A key point that proves oldschool fighters were tougher and better chinned

[The Old LefHook]

I'm sure Ol' Leffy knows an ass when he sees one from looking in the mirror every morning

I cannot respond to such weakness of wit.

[them_apples]

What qualifies you to make this call? What is it you know, that the rest of us don't? I don't get, how you can seriously make a statement like that... since we obviously have no way of knowing, if this is true or not!

Ill agree with you there, We can’t prove it. But a lot of stuff we can’t actually prove. Some we just get closer than others. You haven’t been proving your opinions anymore than I have, So I don’t see what the point is in you calling me out

[them_apples]

I wouldn't put Braddock on a list of 'runners'. Brittle hands hurt his ability to **** - but he was nothing like a 'jab and cute' fighter either.

I’d actually agree with Lefty that Braddock was a clever “cute” fighter. The whole cinderella man idea suits this as well. He was underestimated because he was not only tougher than he looked but also quite skillful. He would beat fighters that on paper looked like they would beat him. Even his outing vs Joe was good before the knockout.

[them_apples]

I don't know - if we accept your standards for evaluating such things as 'heart' - 'grit' - 'toughness' - we would never be allowed to use those words. These words never rise above opinion but yet we still find them to be a useful evaluation tool.

There is no doubt that they are subjective evaluations and can never be objectively discerned but we do draw such conclusions about individuals and at times we act on these opinions, e.g laying a bet, providing promotions, or choosing friends.

If Apple sees a tougher generation in 1940, after some serious historical study, than it is a fair assessment for him to make so long as it is recognized as being subjective (just his opinion; but nevertheless a valid opinion.)

Bundana although brings up good points he confuses me with his disagreements. He’s guilty of the same things just draws facts from different sources which really in my book are no more credible.

but we gotta stay logical in our debates as you, me and billeau tend to agree on a lot of stuff and bundana and Lefty + probably another member tend to play the devils advocate.

[them_apples]

To sum it up again, since a lot of responses are from just reading the title and not the post:

I think older fighters are tougher because:

1: boxing recruited “tough guys” not only based on literature we have read, but also the nature of how they fought. How long fights would go before being stopped and generally plucking people from the poorer ranks of society. A society with no smart phones and a lot of manual labour and large families. Many, many times a boxer would claim he got into fighting because of his strong build and was reccomended. (Joe louis, emilie griffith, Rocky, Foreman, Duran the list goes on not to mention many of these guys even Duran were 10-12 lb babies
when the last time you heard of someone “chained to a plow at the age of 11” or running away from home at the age of 13 (I actually threw this one in because Pacquiao did, and he was a featherweight capable of shaking off blows from welterweights and jr middleweights. A nice contemporary example of hard times creating harder people )because you were already taking care of yourself as is. I’m a big history fan in general I should note, and a lot of my ideas come from reading how people lived years ago. Speculation yes but educated speculation. So to once again repeat myself, no people have not evolved, rather the sport has and it accepts people who aren’t iron chinned, as boxing and avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now. Many boxers almost take no damage in fights today and part of this is their unwillingness to exchange or try to hurt their oponent. James Toney has good defence, so did Duran - but that defence wasn’t “taking 2 minutes of each round off after landing 2 jabs vs your opponents 0 jabs”. This concludes the elimination of draw rounds and also shows the effect of amateur boxing rules on the average pro today.

With this being said, a lot of fighters today are packing GLASS.


2: visual inspection of fighters winning titles with both eyes shut and getting up off the canvas in rounds 14.

3: accounts of fighters getting all their front teeth punched in with one shot, broken ribs.


4: how they trained, they all trained down in weight. Outside of heavyweight - all of them were big for their weight classes which explains why they all had “big fists and big heads” and every old ass boxer from back in the day seemed to have this. Its because if they weren’t boxing they would be 70 lbs heavier, which is also a sign of a naturally strong and sturdy individual if their body just screams to put on weight without the need of weights and bulking.

5: much more active fighters, this one is a no brainer and easy to prove.

these are SPECULATIVE but I am giving umy reasons for this. I also understand that throwbacks do exist (Pacquiao, Margarito)

[Bundana]

To sum it up again, since a lot of responses are from just reading the title and not the post:

I think older fighters are tougher because:

1: boxing recruited "tough guys"; not only based on literature we have read, but also the nature of how they fought. How long fights would go before being stopped and generally plucking people from the poorer ranks of society. A society with no smart phones and a lot of manual labour and large families. Many, many times a boxer would claim he got into fighting because of his strong build and was reccomended. (Joe louis, emilie griffith, Rocky, Foreman, Duran the list goes on not to mention many of these guys even Duran were 10-12 lb babies
when the last time you heard of someone "chained to a plow at the age of 11"; or running away from home at the age of 13 because you were already taking care of yourself as is. I'm a big history fan in general I should note, and a lot of my ideas come from reading how people lived years ago. Speculation yes but educated speculation. So to once again repeat myself, no people have not evolved, rather the sport has and it accepts people who aren't iron chinned, as boxing and avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now. Many boxers almost take no damage in fights today and part of this is their unwillingness to exchange or try to hurt their oponent. James Toney has good defence, so did Duran - but that defence wasn't "taking 2 minutes of each round off after landing 2 jabs vs your opponents 0 jabs". This concludes the elimination of draw rounds and also shows the effect of amateur boxing rules on the average pro today.


2: visual inspection of fighters winning titles with both eyes shut and getting up off the canvas in rounds 14.

3: accounts of fighters getting all their front teeth punched in with one shot, broken ribs.


4: how they trained, they all trained down in weight. Outside of heavyweight - all of them were big for their weight classes which explains why they all had "big fists and big heads"; and every old ass boxer from back in the day seemed to have this. Its because if they weren't boxing they would be 70 lbs heavier, which is also a sign of a naturally strong and sturdy individual if their body just screams to put on weight without the need of weights and bulking.

5: much more active fighters, this one is a no brainer and easy to prove.

these are SPECULATIVE but I am giving my reasons for this. I also understand that throwbacks do exist (Pacquiao, Margarito)

I absolutely agree, that in the old days, especially the 20s and 30s, lots and lots of people had it much harder than today.

I also understand, why many historians like to think, that those difficult times spilled over into the ring - producing these brave warriers of old, who were prepared to fight till they dropped. Yes, a very nice thought... but is it true? We have no way of knowing!

How many fights can we find in BoxRec's database for the 20s and 30s? Well, as of May 15, 2020 they had a total of 711,401 pro fights listed for those two decades. How many of these are available to us on YouTube? I have no idea, but my guess is, that it's a very small fraction - like 1% maybe (if that much!).

It seems to me, that most filmed fights from those depression years involve at least one top-class boxers (world champ or future HOFer). How many 4, 6, 8 round undercard fights between two journeymen, who never amounted to anything, are we able to watch? I have a hard time thinking of any... and if we aren't able to study maybe 99% of the fights from back then, and have only seen the absolute top men - how is it possible to make sweeping statements about how brave the average fighter was, and how he always wanted to "fight"?.

"avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now. Many boxers almost take no damage in fights today and part of this is their unwillingness to exchange or try to hurt their oponent." Jesus ****ing Christ!... but ok, I'm curious, so I'll play: how about if you name som recent boxers (say from the 2010s decade), who took part in fights, where you feel, they put in a less than reasonable effort... and for each one of these modern sissies you can come up with, I'll name two even more reluctant boxers from the 20s, who were thrown out of the ring for making no effort at all. Fair enough?

[The Old LefHook]

Willie Pep is reputed to have won a round without ever throwing a punch, because he did not get hit either. That is how the legend goes, true or not. That there is a legend at all shows an appreciation of the finer art of boxing. One thing about great defensive fighters is that we seldom get to see them solidly tagged. Think Pep and Mayweather. Roy Jones was not really tagged until age and other factors intervened.

* * * * *

Many modern boxers have necks much larger than fighters of old. Neck is definitely related to chin (what Chuvalo referred to as "collar").

Search as you may, I think you will not find in the vast photo archives of boxing even a single boxer with a neck approaching those of say Holyfield and Tyson at their largest of neck. Heavily muscled men of olden were not necessarily large-necked, though their necks were appropriate. Tyson and Holyfield's necks go a good way beyond the appropriate of olden, even reaching freakishness by olden standards.

Why would AT greats waste their time to build huge necks?

[Bundana]

To sum it up again, since a lot of responses are from just reading the title and not the post:

I think older fighters are tougher because:

1: boxing recruited "tough guys", not only based on literature we have read, but also the nature of how they fought. How long fights would go before being stopped and generally plucking people from the poorer ranks of society. A society with no smart phones and a lot of manual labour and large families. Many, many times a boxer would claim he got into fighting because of his strong build and was reccomended. (Joe louis, emilie griffith, Rocky, Foreman, Duran the list goes on not to mention many of these guys even Duran were 10-12 lb babies
when the last time you heard of someone "chained to a plow at the age of 11"; or running away from home at the age of 13 (I actually threw this one in because Pacquiao did, and he was a featherweight capable of shaking off blows from welterweights and jr middleweights. A nice contemporary example of hard times creating harder people )because you were already taking care of yourself as is. I'm a big history fan in general I should note, and a lot of my ideas come from reading how people lived years ago. Speculation yes but educated speculation. So to once again repeat myself, no people have not evolved, rather the sport has and it accepts people who aren't iron chinned, as boxing and avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now. Many boxers almost take no damage in fights today and part of this is their unwillingness to exchange or try to hurt their oponent. James Toney has good defence, so did Duran - but that defence wasn't "taking 2 minutes of each round off after landing 2 jabs vs your opponents 0". This concludes the elimination of draw rounds and also shows the effect of amateur boxing rules on the average pro today.

With this being said, a lot of fighters today are packing GLASS.


2: visual inspection of fighters winning titles with both eyes shut and getting up off the canvas in rounds 14.

3: accounts of fighters getting all their front teeth punched in with one shot, broken ribs.


4: how they trained, they all trained down in weight. Outside of heavyweight - all of them were big for their weight classes which explains why they all had "bigg fists and big heads"; and every old ass boxer from back in the day seemed to have this. Its because if they weren't boxing they would be 70 lbs heavier, which is also a sign of a naturally strong and sturdy individual if their body just screams to put on weight without the need of weights and bulking.

5: much more active fighters, this one is a no brainer and easy to prove.

these are SPECULATIVE but I am giving umy reasons for this. I also understand that throwbacks do exist (Pacquiao, Margarito)

A couple of points I didn't address in my first reply to this.

Also you have added something new: "a lot of fighters today are packing GLASS". Yes, you have said this before... but how can you possibly know, that more "glass" is floating around today than, say, during the hard depression years, 90-100 years or so ago? Since you have never seen at least 99% of the fighters back then, how can you make this call? And please don't tell me, how the sport now "accepts people who aren't iron chinned". Give me something a bit more tangible, than you just wishing it to be so.

"every old ass boxer from back in the day seemed to have this" (big fists and big heads). Well, to be honest - I've never thought about this. So it's not something I've looked into... but if I did, I would be surprised, if I found this to be true. But as said, I really don't know!

"much more active fighters, this one is a no brainer and easy to prove". Please don't tell me, that you still believe Mike Silver's "in 1955 there were twice as many active boxers compared to today"! Isn't it true, that at no time during the last 80+ years, have we registered more active pro boxer's than right now?

Also this idea, about boxers being ruined by long amateur careers ´- where on earth do you get that from? That the amateurs turn them into points-scoring robots, content to just win on points without hurting their opponents"? Is this another one of those things, you simply throw out there, in yet another attempt to belittle today's boxers?

And this thing about boxing back in the day recruiting "tough guys", who came to fight? You base this on not just what you have read, but also on "the nature of how they fought". Once again, since you have never actually seen the vast, VAST majority of the fighters back then - how do you know anything about how the average boxer performed in the ring?

[them_apples]

A couple of points I didn't address in my first reply to this.

Also you have added something new: "a lot of fighters today are packing GLASS". Yes, you have said this before... but how can you possibly know, that more "glass" is floating around today than, say, during the hard depression years, 90-100 years or so ago? Since you have never seen at least 99% of the fighters back then, how can you make this call? And please don't tell me, how the sport now "accepts people who aren't iron chinned". Give me something a bit more tangible, than you just wishing it to be so.

"every old ass boxer from back in the day seemed to have this" (big fists and big heads). Well, to be honest - I've never thought about this. So it's not something I've looked into... but if I did, I would be surprised, if I found this to be true. But as said, I really don't know!

"much more active fighters, this one is a no brainer and easy to prove". Please don't tell me, that you still believe Mike Silver's "in 1955 there were twice as many active boxers compared to today"! Isn't it true, that at no time during the last 80+ years, have we registered more active pro boxer's than right now?

Also this idea, about boxers being ruined by long amateur careers ´- where on earth do you get that from? That the amateurs turn them into points-scoring robots, content to just win on points without hurting their opponents"? Is this another one of those things, you simply throw out there, in yet another attempt to belittle today's boxers?

And this thing about boxing back in the day recruiting "tough guys", who came to fight? You base this on not just what you have read, but also on "the nature of how they fought". Once again, since you have never actually seen the vast, VAST majority of the fighters back then - how do you know anything about how the average boxer performed in the ring?

Too many things here we can’t prove, but would you agree boxrec also likely missed 1000s of undocumented bouts? There used to be small clubs where fighters were would frequently and attend big arenas for bigger bouts.

[Bundana]

Too many things here we can't prove, but would you agree boxrec also likely missed 1000s of undocumented bouts? There used to be small clubs where fighters were would frequently and attend big arenas for bigger bouts.

Yes, I would agree with that.

But what exactly has this got to do with any of the questions I have raised, like:

How on earth do you know, that today's boxers pack more "glass" than the oldtimers?

How do you know, that the average fighter from back in the 20s and 30s were tougher than today - when you have never actually seen 99% (at least!) of them fight?

How are you able to judge, that Marquez and Vasquez can't compare to guys from the 40s, when it comes to heart and toughness?

Why do you claim, that many modern boxers avoid confrontation and quit too easily compared to the oldtimers - when you can't back it up, with anything other than wishful thinking?


Why do you keep spouting out these absurd contentions - without being willing to back them up with any kind of evidence? That times were hard, and they didn't have smart phones back in the day, doesn't really prove anything - least of all that chins were stronger!!

It seems to me, that ever since you fell in love with Mike Silver's book "The Arc of Boxing", you have been on this crazy crusade against modern boxers - using anything and everything to constantly stick it to them!