

louis would probably have more trouble with vitali, who has a great chin.

I think Vitali would actually be the easier fight for Louis given his inferior footwork and speed.

Also that low right hand. Louis would be in love with that.

Wlad has the mentality, jab and footwork to keep Louis at bay in my opinion. For the entire fight? Perhaps not, but I think no matter how great Vitali's chin is, that low right hand is a death sentence.

[McGoorty]

Very true, when Bob Fitzsimmons taught a guy how to box, he didnt just teach him how to fight and to congratulate a conqueror... he taught nothing more than an entire way of life and a philosophy for a right and proper way to live.... at least according to Bob,.. Fitz was more like a Spartan or a Roman stoic like Cato Caesar Hater

In my opinion the more a boxer can train like an ancient Spartan warrior. to instill the kind of fearlessness shown at the Battle of Thermoplylae.... consider this, who is more dangerous at hand to hand combat or spear or sword combat.... a Spartan or a modern civilized or semi civilized man ?....... Devolution can exist just as much as evolution.

[B-Bomber]

In my opinion the more a boxer can train like an ancient Spartan warrior. to instill the kind of fearlessness shown at the Battle of Thermoplylae.... consider this, who is more dangerous at hand to hand combat or spear or sword combat.... a Spartan or a modern civilized or semi civilized man ?....... Devolution can exist just as much as evolution.

I absolutely agree.
A bit out of topic, Spartans believed in a form of "divine madness" they called "daemon".

This form of madness had to be controlled and used in order to create the perfect fighter. Somebody who could feel the same "divine madness" as a berserker, but control it through discipline, training and self control.


Back on topic, in my opinion fighters from previous generations, especially those who survived poverty, war, famine and abuse, were tougher.
For two reasons:

-They were used to far worse things than getting punched in the face.
- By consequence, also their level of mental resilience was different.

I think it can compared to society. If you were to punch the average Joe in the street, nowadays most people (at least in most 1st-2nd world countries) would just look at you in utter shock.
Somebody who lived through a war, by contrast, would be more likely to give you the beating of your life for that.

[McGoorty]

I absolutely agree.
A bit out of topic, Spartans believed in a form of "divine madness" they called "daemon".

This form of madness had to be controlled and used in order to create the perfect fighter. Somebody who could feel the same "divine madness" as a berserker, but control it through discipline, training and self control.


Back on topic, in my opinion fighters from previous generations, especially those who survived poverty, war, famine and abuse, were tougher.
For two reasons:

-They were used to far worse things than getting punched in the face.
- By consequence, also their level of mental resilience was different.

I think it can compared to society. If you were to punch the average Joe in the street, nowadays most people (at least in most 1st-2nd world countries) would just look at you in utter shock.
Somebody who lived through a war, by contrast, would be more likely to give you the beating of your life for that.

Yep, the Corbett documentary said it perfectly, boxing is shaped by the world around it and is a mirror into the way a society is. ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- The main reason I diverged from script was to stress that for a people who are trained to endure any pain and hardship from the day they were born, all Spartan babies were left exposed through their entire first night of life exposed to the elements, wolves etc, the next morning the parents would wander out into the countryside to find out if their baby deserved to be a Spartan or not, if the baby had died, it was deemed unworthy anyway and forgotten about. they were taken from the women as tiny boys and go to live in the barracks with the men, like the stoics they slept on hard wooden surface or even on cold stone,, their entire existence was training, killing and the most extreme hardships designed to kill off all but the most insanely strong..... a couple thousand of them could strike mortal terror into an army of many tens of thousands............ you simply cannot imagine a life like that let alone compare even to that of a John L. Sullivan... these guys were harder than ten of him.

[New England]

I think Vitali would actually be the easier fight for Louis given his inferior footwork and speed.

Also that low right hand. Louis would be in love with that.

Wlad has the mentality, jab and footwork to keep Louis at bay in my opinion. For the entire fight? Perhaps not, but I think no matter how great Vitali's chin is, that low right hand is a death sentence.

that low left is deceptive. he's obviously never fought a right handed puncher like louis, but how often is klitschko [vitali] hit with right hands? pretty rarely, for a slow guy. lewis hit him with right hand bombs, but he's a few inches taller than louis, and has an eight inch reach advantage, and he landed a lot of them from very far away by louis standards.
klitscko uses his length and what i call "strength up high" to diffuse right handed power, mostly by backing away and knocking the punches down with his hands, or letting them hit shoulders. vitali is not only very tall, his shoulders are up very high, giving him a serious advantage when knocking away punches. he's vulnerable to the left hook when a guy is close enough. solis hit him with it, arreola did his best work with the left, etc.

now of course, you'd a point in bringing to attention just how good louis right hand and left hook were, and how educated.


i've just got a funny feeling that wladimir would literally start to go after the first big shot hand he took, and that vitali wouldn't.