Tweet
An interesting article I ran into on Bo BA. Kudos to the author 
Are Today’s Fighters Better Than The Great Fighters Of The Past? Part 1
By Monte D. Cox Originally published in the Jan. 2000 CBZ Journal. Completely rewritten and revised Oct 1 2004
Many boxing fans and sports writers today are taken by the idea that modern fighters are bigger, stronger, and better than the great fighters of the past. But does that mean that modern boxers are truly better fighters than their historical counterparts? Does athletic ability alone determine a great fighter? Are boxers of yesteryear under-valued because they are not as well known? Are modern fighters over-rated because they are better known?
Tracy Callis, a historian who writes for a major boxing website definately believes so stating, “Most boxing publications do an adequate job of covering the activities taking place in the boxing world. However, the large bulk of this coverage is about contemporary pugilists with the result being that fans tend to exaggerate the skills of the fighters in their time in relation to those of other eras." --(Callis 1998)
A constrasting opinion is given by Gerald Suster, (Lightning Strikes p 192), which is a typical example of the strong belief in the superiority of modern fighters, “The Olympic Games have given us scientific measurements of athletic achievements. Every time, records are broken. Men and women can run faster, jump higher, lift heavier weights and perform feats considered impossible, a generation ago. Are we seriously expected to believe that boxing is the sole exception to this rule?”
In the “Super Athletes, Willoughby (p 585) tells us why this is so, "The reason why date of performance is important is because with the passage of time there is an increase in population, and the larger the population the greater the probability of an extraordinary record. In short, athletic records, like those of height and weight, or any other expressions of human diversity that can be measured, range in magnitude in ratio to the size of the population from which the record is drawn. Accordingly, in a large population of competitors (no matter what the events), the best performance should be expected to be of high caliber, and vice-versa."
Consider then that there were a lot more fighters back in the early part of the century than there are today. Boxing was far more popular in the first half of the century, approaching even Baseball in popularity. Steven Reiss, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, wrote, “By the start of 1913 there were 89 boxing clubs in the state of New York, including 49 in New York City” There were over 20 boxing shows a week in New York City during this period. In 1994 there were only 19 during the whole year (see Goldman 29). There were more participants in boxing meaning there were more talented athletes going into boxing rather than other sports such as baseball, football and basketball. There were a larger number of competitors therefore; there was a larger talent pool in boxing than there is today.
The increase in performance, as Willoughby noted, is greater in the larger pool of talent in which the competition is drawn. Therefore, in boxing, the greatest talent pool was in the first half of the century because of the greater number of competitors. There were more boxers, more competition, and therefore a higher degree of achievement should be expected, in other words, more great fighters.
Willoughby addresses the issue of greater performance based on records in modern times in relation to boxing - "... the matter of differing styles ... makes fighters (boxers vs. sluggers) so difficult to rate. Instead of more or less uniform techniques - such as apply in running, jumping, swimming, and other athletic events - that can be measured, in boxing (and for that matter wrestling, judo, etc.) no such exact measurement is possible. In these man-to-man encounters, unless a decisive victory - such as a knockout or a fall -is scored, the decision as to the winner rests with the referee and the judges. And, needless to say, the official decision is frequently rejected by the majority - sometimes the great majority - of spectators and followers." --(Willoughby 355 in Callis 1998).
Callis (July '98 CBZ) concurs saying that, “In "Man Against Man" competition, big numbers do not truly indicate a superior athlete or better performance but just the opposite. It is easier to beat a weaker or lesser-skilled man than it is to beat a stronger or better-skilled man. It is easier to rack up numbers against lesser-skilled men than against higher-skilled ones. An athlete is more likely to break records against weaker opposition than against better opposition. Only in "Man Against Nature" sports does lesser time and greater height and distance definitely mean better.”
Training in boxing hasn’t really changed too much over the last 100 years. Jogging, jumping rope, bag work, sparring, and even rowing machines have been around since the late 19th century. What has changed is the use of illegal steroids and other performance enhancing drugs combined with more weight lifting, which is, in effect, cheating. Currently there are a number of steroid-use scandals. Reggie Jackson, in the March 12, 2004 USA Today newspaper, said, "Somebody is definitely guilty of taking steroids. You cannot be breaking records hitting 200 home runs in 2 or 3 seasons. The greatest (baseball) hitters in history of the game didn't do that." When a player equals three seasons worth of home runs in a single season and looks "bulked up" one can imagine that illegal steroids have played a part. In boxing such enhancements combined with weight lifting can add muscular strength but it can also lead to arm weariness in the later rounds. It is noteworthy that Evander Holyfield (Linear Heavyweight Champion 1990-1992, 1993-1994) who relied greatly on weight lifting to enhance his physique to compete at heavyweight, faded in a good number of his bouts and had they been 15 or 20 rounders like the "old school" fighters had competed in he most likley would have been knocked out, and it is noteworthy that he did tire badly in several of his biggest fights.
Evander Holyfield once brashly claimed that he could beat all the heavyweight champions who came before him. "I know everything that they know plus more," he said. But surely the temporal succession of fighters in history does not mean an "adding up" of previous ability. If that were the case then all of the heavyweight champions who came before Holyfield could have made the same claim in their day, and have been equally correct. But even a cursory look at the facts, not to mention the logic of the claim, proves that such is not the case.
Did Rocky Marciano, a strong but crude brawler, know all the defensive techniques of Jack Johnson? Was Sonny Liston a master of the feint, like Jersey Joe Walcott? Muhammad Ali never punched to the body, so he obviously did not "know" how to punch like previous champions Dempsey, Louis or Marciano. George Foreman (in his prime) was a brutal slugger, but he did not throw multi-punch combinations, so how could he have mastered the techniques of Joe Louis?
Did Holyfield know how to bob and weave like Joe Frazier, or fight out of a crouch like Marciano? Did he ever have the footwork of Muhammad Ali or Gene Tunney, or the parrying skills of Jack Johnson? Of course not. Holyfield stands straight up and has gaping holes in his boxing knowledge. Holyfield throughout his career was particularly vulnerable to a strong jabber, and his fights with Holmes, Foreman, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis amply demonstrated this fact.
Experience is the great teacher. The way to learn at anything is by experience. In order to make progress in a game like chess, which mirrors combat strategy in the ring, one has to play many hundreds of games. The same is true for the "sweet science" of boxing. Today, top professionals fight up to four times a year, often less. Ray Robinson achieved a record in his prime of 128-1-2 (1NC) by fighting everyone and fighting often. This record included strong opponents such as Sammy Angott, Marty Servo, Fritzie Zivic, Jake LaMotta, Henry Armstrong, Tommy Bell, Georgie Abrams, and Charlie Fusari. How often do today’s top professionals fight, and what is the quality of their opponents?
Willie Pep went 135-1-1 reigning as Featherweight champion for 6 years and had two reigns as champion. Sam Langford, Jack Britton, Johnny Dundee, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Ted "Kid" Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom, and Kid Williams had over 200 professional fights. Many fought up to four times in a month rather than four times in a year. They fought with injuries rather than whine about them. The top fighters of today cannot match yesterday’s top fighters in terms of experience, and hence cannot match their understanding of the game.
Evander Holyfield peaked as heavyweight champion at age 34 when he beat Mike Tyson. Why? Because of the amount of experienced he obtained as a fighter against a number of different styles. Jesse Ferguson, a heavyweight in the 90’s, was successful at age 40 against much younger, stronger, and more powerful men because of his level of experience. Larry Holmes and George Foreman are other examples of fighters who were successful against younger men, and sometimes better athletes, because of their experience. Middleweight champion Bernard Hopkins and heavyweight James Toney are both "old school" type fighters, but again they peaked in their mid to late 30's due to their greater experience.
Continued
Are Today’s Fighters Better Than The Great Fighters Of The Past? Part 1
By Monte D. Cox Originally published in the Jan. 2000 CBZ Journal. Completely rewritten and revised Oct 1 2004
Many boxing fans and sports writers today are taken by the idea that modern fighters are bigger, stronger, and better than the great fighters of the past. But does that mean that modern boxers are truly better fighters than their historical counterparts? Does athletic ability alone determine a great fighter? Are boxers of yesteryear under-valued because they are not as well known? Are modern fighters over-rated because they are better known?
Tracy Callis, a historian who writes for a major boxing website definately believes so stating, “Most boxing publications do an adequate job of covering the activities taking place in the boxing world. However, the large bulk of this coverage is about contemporary pugilists with the result being that fans tend to exaggerate the skills of the fighters in their time in relation to those of other eras." --(Callis 1998)
A constrasting opinion is given by Gerald Suster, (Lightning Strikes p 192), which is a typical example of the strong belief in the superiority of modern fighters, “The Olympic Games have given us scientific measurements of athletic achievements. Every time, records are broken. Men and women can run faster, jump higher, lift heavier weights and perform feats considered impossible, a generation ago. Are we seriously expected to believe that boxing is the sole exception to this rule?”
In the “Super Athletes, Willoughby (p 585) tells us why this is so, "The reason why date of performance is important is because with the passage of time there is an increase in population, and the larger the population the greater the probability of an extraordinary record. In short, athletic records, like those of height and weight, or any other expressions of human diversity that can be measured, range in magnitude in ratio to the size of the population from which the record is drawn. Accordingly, in a large population of competitors (no matter what the events), the best performance should be expected to be of high caliber, and vice-versa."
Consider then that there were a lot more fighters back in the early part of the century than there are today. Boxing was far more popular in the first half of the century, approaching even Baseball in popularity. Steven Reiss, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, wrote, “By the start of 1913 there were 89 boxing clubs in the state of New York, including 49 in New York City” There were over 20 boxing shows a week in New York City during this period. In 1994 there were only 19 during the whole year (see Goldman 29). There were more participants in boxing meaning there were more talented athletes going into boxing rather than other sports such as baseball, football and basketball. There were a larger number of competitors therefore; there was a larger talent pool in boxing than there is today.
The increase in performance, as Willoughby noted, is greater in the larger pool of talent in which the competition is drawn. Therefore, in boxing, the greatest talent pool was in the first half of the century because of the greater number of competitors. There were more boxers, more competition, and therefore a higher degree of achievement should be expected, in other words, more great fighters.
Willoughby addresses the issue of greater performance based on records in modern times in relation to boxing - "... the matter of differing styles ... makes fighters (boxers vs. sluggers) so difficult to rate. Instead of more or less uniform techniques - such as apply in running, jumping, swimming, and other athletic events - that can be measured, in boxing (and for that matter wrestling, judo, etc.) no such exact measurement is possible. In these man-to-man encounters, unless a decisive victory - such as a knockout or a fall -is scored, the decision as to the winner rests with the referee and the judges. And, needless to say, the official decision is frequently rejected by the majority - sometimes the great majority - of spectators and followers." --(Willoughby 355 in Callis 1998).
Callis (July '98 CBZ) concurs saying that, “In "Man Against Man" competition, big numbers do not truly indicate a superior athlete or better performance but just the opposite. It is easier to beat a weaker or lesser-skilled man than it is to beat a stronger or better-skilled man. It is easier to rack up numbers against lesser-skilled men than against higher-skilled ones. An athlete is more likely to break records against weaker opposition than against better opposition. Only in "Man Against Nature" sports does lesser time and greater height and distance definitely mean better.”
Training in boxing hasn’t really changed too much over the last 100 years. Jogging, jumping rope, bag work, sparring, and even rowing machines have been around since the late 19th century. What has changed is the use of illegal steroids and other performance enhancing drugs combined with more weight lifting, which is, in effect, cheating. Currently there are a number of steroid-use scandals. Reggie Jackson, in the March 12, 2004 USA Today newspaper, said, "Somebody is definitely guilty of taking steroids. You cannot be breaking records hitting 200 home runs in 2 or 3 seasons. The greatest (baseball) hitters in history of the game didn't do that." When a player equals three seasons worth of home runs in a single season and looks "bulked up" one can imagine that illegal steroids have played a part. In boxing such enhancements combined with weight lifting can add muscular strength but it can also lead to arm weariness in the later rounds. It is noteworthy that Evander Holyfield (Linear Heavyweight Champion 1990-1992, 1993-1994) who relied greatly on weight lifting to enhance his physique to compete at heavyweight, faded in a good number of his bouts and had they been 15 or 20 rounders like the "old school" fighters had competed in he most likley would have been knocked out, and it is noteworthy that he did tire badly in several of his biggest fights.
Evander Holyfield once brashly claimed that he could beat all the heavyweight champions who came before him. "I know everything that they know plus more," he said. But surely the temporal succession of fighters in history does not mean an "adding up" of previous ability. If that were the case then all of the heavyweight champions who came before Holyfield could have made the same claim in their day, and have been equally correct. But even a cursory look at the facts, not to mention the logic of the claim, proves that such is not the case.
Did Rocky Marciano, a strong but crude brawler, know all the defensive techniques of Jack Johnson? Was Sonny Liston a master of the feint, like Jersey Joe Walcott? Muhammad Ali never punched to the body, so he obviously did not "know" how to punch like previous champions Dempsey, Louis or Marciano. George Foreman (in his prime) was a brutal slugger, but he did not throw multi-punch combinations, so how could he have mastered the techniques of Joe Louis?
Did Holyfield know how to bob and weave like Joe Frazier, or fight out of a crouch like Marciano? Did he ever have the footwork of Muhammad Ali or Gene Tunney, or the parrying skills of Jack Johnson? Of course not. Holyfield stands straight up and has gaping holes in his boxing knowledge. Holyfield throughout his career was particularly vulnerable to a strong jabber, and his fights with Holmes, Foreman, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis amply demonstrated this fact.
Experience is the great teacher. The way to learn at anything is by experience. In order to make progress in a game like chess, which mirrors combat strategy in the ring, one has to play many hundreds of games. The same is true for the "sweet science" of boxing. Today, top professionals fight up to four times a year, often less. Ray Robinson achieved a record in his prime of 128-1-2 (1NC) by fighting everyone and fighting often. This record included strong opponents such as Sammy Angott, Marty Servo, Fritzie Zivic, Jake LaMotta, Henry Armstrong, Tommy Bell, Georgie Abrams, and Charlie Fusari. How often do today’s top professionals fight, and what is the quality of their opponents?
Willie Pep went 135-1-1 reigning as Featherweight champion for 6 years and had two reigns as champion. Sam Langford, Jack Britton, Johnny Dundee, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Ted "Kid" Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom, and Kid Williams had over 200 professional fights. Many fought up to four times in a month rather than four times in a year. They fought with injuries rather than whine about them. The top fighters of today cannot match yesterday’s top fighters in terms of experience, and hence cannot match their understanding of the game.
Evander Holyfield peaked as heavyweight champion at age 34 when he beat Mike Tyson. Why? Because of the amount of experienced he obtained as a fighter against a number of different styles. Jesse Ferguson, a heavyweight in the 90’s, was successful at age 40 against much younger, stronger, and more powerful men because of his level of experience. Larry Holmes and George Foreman are other examples of fighters who were successful against younger men, and sometimes better athletes, because of their experience. Middleweight champion Bernard Hopkins and heavyweight James Toney are both "old school" type fighters, but again they peaked in their mid to late 30's due to their greater experience.
Continued
Comment