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

[just the facts]

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.

You’re kidding right?

[Bundana]

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.

As you may have guessed by now, I'm a statistics guy! I don't care if this oldtimer beats this modern boxer... or vice versa. I'm a fan of both the old guys and the modern ones. If a fighter is the best of his time, nothing more can really be asked of him... and I don't see the necessity to denigrate boxers from a different era to admire that.

I'm first and foremost interested in the history of boxing, and try my best to find out, what the sport was like at different times in the past. Like with the 1930 and 2000 numbers I have looked into (some at the request of Apple). I believe I said on another thread, that they of course don't tell us anything about which era was "better" - since they are just statistical numbers.

What I have against Appel's way of arguing, is his claims of how modern fighters are less brave, give up too soon, have worse chins, have no skills to set an opponent up for the knockout, have had their power reduced by pad-work, etc. etc. Repeated in thread after thread, where his only evidence seems to be wishful thinking!

Take the title of this thread: "A key point that proves oldschool fighters were tougher and better chinned." We are told, that to get to the top, the oldtimers had to have a strong chin. If they didn't, they wouldn't make it. How excactly does this differ from today? Doesn't the same thing apply these days? How on earth can this be a valid argument for boxers back in the day having a stronger chin.

We're also told, that today boxers give up too quickly. So where's the evidence for this happening more often than in the old days?

I still haven't seen any prof in this thread, that the oldschool fighters were tougher and better chinned!

[them_apples]

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.

we cant use numbers because we don’t have the data, nobody ever collected it or labelled it at any point in time. Boxing scene is all we have and it only gives us a limited perspective. The same 2 fighters could fight 5 times and only one bout ended in a stoppage. The factors behind this could be all over the map. If we compiled a massive pool of data sure we might be able to come to some sort of conclusion - but as far as numbers go we would need way more streams of data related to one an another, and even a “supervised” learning situation where we tested these numbers against out comes we already know to be true. It would be a long process.

speculation sure, to help prove a point sure. I told you my reasons why I think old timers had tougher chins.

1: they fought more (the real fighters)
2: they were expected to fight and usually did
3: boxings ranks were decidedly made up of hard chinned individuals, not that humans have evolved with better chins

these aren’t facts I understand this, but nobody is gonna come up with “facts” in a thread like this.

im speculating based on what I've seen and heard.
I believe the game has changed.

But let me repeat, we WILL be spinning in circles all day if you keep requesting numbers. These numbers aren’t doing much. When you hear someone talking about “data analysis” they are not only using specific data pools that have been labelled for data analysis in the first place but also much larger pools to draw from.

im actually willing to bet some of the posters on here have watched so much boxing they are actually com*****g more data in an opinion than a simple excel sheet based on numbers from boxrec.

[Willie Pep 229]

OK we are poo pooing statistics I understand, but with that understood . . .

We could start by comparing (1930 vs. 2000) 10-counts to TKOs . . . But then comes the real (maybe impossible) work of breaking down the TKOs into 'early stoppages' vs. 'saves.'

Would take much time watching film and of course be subject to much opinion.

P.S. If Bill would just hurry up and get Elon Musk to invent his magic quantum machine for him we would be ready to do it. But for now too many variables at play.

[Willie Pep 229]

On a more simple level would just comparing ten-counts to TKOs tell us anything?

I would bet good money there were more ten-counts in 1930 than 2000.

I wonder?

[Bundana]

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.

I think, this is probably the prevailing feeling among boxing fans... that the oldtimers were these heroic warriers, who fought till their last drop of blood. And I'm sure, there were a lot of these brave men.

But there were also a lot of men, who just wanted to make a little money - with as little effort as possible. If you go through the old records, you see fighters being thrown out left and right, for not putting up a fight. In addition to these were the "friendly" fights, that the ref allowed to go the distance... the number of which is impossible to say, since they are listed on BoxRec as just ordinary fights. But going through the old fights, you can't help but be su****ious of what was going on.

For example, if a boxer had 2 fights booked on consecutive nights - my guess is, that he wouldn't be interested in turning the first one into a Ward-Gatti slugfest, thus risking injury that might prevent him from taking the second fight, the following day. He would likely coast through the first fight, doing very little, but just enough to prevent the ref from throwing him out.

Jack Britton was once sent packing, because the ref felt he wasn't making an effort... but when you see, that he had a 10-rounder (which he won!) scheduled already the next day, it's difficult to be too hard on him!

A fun case is the one from 1924, where Nipper Pat Daly fought Johnny (Young) Summers 3 times in two days - at 3 different venues! First day they had an early 6-rounder at peckham - after which they hurried over to Hackney for another 6-rounder later that night. And then the following day it was off to Sidcup... for their 3rd 6-rounder, in what would probably be something like 30 hours! Somehow I have a hard time believing, that these were "serious" fights!

So yes, while there most certainly were many fighters prepared to give it their all, there were also a lot of fighters, who were just out to make a buck... preferably as painlessly as possible.

[GhostofDempsey]

One thing to consider, when you made your way up the rankings, you really earned your way there by beating better opposition. Today, with four sanctioning bodies, rankings are all over the place and potential opponents for top contenders and champions are often elevated for no apparent reason. During the 50's and through the 80's you really had to walk through fire to get a title shot, or at least be a proven contender. Now we have fighters getting title shots with less than 20 fights on a regular basis. David Morrell is already making noise at 168 with just 6 fights. Rollie Romero co-headlining a PPV event with just 14 fights--but his mouth and hype got him into an obvious mismatch. Mismatches are quite common in title fights now. In Robinson's day you still had mismatches, but those were more or less "stay busy" fights for top level fighters looking to keep busy earning a paycheck and keeping their skills sharp in between title fights. If you look back on Robinson's record, you'll see a lot of woefully outgunned opponents with losing records who suffered knockout losses in these stay busy fights.

[billeau2]

As you may have guessed by now, I'm a statistics guy! I don't care if this oldtimer beats this modern boxer... or vice versa. I'm a fan of both the old guys and the modern ones. If a fighter is the best of his time, nothing more can really be asked of him... and I don't see the necessity to denigrate boxers from a different era to admire that.

I'm first and foremost interested in the history of boxing, and try my best to find out, what the sport was like at different times in the past. Like with the 1930 and 2000 numbers I have looked into (some at the request of Apple). I believe I said on another thread, that they of course don't tell us anything about which era was "better" - since they are just statistical numbers.

What I have against Appel's way of arguing, is his claims of how modern fighters are less brave, give up too soon, have worse chins, have no skills to set an opponent up for the knockout, have had their power reduced by pad-work, etc. etc. Repeated in thread after thread, where his only evidence seems to be wishful thinking!

Take the title of this thread: "A key point that proves oldschool fighters were tougher and better chinned." We are told, that to get to the top, the oldtimers had to have a strong chin. If they didn't, they wouldn't make it. How excactly does this differ from today? Doesn't the same thing apply these days? How on earth can this be a valid argument for boxers back in the day having a stronger chin.

We're also told, that today boxers give up too quickly. So where's the evidence for this happening more often than in the old days?

I still haven't seen any prof in this thread, that the oldschool fighters were tougher and better chinned!

I would like to add that you are being modest: Bundana's understanding of all the facts and figures, trivia, etc is exemplory! Both of you guys are arguing from a different base which is a problem. ThemApples like myself, well we look at tapes, the technical aspects including what an average opponent in the ring was doing... Its a different way of comparison unfortunately. Sometimes we get a break... There are trainers who had been around in golden eras and could speak from personal experience, things like that... For example, for a brief historical moment we had trainers who had actually trained and saw Dempsey who worked with Tyson... Sometimes we get a BONE! lol.

ON that note I grieve that my lifetime has seen the last of those who lived in the 1800's. Never again in this lifetime will we know these people.

[them_apples]

OK we are poo pooing statistics I understand, but with that understood . . .

We could start by comparing (1930 vs. 2000) 10-counts to TKOs . . . But then comes the real (maybe impossible) work of breaking down the TKOs into 'early stoppages' vs. 'saves.'

Would take much time watching film and of course be subject to much opinion.

P.S. If Bill would just hurry up and get Elon Musk to invent his magic quantum machine for him we would be ready to do it. But for now too many variables at play.

Yeah we just need a machine we can feed every single fight video known to man and a bunch of other rules.

[QueensburyRules]

Yeah we just need a machine we can feed every single fight video known to man and a bunch of other rules.

- - Advanced technology won't enhance your "World is Flat" numbskull.

Your thread was DOA.