Who do the soviet bloc boxers usually have better jabs than American boxers?

Lmao. Wlad? Best jab ever? You can't be serious lol. Wlads jab failed him in his biggest fights. Yes, it is! check the stats for number of jabs landed in heavyweight boxing or in any weight division. Check the stats for the percentage of jabs landed and for any other valuable criteria. Wladimir Klitschko likely comes out somewhere near or on the top of the list statistically. What 'biggest fights'? Wladimir Klitschko has some of the most unparalleled achievements in heavyweight boxing history and some are unparalleled by the standard of any weight division. His success and records in 'big fights' at heavyweight boxing is unparalleled. The jab has been the main reason for that.

I have thought this out and I am familiar with most American boxers. None of them jab with anywhere near the effectiveness of Wladimir Klitschko's jabs. No American boxer in history that I know of has a jab that is anywhere near as good as Wladimir Klitschko's. My point still stands! Lmao. Wlad? Best jab ever? You can't be serious lol. Wlads jab failed him in his biggest fights.

Yeah. You haven't really thought this process out. We have to see if you have an agenda or if you're truly serious because boxing has had many good jabbers thoughout boxing history that you've forgotten about. I have thought this out and I am familiar with most American boxers. None of them jab with anywhere near the effectiveness of Wladimir Klitschko's jabs. No American boxer in history that I know of has a jab that is anywhere near as good as Wladimir Klitschko's. My point still stands!

In what way? What do you mean? Have you got anything specific to state in response to this thread? Yeah. You haven't really thought this process out. We have to see if you have an agenda or if you're truly serious because boxing has had many good jabbers thoughout boxing history that you've forgotten about.

Me too. Obviously the old boxers were legends and there's a lot that can be learned from them, but the sport moved on. I think this nostalgia in boxing community really hurts the sport as it prevents people from appreciating what we have right now. I also think that part of the reason for this romanticism of the past champions is because internet didn't exist back then and those old greats didn't have that many haters and detractors posting negative opinions about them everyday. These days pretty much any elite boxer gets underrated by the legion of online haters, people on the internet are generally very negative and rarely give any credit to anyone. Any ATG from the 90s until today has a ton of haters who constantly post negative things... Floyd, Klitschko's, RJJ, Pacquiao, Marquez, Ward, Hopkins... You name them. They all have much more haters in the so-called hardcore boxing community than the guys from the 60s and 70s. of course, the newer generation of boxers can learn from past era boxers the same way new scientists can learn from past scientists. However, the athletes in virtually every sport, not just in boxing have advanced and evolved from before. Meaning, that the boxers today have advantages over past era boxers which past era boxers didn't have in terms of tactics, athleticism, strategies and etc. due to further developments of the sport in many departments. It's a shame and this applies to not just boxing but other sports and other fields as well. People don't usually live in the present moment. Instead, they dwell on the past too much. They only appreciate something after it's no longer around anymore. As they say: absence makes the heart grow fonder. Hence, Wladimir Klitschko I believe will be more appreciated after a few more years post his retirement. This also applied in the past too. Fans didn't appreciate boxers of their time as much as past boxers, until the boxers they were watching during their time also retired for a few years. Again, this is caused by the general inability to live in the present moment of the civilians today. Perhaps it takes time to appreciate new things because it takes time to understand those new things sufficiently enough? or it could be because of lack of open mindedness This is why it is important to learn how to appreciate what is present before it's too late and regrets start. pouring over. Narrow Mindedness is the worst in my opinion because those individuals aren't even willing to accept something to be of a specific quality, even if it is. Whilst lack of understanding can be fixed. Anyway, the main point is that very few individuals who are nostalgic over past boxers or things compared to the modern boxers / things are actually objective in their conclusions. It's usually based more on emotion rather than rationality or objectivity. So the level of objectivity has to be usually questioned!

Kova ggg not great inside fighters so need the jab

You must be out of your ****en mind, lmao. In what way? What do you mean? Have you got anything specific to state in response to this thread?

For example, boxers like Wladimir Klitschko, Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin, Kostya Tszyu and etc. They all have superior jabs than pretty much any American boxer. Wladimir Klitschko's jab alone is better than the jab of any American boxer in history. Yet, somehow American boxers are supposedly superior 'skilled' boxers or 'technicians'? Isn't the jab one of the most important foundation to being a 'skilled' boxer or a 'technician'? You must be out of your ****en mind, lmao.

However, the idea that the athletic performances of athletes / boxers during the 60's / 70's is the limit and no further enhancement has been made is totally false. I classify the 90's until today the modern era / generation. Me too. Obviously the old boxers were legends and there's a lot that can be learned from them, but the sport moved on. I think this nostalgia in boxing community really hurts the sport as it prevents people from appreciating what we have right now. I also think that part of the reason for this romanticism of the past champions is because internet didn't exist back then and those old greats didn't have that many haters and detractors posting negative opinions about them everyday. These days pretty much any elite boxer gets underrated by the legion of online haters, people on the internet are generally very negative and rarely give any credit to anyone. Any ATG from the 90s until today has a ton of haters who constantly post negative things... Floyd, Klitschko's, RJJ, Pacquiao, Marquez, Ward, Hopkins... You name them. They all have much more haters in the so-called hardcore boxing community than the guys from the 60s and 70s.

Even Pulev's got a real good jab on him. Good post :) So do Alexander Dimitrenko, Alexander Ustinov, Dariusz Michaelczewski and so forth so on! The list continues!

Exactly what in boxing has changed to make a fighter better today than previous era's? They fight less rounds, throw less punches on average, have way more weight classes and divisions... specifically speaking at heavyweight they throw less punches and go to the body less. I can post film after film to prove my point. I already know you will come back to weight. You are not going to argue skills with me because you can't. Some of your points are either irrelevant or non-sequitur. Heavyweights in the modern era fight less rounds because they are able to usually knock their opponents out quicker. Therefore, there isn't much need for too many more rounds unlike in the past era where most heavyweights were featherfists and subsequently needed to fight for more rounds due to the inability to win by knockout quicker. Therefore, more rounds =/= better. If anything, the fact that past heavyweights needed more rounds actually is evidence of them being inferior to modern heavyweights. As for throwing less punches, so what? They throw less punches, maybe because the fewer punches they do throw and land are more damaging and effective than higher number of punches past heavyweights used to throw and land? The fact that modern heavyweights usually have higher + faster knockout records, whilst landing less punches actually proves that modern heavyweights are superior. Not that they're inferior to past heavyweights. As for skills, I'd like to know how past boxers from any weight division were more skilled than modern boxers. Please present your film study! You're more than welcomed!

You're right. Boxing is one of the rare sports where romanticism clouds people's judgement. In most other sports, people just accept the fact that modern athletes are better but in boxing you have people who legitimately think Jack Johnson would be competitive today even though he comes from a time when men's 100m sprint world record was like 10.6 seconds. Even if for the sake of the argument we assume that modern boxers aren't as skilled as the boxers of previous eras (which is highly debatable), modern boxers would have a big edge when it comes to athleticism and could overwhelm a lot of more skilled boxers of the past with it if you'd put them against each other head to head. Of course, that doesn't mean that modern boxers are necessarily better legacy wise, the old boxers deserve their credit. People just need to accept that things are very different today and a lot of things evolved in sports. Especially when you look at the HW division these modern super-HWs are hard to compare to anyone in the past because we never had this type of boxers before. You never had anyone of Klitschko's size who was as athletic and agile as him in the previous eras. Smaller people do things a bit differently technique-wise, that's why guys like Loma often appear more technical and skilled than the bigger guys. It's hard to do certain things when you're as big as Klitschko. If we judge by the Olympic records human athleticism was evolving fast until the 80s, then the development was slowed down a bit and the improvements from the 80s until now have been marginal. The reality is, the onus is up to the ones claiming that previous era boxers would beat modern heavyweights, or that they were better boxers than modern super heavyweights like the Klitschko brothers, to prove that they have the feats to beat such modern boxers. They must prove that the techniques, tactics and moves would be applicable in the modern era of heavyweight boxing against modern heavyweights. They must prove that they have the technique, tactics and moves to neutralize and beat modern heavyweights and so forth so on. This is because athletes in virtually every athletic sport in the modern era have been breaking past world records. In other words, athletes today are better overall. Boxing is no exception to this rule! Nostalgia is a huge disease within boxing communities. It prevents individuals from having rational and objective thoughts. It also prevents them from being able to perform objective analysis / evaluation. I have little to no problems with anyone arguing that athletes may have reached a plateau in terms of further athletic enhancement. However, the idea that the athletic performances of athletes / boxers during the 60's / 70's is the limit and no further enhancement has been made is totally false. I classify the 90's until today the modern era / generation.

Just, no. Ward at least tried to fight out of the clinch. Wlad was an octopus. Wlad has destroyed multiple elite opposition with nothing but clean boxing. Ward is yet to beat a single elite opponent without controversy of cheating and using illegal tactics.

Yup I got no problems with Wlad. I was speaking about Ward. Oh sorry! No problem! I misread the part where you wrote about Ward's jab and clinch tactics, thinking you wrote Wlad instead of Ward. I ain't got no disagreements with that.

Are you really going to compare Wlad’s and Ward’s clinching styles? Wlad did clinch but not in an illegal manner, and a good amount less than Ward. Just, no. Ward at least tried to fight out of the clinch. Wlad was an octopus.

I'm from Eastern Europe and tend to support the fighters from this region but I agree with you. I think that Eastern European boxing has to catch up when it comes to pro style and Eastern European school of boxing needs to teach more variety. I think Eastern Europe (if you include all the ex-Soviet areas) has the best talent pool in boxing right now. That's a huge population of people with proven great athleticism in all kinds of sports and at the same time there's a lot of poverty and unemployment which makes people want to consider a career in pro boxing. I somewhat agree with this. The overall talent pool for sports in other countries like in the US is probably at the top, but I feel like a lot of kids in Eastern European countries either have soccer or boxing as a "way out." Boxing is a brutal sport, and it takes a certain kind of environment to breed the toughness, mental fortitude, and heart required in the sport. Only American football and probably rugby require these kinds of "special" athletes. Listening to interviews and doc's of GGG, Kovalev, Usyk, and others, they had a very rough upbringing (much worse than some of the US blacks who are coddled at a young age now if they show a sliver of athletic talent). The talent is definitely there but the thing that Eastern Europe is lacking is a tradition of pro boxing and there just aren't that many good trainers for pro style. Their principles are basically always the same, they push orthodoxy over creativity. That's why most top boxers from Eastern Europe have great power or great chins (or both) because if you learn all the fighters the same orthodox "1-2" style then the fighters with the best power and the best chin are going to come on top in the local amateur and pro ranks while some otherwise talented boxers might struggle because they don't have the tools to deal with monster punchers like Kovalev or Beterbiev. The thing is, pro boxing only exists in Eastern Europe for less than 30 years, so it's only natural that the optimal level of knowledge and experience isn't there yet. Lomachenko is a great exception and I think in the future we will see more creative fighters like that coming from Eastern Europe. This is an excellent point. I have a similar theory with regard to some of the tough-as-nails boxers that come over from Asia. There is no real "Asian" school for boxing due to it's limited history there, so I feel a lot of the top Asians from Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, etc, rely on power and chin to get to the top. Just off the top of my head, Sor Rungvisai and Kamegai come to mind. Whereas in the US, UK, and probably in the Soviet Bloc, guys with A+ chins and power but no skills would probably get eaten alive on skill alone. I am also a big Loma fan, but I have to emphasize that he is a 1 in a million fighter. The creativity part, I can agree with, but I highly doubt we will see someone like him coming from ANYWHERE in a very long time, aside from a few copy-cats down the line. I rate him THAT highly.

Even Pulev's got a real good jab on him. Good post :)

You're right. Boxing is one of the rare sports where romanticism clouds people's judgement. In most other sports, people just accept the fact that modern athletes are better but in boxing you have people who legitimately think Jack Johnson would be competitive today even though he comes from a time when men's 100m sprint world record was like 10.6 seconds. Even if for the sake of the argument we assume that modern boxers aren't as skilled as the boxers of previous eras (which is highly debatable), modern boxers would have a big edge when it comes to athleticism and could overwhelm a lot of more skilled boxers of the past with it if you'd put them against each other head to head. Of course, that doesn't mean that modern boxers are necessarily better legacy wise, the old boxers deserve their credit. People just need to accept that things are very different today and a lot of things evolved in sports. Especially when you look at the HW division these modern super-HWs are hard to compare to anyone in the past because we never had this type of boxers before. You never had anyone of Klitschko's size who was as athletic and agile as him in the previous eras. Smaller people do things a bit differently technique-wise, that's why guys like Loma often appear more technical and skilled than the bigger guys. It's hard to do certain things when you're as big as Klitschko. If we judge by the Olympic records human athleticism was evolving fast until the 80s, then the development was slowed down a bit and the improvements from the 80s until now have been marginal. Exactly what in boxing has changed to make a fighter better today than previous era's? They fight less rounds, throw less punches on average, have way more weight classes and divisions... specifically speaking at heavyweight they throw less punches and go to the body less. I can post film after film to prove my point. I already know you will come back to weight. You are not going to argue skills with me because you can't.

To me, it's ridiculous to claim that modern athletes are going to be inferior to athletes of past eras. World records are being broken by athletes in nearly every athletic sport in the modern era. So to me, it's not too far fetched to believe that boxers today are also faster, more powerful, more agile, more responsive and simply superior athletes overall than boxers of past era, assuming the comparison is between athletes of similar size. For example, a 6 foot 5, 240+ man during the 70's or 60's were usually sick, uncoordinated, unathletic, slow and etc. None of them were anywhere near as athletic as the Klitshcko brothers. It's only today we have athletes that big who are also extremely athletic. Modern cruiserweights to me appear as superior athletes compared to the heavyweights of the 60's and 70's. They also appear to have better technique as well. Take Oleksandr Usyk, he can do everything Muhammad was able to do, plus more. His technique is far superior. His footwork variation is also superior. This is just an example of the best cruiserweight today being superior to the best heavyweight of the 60's / 70's. You're right. Boxing is one of the rare sports where romanticism clouds people's judgement. In most other sports, people just accept the fact that modern athletes are better but in boxing you have people who legitimately think Jack Johnson would be competitive today even though he comes from a time when men's 100m sprint world record was like 10.6 seconds. Even if for the sake of the argument we assume that modern boxers aren't as skilled as the boxers of previous eras (which is highly debatable), modern boxers would have a big edge when it comes to athleticism and could overwhelm a lot of more skilled boxers of the past with it if you'd put them against each other head to head. Of course, that doesn't mean that modern boxers are necessarily better legacy wise, the old boxers deserve their credit. People just need to accept that things are very different today and a lot of things evolved in sports. Especially when you look at the HW division these modern super-HWs are hard to compare to anyone in the past because we never had this type of boxers before. You never had anyone of Klitschko's size who was as athletic and agile as him in the previous eras. Smaller people do things a bit differently technique-wise, that's why guys like Loma often appear more technical and skilled than the bigger guys. It's hard to do certain things when you're as big as Klitschko. If anything, the past eras before Mike Tyson's era were all significantly weaker as far as I'm concerned. If we judge by the Olympic records human athleticism was evolving fast until the 80s, then the development was slowed down a bit and the improvements from the 80s until now have been marginal.

Lol, ok I was going to give you a detailed and logical breakdown until you said Usyk is better than Ali. Now I know you're simply a troll. :lol1: Please do so! Claiming I'm a troll isn't evidence and is merely a lazy response. Just because I don't believe in the hype of Muhammad Ali (his boxing abilities) doesn't make me a troll. I differentiate between his in ring abilities and his influence outside the ring. I'd like to know in what way Muhammad Ali had better boxing abilities than Oleksandr Usyk. As in, what boxing attributes / abilities / skills did he have which Oleksandr Usyk also doesn't? I am genuinely serious here. I've watched Muhammad Ali's complete bouts. Nearly every one of them. So my views on Ali are purely based on seeing him, rather than what fanatics or fanboys claim about him. Again, I'm referring to purely his boxing abilities and nothing else. From what I've seen, there's nothing I was able to discover that he does better than Oleksandr Usyk. Absolutely nothing! Not footwkork. Not defense. Not head movement. Not combination punching. Not even the jab.