Which Statistical Data Could Shed The Most Light

[them_apples]

So today boxers have lost this ability to save energy by staying relaxed, and resting when the opportunity is there... is that what you're saying?

What I am saying is they don’t train to fight like this. So in a way yes, they have lost the ability to professionally do this. You word it in a way that it sounds ****** because you make it sound like I am making a statement on biology. In the ams they train for a different fight. It becomes habit. Amir Khan, a veteran at this time - still fights like an amateur.

[them_apples]

For complete old time fights, a relevant technique might be to simply count punches. We do not have to know whether the punch lands or not, since we can always see the attempt to land a punch. So the technique should even work over black and white films of poor quality, which is a plus. One could combine this information with other counted actions like steps taken, etc., for a fuller picture. It might be interesting to see how the old timers stack up against the youngsters in the energy expense category. It would only provide a very rough estimate, but might lend insight.

Not really though, because we are talking about a skillset. Numbers won’t work here. You can throw working punches that take very little energy, even bait punches, and you can throw high energy follow through shots and opportune moments.

Someone who throws 45 punches like that bs someone who throws 45 punches full power and speed- one will be much more gassed.

the other factor is a good pro knows when and how to find rest in the ring. A frantic, tight muscled hands up high style will drink fuel fast.

these are just a few examples. If you and bundana start counting punches as a way of determining if a fight is rushed, it wouldn’t be disproving or even relating to what I am saying.

[them_apples]

But how can we possibly know, that the oldtimers had this ability to conserve energy - and that this is something, that has been lost over time?

you can’t possibly know if thats the answer you are looking for. And this goes for 99 percent of debates. You can however, observe the fighting styles and how they have changed, listen to trainers interviews and read old boxing training books. The idea came from reading it in an old interview with Eddie Futch or something along the lines of it. So the only 100 percent here is that it is oldschool.

ezzard charles is an example of a style you could probably fight 30 rounds in. Since the majority of his shots are bait shots or lighter shots, he’s never exerting himself. He’s busy tiring his oponents out by making them miss, and making them throw with bait shots to aggravate them. Then inbetween all the missing he sets them up to land some very hard ones. He was a knock- out artist really.

are these facts? No they are observations thats all. It’s not even a fact that the man even existed, since all we have are touch, sight, sound, taste and smell and the only evidence we have left is based displaying visual and sound. Is it a fact the man lived? Not it’s not. All we have are word of mouth and video tapes, books etc. still, everyone could be lying, the videos could be fake or of imposters and yeah the books could be storytelling.

you could get even trippier and say even in the event that you are standing in front of the man, theres a chance your peers are lying to you and saying they are experiencing the same thing.

you get what I am saying though, and this is what you do every time. I make an observation and you return with “how are you so sure”. I’m not sure, it’s basic evidence and I usually tell you what its based off of. Just about anything involving oldschool boxing is probably basic evidence. This sport wasn’t monitored and chaptered like a nasa project.

this is boxing history, and any historian will tell you that the majority of history is speculation. I don’t think I need to elaborate on as to why. Since you like data so much though - I think it would be tremendously easy to break down these boxrec numbers into 100s of subcategories proving in a way that “facts” based off statements about these numbers are highly unlikely.

lets say the average number of boxing events was 30,000 in 1930. And in 2000 was 7,000.

right away you can take each category and make a joke of it. These I am making up on the spot for an example:

out of this 30,000 were all these clubs in communication with eachother yes or no?

whats the statistics on the amount of amateur events? Or fighters remaining amateur longer? Y or N

in relation to where boxing is the most popular, who has the most fighters? Further more break this down on a per city basis. Maybe someone in Las vegas today has more access to fights and good sparring then someone in New York in 1960, but elseware around the country today on average you have less access.

What if not only there was more fights in the 30s over all, but we found out they were concentrated in specific areas? Further increasing the density. And right now boxing is worldwide and spread out, its numbers not far behind the olden days- but being spread out so far doesn’t allows these fighters to even cross paths.

or how about lets forget about quantity all together, and lets say theres gyms in the 50s and in this gyms are dozens of top ranked fighters from the one belt era. Or lets use Kronk in the 80s-90s. You got Holyfield, Moorer, Mclellan, Hearns etc you got the roughest dudes and biggest egos all going at it. Iron sharpens iron. These fighters now have a huge advantage. What if this scenario inly existed in certain eras? What if? If this was the case, quantity means very little if the top cream wasn’t consistently working together.

these are all fake and made up, but are examples of intangibles that would or could be catagorized with a proper data science degree and or AI/ML software. And it will do 100s of those. Each data point is weighted and can be adjusted. The machine is fed questions that we already know the answers too. The machine rapidly tests itself (learning) until it gets the right answer by adjusting the values of each data point (questions). Once the machine can score 99+ percent correct or so then its safe to say - feed it some blind unlabelled data. lets stop kidding ourselves that a few box rec numbers are anymore accurate than most observations. Our human mind can probably argue a better solution.
and even with ai and Ml these systems are only capable of producing accurate predictions after millions of cycles and clustering of data. Its gonna see patterns that we never could see without computer aid. It runs comparisons in the millions all day and all night.

numbers are good Observations though, non the less

[Bundana]

What I am saying is they don't train to fight like this. So in a way yes, they have lost the ability to professionally do this. You word it in a way that it sounds ****** because you make it sound like I am making a statement on biology. In the ams they train for a different fight. It becomes habit. Amir Khan, a veteran at this time - still fights like an amateur.

Amir Khan had a very short amateur career, and turned pro at 18 - and now, 17 years later, the bad amateur influence is still haunting him? Really?? Has it never occurred to you, that he fights the way he does because - well, because that's simply the way that comes naturally to him?

Go back and take a look at Ken Buchanan. High guard, stand straight up, text-book left jab straight from the shoulder... now there's an "amateur-styled" pro, if ever I saw one! So was he ruined by the training he received in the amateurs, or did he fight the way he did, because that was the style that was natural for him?

There are all kinds of different ways to box. All kinds of styles. No two boxers do it exactly the same way. Of course your personal observations tell you, that today's boxers have lost the ability to fight like true professionals. Not a startling observation, since we know, that in your eyes modern boxers can do nothing right. Someone like Bivol doesn't even know how to fight, we're told!

And on top of this afraid-of-contact amateur style, most modern pros have glass jaws, gas after 4 rounds, fight like robots, lack the oldschool skills and savvy needed to set an opponent up for the coup de grâce - in addition to being cowards who quit too soon, when the going gets tough. All according to your "observations"! Have you really no idea, how incredibly biased this sounds!

[The Old LefHook]

From numbers we have a good basis for further exploration. Never poo poo numbers. Many great scientists have been wrong. So you cannot always take it as gospel when a man assures you he has observed something. Even great scientists make incorrect observations sometimes.

Apples said:

<<Or lets use Kronk in the 80s-90s. You got Moorer, Mclellan, Hearns etc you got the roughest dudes and biggest egos all going at it. Iron sharpens iron. These fighters now have a huge advantage. What if this scenario inly existed in certain eras? What if? If this was the case, quantity means very little if the top cream wasn’t consistently working together.>>

Actually, Manny Steward had a hard and fast rule that none of these guys were to get in the ring together at the Kronk, exactly because they were the roughest dudes and the biggest egos. If a man owned two top game****s, he would not want them fighting each other for practice.

[QueensburyRules]

Amir Khan had a very short amateur career, and turned pro at 18 - and now, 17 years later, the bad amateur influence is still haunting him? Really?? Has it never occurred to you, that he fights the way he does because - well, because that's simply the way that comes naturally to him?

- - If you ever seen the way his pappy looks, you'd instantly have to conclude Khan is a massive overachiever.

[them_apples]

Amir Khan had a very short amateur career, and turned pro at 18 - and now, 17 years later, the bad amateur influence is still haunting him? Really?? Has it never occurred to you, that he fights the way he does because - well, because that's simply the way that comes naturally to him?

Go back and take a look at Ken Buchanan. High guard, stand straight up, text-book left jab straight from the shoulder... now there's an "amateur-styled" pro, if ever I saw one! So was he ruined by the training he received in the amateurs, or did he fight the way he did, because that was the style that was natural for him?

There are all kinds of different ways to box. All kinds of styles. No two boxers do it exactly the same way. Of course your personal observations tell you, that today's boxers have lost the ability to fight like true professionals. Not a startling observation, since we know, that in your eyes modern boxers can do nothing right. Someone like Bivol doesn't even know how to fight, we're told!

And on top of this afraid-of-contact amateur style, most modern pros have glass jaws, gas after 4 rounds, fight like robots, lack the oldschool skills and savvy needed to set an opponent up for the coup de grâce - in addition to being cowards who quit too soon, when the going gets tough. All according to your "observations"! Have you really no idea, how incredibly biased this sounds!

This post is in response to things we have already argued over for 25 pages. So for the majority if it I won’t respond.

but lets just take all the things I say, and not word them as aggressively. Take my opinion and make it more moderate, I’d say the points I make are generally true. If said so “magnified” it takes away from the point I am making by sounding absurd.

fighters are generally softer, less experienced and fight like amateurs. generally is the new word, so lets take that stance from hereforth.

Buchanan, fights like a British fighter. Which is more text book. He displays little amateur qualities though, and considering up until the 90s, ammy boxing was more similar to pro boxing. He also doesn’t fight high guard

Every 40s fighter fighter in the top 10 won’t beat every 2020 fighter in the top 10, but generally will come out on top (in my book). Fighters still vary as individuals, and styles make fights.

[Bundana]

This post is in response to things we have already argued over for 25 pages. So for the majority if it I won't respond.

but lets just take all the things I say, and not word them as aggressively. Take my opinion and make it more moderate, I'd say the points I make are generally true. If said so "magnified" it takes away from the point I am making by sounding absurd.

fighters are generally softer, less experienced and fight like amateurs. generally is the new word, so lets take that stance from hereforth.

Buchanan, fights like a British fighter. Which is more text book. He displays little amateur qualities though, and considering up until the 90s, ammy boxing was more similar to pro boxing. He also doesn't fight high guard

Every 40s fighter fighter in the top 10 won't beat every 2020 fighter in the top 10, but generally will come out on top (in my book). Fighters still vary as individuals, and styles make fights.

Ok, let's not go over old ground, but just concentrate on what you say here.

Buchanan didn't fight with a high guard? Sure, if you say so!

The "generally softer" thing... is based on what, exactly? You have watched less than 1% of the oldtimers, so how can you have an informed opinion about what the oldtimers "generally" looked like or fought like?

Yes, I know, your opinions are based on personal observations - so I suppose you have actually seen, with your own eyes, how boxers now give up too easily, without trying their best. Can we find examples of this today? Sure we can - but how do we know, this is more prevalent today than in the old days?

As for the best fighters from the 40s "generally" coming up on top against today's best? Well, of course they would... as you have already decided, that even the toughest and most courageous contemporary boxers can't compete with the oldtimers, when it comes to "heart". And since most of them fight like amarteurs, it stands to reason, that today's boxers probably would finish second best, if they were up against real professional fighters from a stronger era!

[The Old LefHook]

If anything, I think modern fighters are harder. It is the equipment, I believe. It is not my idea that boxing technique has evolved little in the last eighty years, but local arguments have convinced me of this counter-intuitive fact. The assortment of training apparatus is what has explosively evolved in boxing, rather than boxing technique. Certain apparatus are even for specific muscles. We have more available than a medicine ball, some kettleweights and an axe these days. The result is overall harder bodies, I believe. What else can it be, softer bodies? I guarantee you get a fuller, more rounded workout on those machines than you do chopping wood. Chopping wood is still good because it works quite a few muscle groups while being aerobic, i.e., you can do it for a long time while breathing hard. Weights make you breath hard too, but you cannot keep it up long, i.e., weight training is anaerobic.

The stomachs of olden fighters had to be very hard to endure body punches from horsehair mittens. We don't care how fat boys and bums trained or how hard they were. We are always interested in very good fighters, because they are the group that can most reliably be counted on to be in the best shape they know how to get in. They try really hard. Remember Ray Corso's definition of a bum? It was simply a guy who didn't try out there, that was a bum. We are not looking to judge the bodies of bums at training. We want guys who try very hard to get in their best shape.

As someone mentioned in the other thread, modern boxers end up highlighting every muscle in their bodies, because minute detailing of flesh is more reachable than ever. No one is saying this universal detailing is better for a boxer. I think the question is open. But that it happens and is now part of the boxing landscape as well as other sports, is undeniable, I would think.

Apple may be referring exclusively to another meaning of hard, as in men whose character has hardened. In that case my argument does not apply, but remains true, I believe. But in case it does apply:

* * * * *

As anecdotal evidence, I gaze at the olden photo of professional strongman Hermann Goerner, ready to perform and garbed only in brief trunks. The man is built and hard, no one will argue. He has no paunch like most of today's professional strongmen. He would be impressive to any casual eye, for in his day professional strongmen and bodybuilders were considered synonymous. The fact is, however, that many modern athletes are more detailed than The Mighty Goerner. They look good. They look superb. But does looking better equate to being better, or is its motive mostly vanity? That is the question. I think modern athletes are harder but I do know if they are better. I don't know if it is better to be all detailed out, or is it better to work on and build muscles traditionally considered advantageous for boxers to develop?

[QueensburyRules]

- - You mugs could study the Boxrec algorithm to see what's important to those devoted to boxing with the largest database and growing in the history of the sport by a degree of infinity.