Could a modern boxer beat one of the Early C20th?

[JayCoe]

No specifics intended but could someone like, say, Mike Tyson beat someone like, say, Jack Johnson? Boxers during the turn of the century and then some seemed more to fight (but with hands only) rather than do what we call boxing. Boxing nowdays requires skill and is basically a science of the body. Like earlier I posted a video up of me on the bag and somebody commented about elbows being too high on a hook etc and that's fair enough but for a split second you think "why?" 'cus in a fight your aim is to just brutalise the other. But of course there is a reason for it all, they don't just make stuff up as to why to do this or that and that's what I mean, boxers nowaday really do have a skill. Take Jess Willard, he was just a strongman and people were like "oh, he'll be good at boxing" and tell him to box.

However, in those days a fight could go until something like 46 rounds. The 'fight of the century' between Jack Johnson and James Jeffries lasted something like 15 rounds (only then was there the first knockdown aswell). Johnson vs. Williams lasted 26! Come on, could a modern day boxer do that?

I personally think the science of modern boxing would beat the olden style reasonably safely. What do you all think?

[TheGreatA]

Of course they could but that doesn't mean a boxer from the early 20's could not beat a boxer from the modern era.
There were some skillful boxers even then.

The rules were different back then so they boxed differently, for example some championship fights had unlimited rounds/40 round limit which meant that the boxers then had to fight much more conservatively to not expend too much energy and the gloves were much smaller which meant they could not block punches with their gloves and had to use movement and parrying to avoid punches.


I don't think Jess Willard was that bad... his stance reminds me of Vitali Klitschko's.
He was a late starter so he obviously didn't gain the experience needed to become a true technician but he had a decent right hand, a good uppercut and more endurance than almost any other fighter ever had.


Jack Johnson was a skilled boxer who could use the jab and the uppercut to great effect. He was also adept at parrying punches.


"The Old Master" Joe Gans


Gene Tunney

It's not like all of the fighters today use the modern boxing techniques.
Some just get by with their punching power/ability to take punches (for example, Miranda, Mayorga, Sam Peter, Baldomir...).


Carlos Maussa KO's Vivian Harris.

[JayCoe]

Yeah, but see that's what I was wondering, a way you could rephrase the question is simply "which style of boxing builds the better fighter?", like how I said, "what we now call boxing" because what they called boxing was different and it was much more like a fight. I do mean people of equal status, like Johnson was deemed the best in his time by both Ali and (I think it was) Foreman. So something like who'd win between him and someone like Tyson, Lewis, Ali, Liston etc.

I just think the science of boxing now has moved it on to help build better boxers (not saying that all olden ones weren't skillful).

[!! Shawn]

I agree that most of the great boxers of yesteryear where very good, but I believe that if you took most modern champions, even the marginal ones with solid fundamentals, and put them in with these old school champions, the old school champions would almost invariably lose.

However, if they were given time to learn the more modern techniques they would certainly win. Most of the old time greats managed to get by on athleticism as the pure technical aspects of the boxing game where still being developed.

Most of them had balance issues due to what was believed to be the correct stance at the time, but which we now know leaves a fighter of balance, and causes fighter to lunge in when coming in.

The importance of a truly effective jab was not yet established, and effective lateral movement was still in its infancy.

It really wasn't until the late 30's that most of the modern techniques really coalesced into the "modern" fundamental style of boxing.

Even once the modern style was established, it took much longer for fighters to be universally taught it.

It's like the land speed record. The cars of back then where not any less extreme for their day, but your average production car of today would simply outclass even the fastest car in the world of 1900 in every aspect.

Same goes with boxing. If you put the fighters head to head with no time for the old school fighters to update their styles, it would invariably end in a miss match.

[Mr. Ryan]

I look at Stanley Ketchel and I wonder how many rounds he would go with a guy like Bernard Hopkins. My guess would be few, but there are old-timers who think he would win in a single round. I find it hard to appreciate some of the cruder fighters, though you have to respect the circumstances they fought under. There was no going to the scorecards, you won by knockout or you didn't win at all.

If the old-time fighters fought today's fighters under the rules, they'd lose more than they won. If you switched it around and had the new guys fighting 45 round rules, it'd be a different ball game. The training techniques of today are much different from those of yesteryear because the game was different then.

[LondonRingRules]

I look at Stanley Ketchel and I wonder how many rounds he would go with a guy like Bernard Hopkins. My guess would be few, but there are old-timers who think he would win in a single round. .

** What the hay are you calling oldtimers?

Nobody alive for decades who would've even seen him fight. In his 4-6 oz gloves, I'll guarantee you Ketchel would well pulp Hoppy. Ketchel's work rate was incredible and his inside fighting skills prodigious. Potshotters like Hoppy just candy for Ketchel who absolutely thrilled in combat.

In the 10 ozers today with only 12 rds to work with, he'd have to learn some new strategy and techniques, but his conditioning would still be off the charts. All these BS ****** ****ers playing legends in weak eras would fall fast. Hagler was the last truly great middle champ. Roy didn't hang around long enough to put his stamp on the division.

While I rate Hoppy highly, it's 2nd tier type of ranking. The guy was slow to accept true challenges after his Roy disaster and beat by the best middles he faced. His best victories were over an untested Johnson and moving up, but limited Tito. Guaranteed you wouldn't see him in the ring against a prime Johnson and Langford like Ketchel was.

[Darkstranger]

No specifics intended but could someone like, say, Mike Tyson beat someone like, say, Jack Johnson? Boxers during the turn of the century and then some seemed more to fight (but with hands only) rather than do what we call boxing. Boxing nowdays requires skill and is basically a science of the body. Like earlier I posted a video up of me on the bag and somebody commented about elbows being too high on a hook etc and that's fair enough but for a split second you think "why?" 'cus in a fight your aim is to just brutalise the other. But of course there is a reason for it all, they don't just make stuff up as to why to do this or that and that's what I mean, boxers nowaday really do have a skill. Take Jess Willard, he was just a strongman and people were like "oh, he'll be good at boxing" and tell him to box.

However, in those days a fight could go until something like 46 rounds. The 'fight of the century' between Jack Johnson and James Jeffries lasted something like 15 rounds (only then was there the first knockdown aswell). Johnson vs. Williams lasted 26! Come on, could a modern day boxer do that?

I personally think the science of modern boxing would beat the olden style reasonably safely. What do you all think?

Are you making the assumption that those erly 20th century boxers had less skill? I suggest you check this link: http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/price.html

It's a link to a book called The Science of Self Defence: A Treatise on Sparring and Wrestling.

It was written in 1867. Read about the basics of throwing a punch correctly and you'll see that those early fighters were definitly skilled. Don't assume that only modern boxing is a science.

[Mr. Ryan]

** What the hay are you calling oldtimers?

Nobody alive for decades who would've even seen him fight. In his 4-6 oz gloves, I'll guarantee you Ketchel would well pulp Hoppy. Ketchel's work rate was incredible and his inside fighting skills prodigious. Potshotters like Hoppy just candy for Ketchel who absolutely thrilled in combat.

In the 10 ozers today with only 12 rds to work with, he'd have to learn some new strategy and techniques, but his conditioning would still be off the charts. All these BS ****** ****ers playing legends in weak eras would fall fast. Hagler was the last truly great middle champ. Roy didn't hang around long enough to put his stamp on the division.

While I rate Hoppy highly, it's 2nd tier type of ranking. The guy was slow to accept true challenges after his Roy disaster and beat by the best middles he faced. His best victories were over an untested Johnson and moving up, but limited Tito. Guaranteed you wouldn't see him in the ring against a prime Johnson and Langford like Ketchel was.

Hopkins fought who he fought because he wasn't marketable. He wasn't able to get the top guys at middleweight for a reason. In cases where a fighter is being protected or avoiding challenges, rarely do they peak at such an old age. Look at Calzaghe, he had been waiting for this moment his whole life and when he got the opportunity with Lacy, he pounced on it.

Hopkins fought a lot of guys nobody else wanted to. It's easy to say now that he fought bums, but nobody was trying to get in line to fight Antwun Echols or Glen Johnson.

As for how he'd do with guys like Ketchel, his power would get him far, but if he didn't get the terrain he wanted, he'd have issues. Boxing styles are different now, I'm not saying better necessarily, but different.

[StarshipTrooper]

Are you making the assumption that those erly 20th century boxers had less skill? I suggest you check this link: http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/price.html

It's a link to a book called The Science of Self Defence: A Treatise on Sparring and Wrestling.

It was written in 1867. Read about the basics of throwing a punch correctly and you'll see that those early fighters were definitly skilled. Don't assume that only modern boxing is a science.

An excellent observation Sir!

Poet

[butterfly1964]

Of course they could but that doesn't mean a boxer from the early 20's could not beat a boxer from the modern era.
There were some skillful boxers even then.

The rules were different back then so they boxed differently, for example some championship fights had unlimited rounds/40 round limit which meant that the boxers then had to fight much more conservatively to not expend too much energy and the gloves were much smaller which meant they could not block punches with their gloves and had to use movement and parrying to avoid punches.


I don't think Jess Willard was that bad... his stance reminds me of Vitali Klitschko's.
He was a late starter so he obviously didn't gain the experience needed to become a true technician but he had a decent right hand, a good uppercut and more endurance than almost any other fighter ever had.


Jack Johnson was a skilled boxer who could use the jab and the uppercut to great effect. He was also adept at parrying punches.


"The Old Master" Joe Gans


Gene Tunney

It's not like all of the fighters today use the modern boxing techniques.
Some just get by with their punching power/ability to take punches (for example, Miranda, Mayorga, Sam Peter, Baldomir...).


Carlos Maussa KO's Vivian Harris.

Great post!!