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

[billeau2]

There are several ways to interpret these numbers.

One is to believe that oldtimer had stronger chins than today... or that boxers back in the day were more featherfisted... or that today's fighters are bigger punchers. Or maybe a combination of all this!

My objection to this would be, that I see no reason to think, that things like chin-strength and hitting-power is something that changes from one era to another. These are most likely innate qualities that are part of a boxer's makeup - unrelated to era, growing up during hard times, or whatever.

I think a much more realistic way to look at it... is that when you go way back to the ND era, there probably wasn't that much incentive to go all out for the knockout. I suspect that lots and lots of fights were more like exhibitions, where the boxers tried to make it to the final bell, without taking (or dishing out!) too much punishment. This may have been instrumental in the very low KO percentages of the time.

There are many incidentals... Glove composition, the different training objectives... etc etc.

[just the facts]

- - Sorry to hear U being weight bullied.

U being bullied in yesteryears' same day weigh ins makes you a tougher sissyboy than today.

Anyone have any idea what this dumb phuck is trying to say?

[QueensburyRules]

Anyone have any idea what this dumb phuck is trying to say?

- - Jus da fax, ma'am.

[just the facts]

- - Jus da fax, ma'am.

You’re just a dumb phuck, man

[them_apples]

- - Zero link between Ali and boxers quitting.

???

thats not what I meant, he was the first to introduce an attribute outside of fighting that would contribute to a fighters success. By way of his personality he convinced the public that him sticking and moving and talking a lot of **** was better and more entertaining than someone who is just good and knocking people out.

It was always hit and not get hit, but its turned into just don’t get hit. In other words, don’t fight. Ali was the beginning of this. He’s the forefather of this type of thinking. Even though he got hit a lot, he was also one of the first guys to actually talk about perserving his brain. Prior to this it was almost an accepted reality, if acknowledged at all.

[them_apples]

There are several ways to interpret these numbers.

One is to believe that oldtimer had stronger chins than today... or that boxers back in the day were more featherfisted... or that today's fighters are bigger punchers. Or maybe a combination of all this!

My objection to this would be, that I see no reason to think, that things like chin-strength and hitting-power is something that changes from one era to another. These are most likely innate qualities that are part of a boxer's makeup - unrelated to era, growing up during hard times, or whatever.

I think a much more realistic way to look at it... is that when you go way back to the ND era, there probably wasn't that much incentive to go all out for the knockout. I suspect that lots and lots of fights were more like exhibitions, where the boxers tried to make it to the final bell, without taking (or dishing out!) too much punishment. This may have been instrumental in the very low KO percentages of the time.

lets not forget that we may not be able to interpret the numbers at all. Once again, way too many intangibles. Willing to bet the knockout percentages has a lot more to do with earlier stoppages and fighters not being as active.

can I prove this with numbers? No but the numbers we throw around for fun, I want to clarify are in no way shape or form in a position to hold much more weight then an ‘opinion’ since many unthought of factors are involved.

this even goes for our last conclusion when we spoke of fight averages based on the pool of fighters we picked. It looks as though to me the boxing game consisted of pugilists that took it seriously and a whole slew of literal scrubs or tough guys looking to make a buck. High level guys would use them as tuneups even mid career and not even always knock them out. This is another reason why some fighters had tons of fights and others so little. This is just an observation too.

[Bundana]

lets not forget that we may not be able to interpret the numbers at all. Once again, way too many intangibles. Willing to bet the knockout percentages has a lot more to do with earlier stoppages and fighters not being as active.

can I prove this with numbers? No but the numbers we throw around for fun, I want to clarify are in no way shape or form in a position to hold much more weight then an 'opinion'; since many unthought of factors are involved.

this even goes for our last conclusion when we spoke of fight averages based on the pool of fighters we picked. It looks as though to me the boxing game consisted of pugilists that took it seriously and a whole slew of literal scrubs or tough guys looking to make a buck. High level guys would use them as tuneups even mid career and not even always knock them out. This is another reason why some fighters had tons of fights and others so little. This is just an observation too.

You're dancing around my objections to your OP. Why won't you address a couple of simple questions:

How do you determine, that oldtimers had stronger chins than today?

How do you know, that boxers giving up too soon happens more frequently today than in the past?

[Bundana]

I think the biggest thing that makes yesterday's fighters tougher is that same day weigh in. That would probably do away with many of the weight bully stuff happening today.

So back in the day, boxers weighed in the day of the fight... same conditions for everybody. Now they weigh in the day before... again, same conditions for everybody. So why would same day weigh-ins make the oldtimers tougher than today's fighters? I'm curious to hear, why this would be the case.

[BattlingNelson]

For me, I don't think there's a physical difference. I can see a case for a mental difference though. Back in the day more people was without the comfort of any kind of social security. That may had given more fighters more motivation to fight untill they dropped beacuse if they didn't, they may not get another fight (paycheck) and thereby not be able to provide for themselves and their family.

[Willie Pep 229]

You're dancing around my objections to your OP. Why won't you address a couple of simple questions:

How do you determine, that oldtimers had stronger chins than today?

How do you know, that boxers giving up too soon happens more frequently today than in the past?

27% KO to 54% KO ratio.

Funny how this goes in circles. I really don't have an opinion about chins . . . But

I asked, does the KO ratio of 1930 to 2000 tell us anything and you say there are other values at play. OK that is for sure - but if Apple can't point to stats (stats you collected) then what possible evidence can he point to?

Since statistics are out. I can point to a few anecdots that argue that fights are stopped sooner. Fighters use to be able to play opossum, LaMotta was noted for it, that can't happen today. Another is fans complaing about early stoppages. Whereas fans always complained about early stops it became a bit of a pandemic in the 1990s with Steele and Lane. Also ofcourse the reduction to 12 rounds becomes paradoxical to the numbers when you consider how many late 13-15 round KOs use to appear and yet the number of KOs still went up! Something different has happened for sure.

Something is up and Apple is just exploring possibilities but if he can't use (your) statistics as evidence then there is no evidence just your your and his opinion.