Is the "Old vs New" debate unique to boxing?

[BennyST]

Always a good clip to drop in these discussions

Quite simply the end of the discussion. That is about as clear a full stop as you can possibly get to this topic.

[billeau2]

Team sports is hardly ever reasonable to individual combat....come on now....lol...Even bill will preach that!

True... I don't think the two can be compared. And there are many many reasons for it. in most team sports one can see a big upward bounce when they became professional well paying...this includes football because college level has become a farm system for the pros...which really pisses me off btw.

Club sports never have the financial backing to become attractive enough for the best athletes. baseball was a very interesting game when it was played by conmen, criminals and other assorted drifters. They were quite good physiologically they were amazing, but they never really could attract the best and brightest like today where routinely great Japanese, Spanish and other players are part of the free agent market.

Combatives are something we have been doing a long time and in today's dollars men like Johnson were fighting guys from all over the world and making money doing it. Its safe to say if a guy was big, strong and athletic, he would find a way to the fight game.

Unlike team sports the talent pool for boxers has undergone changes that balance out: We have less talented athletes in boxing because of the prestige of more team sports, and more fight sports (MMA). We also have more people in the world so there are many participants still, again it balances out.

And while we can see a dramatic diffence in athletes in most sports, fighters have always been able to be in top condition. Comparing Montana to bradey for example: I remember joe and he was more stabler than Brady....Stabler beat you with his cunning and mean streak, Montana had a pretty mediocre arm for a great QB. Today's QB's have no weaknesses. These guys are machines! They have to compete against faster smarter players. True that teams are not as strong always but football has become a play by position game. Bill Parcels could tell you every play he would use in a game and exactly how much time he had to hold the ball to win when he was winning...hardly the guts and glory of a guy like Ditka who was loved but nowhere on the same level. Ditka was old school and Parcels was the start of the new era as far as I can see.

In boxing there are no real comprable developments. Even though guys might generally be a little bigger as heavyweights they carry more excess weight and usually do not move enough. In other words there is more, at best a trade off for power with other atributes lacking, if there is even more power in the heavyweight division...a big if.

Thats just an opinion though.

[juggernaut666]

True... I don't think the two can be compared. And there are many many reasons for it. in most team sports one can see a big upward bounce when they became professional well paying...this includes football because college level has become a farm system for the pros...which really pisses me off btw.

Club sports never have the financial backing to become attractive enough for the best athletes. baseball was a very interesting game when it was played by conmen, criminals and other assorted drifters. They were quite good physiologically they were amazing, but they never really could attract the best and brightest like today where routinely great Japanese, Spanish and other players are part of the free agent market.

Combatives are something we have been doing a long time and in today's dollars men like Johnson were fighting guys from all over the world and making money doing it. Its safe to say if a guy was big, strong and athletic, he would find a way to the fight game.

Unlike team sports the talent pool for boxers has undergone changes that balance out: We have less talented athletes in boxing because of the prestige of more team sports, and more fight sports (MMA). We also have more people in the world so there are many participants still, again it balances out.

And while we can see a dramatic diffence in athletes in most sports, fighters have always been able to be in top condition. Comparing Montana to bradey for example: I remember joe and he was more stabler than Brady....Stabler beat you with his cunning and mean streak, Montana had a pretty mediocre arm for a great QB. Today's QB's have no weaknesses. These guys are machines! They have to compete against faster smarter players. True that teams are not as strong always but football has become a play by position game. Bill Parcels could tell you every play he would use in a game and exactly how much time he had to hold the ball to win when he was winning...hardly the guts and glory of a guy like Ditka who was loved but nowhere on the same level. Ditka was old school and Parcels was the start of the new era as far as I can see.

In boxing there are no real comprable developments. Even though guys might generally be a little bigger as heavyweights they carry more excess weight and usually do not move enough. In other words there is more, at best a trade off for power with other atributes lacking, if there is even more power in the heavyweight division...a big if.

Thats just an opinion though.

Agreed ....however a 230 plus pounder isnt going to fight like a 220 under pounder ,the mechanics are different by body structure and genetically athletic guys like Fury who does move well for a SHW is 1% ........i dont see how more power is not giving on average to the SHW ....ironically Fury is one of the least hard hitting top guys so rarely you will see a guy his size lack true HW power of what is the measured today ....rest assurred any guy 6'9 is going to have some form of power. The modern HW trains to be the more sufficient SHW conserve punches with limited movement this is smart fighting ,its really just another weight class than what is being compared on this thread of the 200 pounders ,im sure you realise this.

The SHW of old were not the norm and hardly trained correctly then ,today they make up 90% of the HW division ,the game has changed some dont like it , some do,most just cant grasp reality that the HW's today are not the HW's of yesteryear. They ,bigger ,stronger and far better trained today.

[ShoulderRoll]

The super heavyweights of today are lucky that we no longer have 15 round fights. If they had to last that long you'd see a lot of them come in far lighter and less bulked up.

Back then you had to have staying power as well as size and strength.

[juggernaut666]

The super heavyweights of today are lucky that we no longer have 15 round fights. If they had to last that long you'd see a lot of them come in far lighter and less bulked up.

Back then you had to have staying power as well as size and strength.

Longer rounds are just longer rounds...they would just pace themselves differently. Fighters don't cater to the sport the sport caters to them..if it wasn't giving the sport better performance they would just change the rnds anyway.15 rnds doesn't mean being superior,it just meansve longer to span out the punches it goes both ways.

[billeau2]

Agreed ....however a 230 plus pounder isnt going to fight like a 220 under pounder ,the mechanics are different by body structure and genetically athletic guys like Fury who does move well for a SHW is 1% ........i dont see how more power is not giving on average to the SHW ....ironically Fury is one of the least hard hitting top guys so rarely you will see a guy his size lack true HW power of what is the measured today ....rest assurred any guy 6'9 is going to have some form of power. The modern HW trains to be the more sufficient SHW conserve punches with limited movement this is smart fighting ,its really just another weight class than what is being compared on this thread of the 200 pounders ,im sure you realise this.

The SHW of old were not the norm and hardly trained correctly then ,today they make up 90% of the HW division ,the game has changed some dont like it , some do,most just cant grasp reality that the HW's today are not the HW's of yesteryear. They ,bigger ,stronger and far better trained today.

Different, surely. Better? I don't agree. I am willing to extend different out quite a ways but I don't see evidence of better. Sometimes what appears apparent is not so, take Fury for example. The man has one of the higher KO/stoppage percents as a heavy.

There are also examples where a guy like Toney held the division hostage,
that does not speak to better... At least not as far as I can see it.

[Elroy1]

The super heavyweights of today are lucky that we no longer have 15 round fights. If they had to last that long you'd see a lot of them come in far lighter and less bulked up.

Back then you had to have staying power as well as size and strength.

This is one of the most unbelievably stupid comments in all of nut baggery..

Hang your head in shame and embarrassment for even trying to reiterate it!

It has been totally smashed to smitherines from several different angles time and time again.

Any sized boxer can fight any number of rounds by pacing AND it is the heftier/stronger boxer who saps the energy of the smaller/weaker boxer and who can determine the pace of the fight!!

For a fairly comprehensive annihilation of the rest of the story, see the HWBlog's "Past boxers were 15 rounders" expose on the subject.

You have exposed yourself as a complete fool AGAIN..

Stand down you absolute nut bag!!

[billeau2]

Longer rounds are just longer rounds...they would just pace themselves differently. Fighters don't cater to the sport the sport caters to them..if it wasn't giving the sport better performance they would just change the rnds anyway.15 rnds doesn't mean being superior,it just meansve longer to span out the punches it goes both ways.

But these guys threw more punches in those rounds, generally speaking most fighters were well conditioned and more active than today. It would look to most people that they didn't need to pace themselves. They also fought in many different ranges when today we don't see those ranges utilized...

Another thing is that MMA by comparison has much slimmer looking heavyweights...I may have told you this, when the first sanctioned fights took place in San Francisco I saw the fighters up close because i had helped train some of our guys and Juggy, these guys looked really small! so I would question whether real progress has a relationship to size. The MMA guys are very active and are certainly privy to the training you speak of, it just looks like because of what they need to do in the ring they are more lean and mean.

[billeau2]

This is one of the most unbelievably stupid comments in all of nut baggery..

Hang your head in shame and embarrassment for even trying to reiterate it!

It has been totally smashed to smitherines from several different angles time and time again.

Any sized boxer can fight any number of rounds by pacing AND it is the heftier/stronger boxer who saps the energy of the smaller/weaker boxer and who can determine the pace of the fight!!

For a fairly comprehensive annihilation of the rest of the story, see the HWBlog's "Past boxers were 15 rounders" expose on the subject.

You have exposed yourself as a complete fool AGAIN..

Stand down you absolute nut bag!!

ahh Elroy back again! Did you go to the gym and ask about the punch? poor Elroid just undid some of the progress he made by resorting to hyperboly and...well....idiocy. Thats ok tomorrows day! Im sure we can clear the slate and try to get back on track...but first, lets learn what boxers do! so again, go to a gym, actually better yet!! why don't you ask juggy about a punch? whats involved with actually teaching someone how to throw it the technical details that are involved, how about that?

[Elroy1]

Longer rounds are just longer rounds...they would just pace themselves differently. Fighters don't cater to the sport the sport caters to them..if it wasn't giving the sport better performance they would just change the rnds anyway.15 rnds doesn't mean being superior,it just meansve longer to span out the punches it goes both ways.

Basically the more rounds, the LESS actual boxing there is and the more standing around.

I emphasise "standing" in anticipation of the next nut bag response which will target punch outputs which is another easily dispatched subject.

Basically it's the same revolving wheel of nut bag excuses, each of which avoiding the overall picture, each of which is smashed in quick succession, until after the whole wheel has been run through, the nut bag again starts at the beginning seemingly forgetting how badly beaten they were on the subject and trying to tuck it under the rug...

This "cyclical narrow focussed argumentative" style is the cornerstone of the nut bag attack and is best combatted by exposing it from an overview perspective rather than playing the game they way they want it played, answering their questions step by step.

OF course in reality it is the nut bag who makes the extraordinary claims here and who rightfully should be producing evidence.

OF course any such conversation would be extremely short as no nut bag has ever been able to formulate a coherent answer as to any realistic questions about their old school favourites.