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

[The Old LefHook]

Even if hard times make harder men, is that sufficient to say they make harder boxers too? Boxers are a special class of men, not your average Joes. They are all hard by necessity. Special class of men, see. Measuring (or speculating ) how tough the man on the street was is no way to determine how tough boxers were or are. Any modern can train just as hard any any oldster. They can drink just as much milk, or whatever you want.

The new machines mean moderns can train in ways the oldsters absolutely could not. Chopping wood is great, but maybe not as good as a nautilus or solo-flex, et al.

You cannot get more willing or brave than Marquez/Vasquez. No oldster can out-do that. I see bravery quite often in the ring. There always have been boxers who deserved a Medal of Honor for their gameness, as far as I have seen.

[Bundana]

Even if hard times make harder men, is that sufficient to say they make harder boxers too? Boxers are a special class of men, not your average Joes. They are all hard by necessity. Special class of men, see. Measuring (or speculating ) how tough the man on the street was is no way to determine how tough boxers were or are. Any modern can train just as hard any any oldster. They can drink just as much milk, or whatever you want.

The new machines mean moderns can train in ways the oldsters absolutely could not. Chopping wood is great, but maybe not as good as a nautilus or solo-flex, et al.

You cannot get more willing or brave than Marquez/Vasquez. No oldster can out-do that. I see bravery quite often in the ring. There always have been boxers who deserved a Medal of Honor for their gameness, as far as I have seen.

So do I!

Lots of shows from aound the world are now available to us - either live or only a few hours delayed on YouTube. Almost every week I seem to be watching young guys, who let it all hang out in the ring. Are there also guys, who aren't willing to fight their hearts out for a win? Of course there are... not all fighters are equally brave. There are all types... like there have always been. To make sweeping statements about how boxing today is all about sissies, who quit too soon without a mark on their face... quite frankly, it's ridiculous!

I have no doubt that "back in the day", life was way tougher for most people. But as you (and Willie Pep a few posts back) say, we have no way of knowing, if this translated into braver men in the ring. I can understand, why some fans/historians want to believe this was actually the case - but the truth is, that we don't really know!

[edgarg]

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.

I believe that the 54% K0 record consists of about 74% TKOs, which I am not sure existed in those days.............. So the eras can Not be comparatively related to one another concerning "KO" records.

The poster who mentioned a less than all-out effort during the Newspaper verdicts also has a very important point.

[billeau2]

So do I!

Lots of shows from aound the world are now available to us - either live or only a few hours delayed on YouTube. Almost every week I seem to be watching young guys, who let it all hang out in the ring. Are there also guys, who aren't willing to fight their hearts out for a win? Of course there are... not all fighters are equally brave. There are all types... like there have always been. To make sweeping statements about how boxing today is all about sissies, who quit too soon without a mark on their face... quite frankly, it's ridiculous!

I have no doubt that "back in the day", life was way tougher for most people. But as you (and Willie Pep a few posts back) say, we have no way of knowing, if this translated into braver men in the ring. I can understand, why some fans/historians want to believe this was actually the case - but the truth is, that we don't really know!

I think there are elements that translate based on the times... But I don't think there is a direct link. Its kind of like when you go to Asia you learn certain aspects of the art your studying (Japanese Art in my case) by being part of the culture... Does it make you better? Well thats harder to say.

Tunney as a kid would stow on a tanker and as it pulled out take a long dive off and swim ashore in the East River... thats reallt fckin crazy, we never did stuff like that growing up in the city, we would hang on the back of buses and do shiat on the subways... no comparison. But then I went for a swim years back in Northern Kali with the family and these kids were diving off the side of a cliff!!!

I think there are the same types of individuals and that there is some effect being in a tougher time, but it cannot really be quantified and does not necessarily make better fighters... It might. Then again ive met Rock climbers who would faint at having to spar (Im only slightly exagerating).

[billeau2]

I believe that the 54% K0 record consists of about 74% TKOs, which I am not sure existed in those days.............. So the eras can Not be comparatively related to one another concerning "KO" records.

The poster who mentioned a less than all-out effort during the Newspaper verdicts also has a very important point.

yes sir! I always hate to tell anyone, "nah" don't bark up that tree... History is littered with great theories that were flat out wrong... Sometimes these theories make much more sense than what we know to be true lol... There has to be value to these wrong theories that are so well contrived!

harveys theories of circulation were wrong, but they taught us so much about arteries and what they are... There were Roman theories of vision that talked about an essence, a part of that which we saw coming on to the eyeball lol... And Aristotle had ideas about physics that were used for hundreds of years that are now off the shelf so to speak...

[them_apples]

Even if hard times make harder men, is that sufficient to say they make harder boxers too? Boxers are a special class of men, not your average Joes. They are all hard by necessity. Special class of men, see. Measuring (or speculating ) how tough the man on the street was is no way to determine how tough boxers were or are. Any modern can train just as hard any any oldster. They can drink just as much milk, or whatever you want.

The new machines mean moderns can train in ways the oldsters absolutely could not. Chopping wood is great, but maybe not as good as a nautilus or solo-flex, et al.

You cannot get more willing or brave than Marquez/Vasquez. No oldster can out-do that. I see bravery quite often in the ring. There always have been boxers who deserved a Medal of Honor for their gameness, as far as I have seen.

You can’t get anymore game than Marquez or Vasquez in contemporary times no. But if they were dropped in an era where they were able to fight once a month if they wanted too (which they could have) then they would become even more savvy and hardened. They might not be the toughest guys in the ranks in every era either, because both of those guys frequently touched the canvas as well - there were certainly better chins around.

The times can produce a harder and savvier fighter. More of a professional so to speak, as they are fighting professionally and frequently.

drop the contemporary Marquez in 1940 I doubt he stands out as a particularly fierce fighter. Allow him to adapt to the system in place for boxing in 1940? His character may make him even better. So judging it that way is different.

they also do a lot of new things thats better for the fighters health but doesn’t really make them harder as fighters. For example limiting the amount of sparring they did. Great old fighters sparred constantly. An unhealthy amount which often attributed to the brain damage. However, in their primes they were really fine tuned fighters. James Toney for half his career only sparred and hit the heavy bag and beat ranked heavies as an obese middleweight. Toney sparred constantly though, and likewise has oldschool brain damage.

[The Old LefHook]

The part of your post I might agree with is that constant sparring causes old school brain damage. I can even see where oldsters (while young) might be more finely tuned because of all the sparring, but does being finely tuned give someone a better chin?

[Bundana]

You can't get anymore game than Marquez or Vasquez in contemporary times no. But if they were dropped in an era where they were able to fight once a month if they wanted too (which they could have) then they would become even more savvy and hardened. They might not be the toughest guys in the ranks in every era either, because both of those guys frequently touched the canvas as well - there were certainly better chins around.

The times can produce a harder and savvier fighter. More of a professional so to speak, as they are fighting professionally and frequently.

drop the contemporary Marquez in 1940 I doubt he stands out as a particularly fierce fighter. Allow him to adapt to the system in place for boxing in 1940? His character may make him even better. So judging it that way is different.

they also do a lot of new things thats better for the fighters health but doesn't really make them harder as fighters. For example limiting the amount of sparring they did. Great old fighters sparred constantly. An unhealthy amount which often attributed to the brain damage. However, in their primes they were really fine tuned fighters. James Toney for half his career only sparred and hit the heavy bag and beat ranked heavies as an obese middleweight. Toney sparred constantly though, and likewise has oldschool brain damage.

Was an oldtimer with 100 pro fights under his belt more "savvy" than a modern boxer with 20 fights? Undoubtedly! Was he tougher with a stronger chin?... highly questionable! In fact, I don't think a chin gets stronger by being used to take punches. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite - that the more punches you absorb, the weaker your chin gets?

Also, you don't seem to agree with LefHook, that Marquez and Vasquez exhibited willingness and bravery that even the oldtimers couldn't surpass. Naturally, that's something you don't like to hear, but of course you have a way around this: imagine if we dropped them off in 1940 - then they would be even tougher, than they were in their own time. As if anyone could possibly know anything about this!

[The Old LefHook]

This thread is a good subject because it explores one of boxing's oldest urban legends.

The mistake Apple made is that he included chin. If he had just said "I believe old school fighters were a bit tougher as a result of the harder times they lived in," he would have gotten very little argument from anyone. That is a notion we all probably partially subscribe to.

As Bundana already observed, 100-150 years is just not long enough for human chins to evolve, in this case devolve. An earthworm might produce a new protein in that amount of time, but another cause would have to be found for human chins being stronger then than now. That is why I came up with milk. But further reading has educated me to the fact that over-drinking milk can actually cause bones to become more brittle rather than strengthening them, especially among the aged.

[them_apples]

Was an oldtimer with 100 pro fights under his belt more "savvy" than a modern boxer with 20 fights? Undoubtedly! Was he tougher with a stronger chin?... highly questionable! In fact, I don't think a chin gets stronger by being used to take punches. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite - that the more punches you absorb, the weaker your chin gets?

Also, you don't seem to agree with LefHook, that Marquez and Vasquez exhibited willingness and bravery that even the oldtimers couldn't surpass. Naturally, that's something you don't like to hear, but of course you have a way around this: imagine if we dropped them off in 1940 - then they would be even tougher, than they were in their own time. As if anyone could possibly know anything about this!

The chin can’t get much better from taking blows, you can toughen up initially but yeah it doesn’t just perpetually get tougher. However, sparring constantly get’s you much better tuned at riding the shots, slipping and rolling and being generally aware in the ring because you are comfortable and thinking.

the part about oldschool fighters having better chins though, you keep bypassing my point. They had better chins in the same way that the nba now has more 7 footers. The sport attracted hard chinned men because you needed one to survive in boxing back then. You fought frequently and short notice, sometimes against much better opposition. You were expected to fight and tkos weren’t handed out like candies.

boxing gyms today don’t attract these people or filter them out. 300 ammy fights is gonna make a permanent ammy fighter for a career. Winning by landing more shots not by hurting. Head gear, bigger foam gloves.

this was my only point that directly answers the “old fighters having better chins”. Now in addition to how the game was, yeah they were better tuned as well.

on the topic of not being able to display anymore heart than Marquez or Vasquez, well that is totally up for debate as well because it is dependant on competition as well. By no means am I questioning their hearts as fighters, but if we are comparing the greatest hearts of 2015 to 1940, well once again, the old timers win.

further proving my point though, and yours as well sort of is the fact that Marquez did spar a LOT and it makes sense that even being slow as he moved up, flat footed and under sized his savvy got him a knockout over Pacquiao. So if anything Marquez is using an oldschool regimen to his advantage.