Class in session for Old School Skill Deniers ..like moneytheman!!!!!!!

[The Old LefHook]

There are a couple different flavors, aren't there? Crossing divisions all the way from Wilde to Carnera is one type. Staying in the same division to infer that Corbett beat Tyson is another type. They are all impressive.

[Cross Trainer]

No, of course it doesn't. It's just a fun game, and nothing can be inferred from it... as we can basically "prove" anything we like this way. For example, it takes no more than a handfull of moves to show, how Jimmy Wilde would beat Primo Carnera... which naturally would be an absurd idea in the real world!

Still, it's an interesting idea if you ensured that every step of the ladder involves an old, ranked fighter beating a young, ranked, prime fighter in the same division fair and square. At least it would be a bit of an anomaly for the "modern is better" argument if a succession of old guys formed an unbroken chain, beating young ranked guys who then got old and beat other young ranked guys.

[JAB5239]

Damn be the facts provided in this thread. All of you are blind!!! Old school fighters never used angles. Just watch the film!!!

[Willow The Wisp]

No, of course it doesn't. It's just a fun game, and nothing can be inferred from it... as we can basically "prove" anything we like this way. For example, it takes no more than a handfull of moves to show, how Jimmy Wilde would beat Primo Carnera... which naturally would be an absurd idea in the real world!

Welll........yes of course, its just a fun game, connecting the linkage. But.......remember that the CONCEPT that boxing science has evolved over the 20-21st century is a theory; an argument, an opinion. One that is almost UNIVERSALLY disputed by most of boxing's best trainers and historians forever. The inherent advantage of additional size & weight illustrated by connecting Wilde and Carnera is a demonstrate Fact. So that constitutes a HUGE difference between what we might infer between the two connect the dots games. Just some food for thought. Lol.

[Bundana]

Welll........yes of course, its just a fun game, connecting the linkage. But.......remember that the CONCEPT that boxing science has evolved over the 20-21st century is a theory; an argument, an opinion. One that is almost UNIVERSALLY disputed by most of boxing's best trainers and historians forever. The inherent advantage of additional size & weight illustrated by connecting Wilde and Carnera is a demonstrate Fact. So that constitutes a HUGE difference between what we might infer between the two connect the dots games. Just some food for thought. Lol.

As I have said many times, both here and elsewhere... I see no evolvement in boxing science over the last 80+ years or so! I believe boxing took huge strides forward during the two Wars - so that by the late 30s/early 40s, the sport had pretty much become "modern" (for lack of a better word). Some amazing fighters came on the scene around that time, such as Canzoneri, Louis, Pep, Robinson to name just a few. And I can't claim to have seen better since then.

So no, I'm not one of those who believe, boxing is steadily improving as time goes by. I will say though, that boxing looked very different at the beginning of the last century, where I believe boxing had yet to develop into something that approached what we see today. I'm sure, there are those who will disagree, and claim that someone like Fitzsimmons would beat the **** out of every boxer today, close to his weight. And that's perfectly fine, we will never know... I just don't see it that way!

Edit: I meant to say between the two Wars!

[Willie Pep 229]

QBs can throw the ball harder today then yesterday - pictures throw harder than they did.

But is that improved skill or more power through size?

Can one conclude that MW and LW fighters hit harder today or have better footwork?

I must admit I don't get this whole 'angle' argument - Willie Pep didn't stand in front of opponents; SRR wasn't robotic in his movements; couldn't Gene Tunney turn a fighter as well as anyone today?

Take away Roy Jones athleticism and look at his skill level. Which is very high, but would he overwhelm, confuse, and outsmart Tunney or Robinson with "angels"? I think not.

The ball games have all evolved in the manner in which the game is played, but has the skill set evolved? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Can a batter hit better today because of all the science introduced or can a SS field a grounder better; can wide receivers catch better or run routes better, can hockey players handle the stick better or skate faster; are B-ballers better shots, better ball handlers? Maybe, I'm not sure.

No doubt all the ganes have evolved but have the skill sets applied also evolved, (other than increased size and power?)

Can fighters today punch harder? Is the footwork more advanced?

This word 'angels' has on this forum taken on a mystical attribute; isn't it just another way of saying 'good footwork'?

Footwork isn't that much better today. It needs to be measured fighter by fighter, not by epochs.

[JAB5239]

What has happened to JAB, one of our best posters?

im still lurking. Not much time to get into it and post lately. Im on vacation with my wife and kids and Pep will be right as i will start my final fight camp in August. I've also been speaking with former world kickboxing lightweight champion Dale Sunshine Frye (beat Joel Judah) who referred my last two fights about getting into refereeing and judging after taking the USA boxing test when I have more time and getting certified. Little tough in my area as they have a class, but it doesn't happen very often to close to me. I could do it online, but there is a lot more to learn than you would think.

[billeau2]

As I have said many times, both here and elsewhere... I see no evolvement in boxing science over the last 80+ years or so! I believe boxing took huge strides forward during the two Wars - so that by the late 30s/early 40s, the sport had pretty much become "modern" (for lack of a better word). Some amazing fighters came on the scene around that time, such as Canzoneri, Louis, Pep, Robinson to name just a few. And I can't claim to have seen better since then.

So no, I'm not one of those who believe, boxing is steadily improving as time goes by. I will say though, that boxing looked very different at the beginning of the last century, where I believe boxing had yet to develop into something that approached what we see today. I'm sure, there are those who will disagree, and claim that someone like Fitzsimmons would beat the **** out of every boxer today, close to his weight. And that's perfectly fine, we will never know... I just don't see it that way!

Edit: I meant to say between the two Wars!

its all testosterone. Those balding guys like Fitz had like fifty times the male hormones... The irony being the balding looks less masculine and all...

[Good ol' Douglas]

....So riddle me this: If fighers keep getting better every decade, how are these wins working backwards even possible dating back 133 years?
How???? If fighers just do noting but get better over time, how can you back up like this??

Because technical evolution does not occur overnight and the rate of development is not linear.

Eras improve one after the other and of course, certain fighters who were technically ahead of their time or could compensate with superior athleticism or size, may have enjoyed some amount of success against later generation boxers.

But that does not change the reality of skill, size and athleticism constantly improving since the beginning of the sport.

Also, 90s Foreman was far bigger and stronger, more experienced and just a better technician overall than 70s Foreman. That version would have battered 1974 Ali.

This whole thread is an exercise in logical fallacies by deluded nostalgists

[YGriffith]

Avni yildrim/Carl froch/George Groves beat
Glen Johnson who beat
Roy jones jr who beat
John Ruiz who beat
Hasim Rahman who beat
Lennox lewis who beat
Mike Tyson who beat
Larry holmes who beat
Muhammad ali who beat
George Logan who beat
Ezzard Charles who beat
Joe Louis who beat
Buddy Baer who beat
Bill Hartwell who beat
Jack Johnson who beat
James J Jeffries who beat
James J Corbett aka Gentlemam Jim Corbett

This list that i made proves an average modern Super Middleweight is superior to a heavyweight 133 years ago, which is true.

It also proves your logic is dumb since with enough research i can top this list with a featherweight.


Avni lost to Canelo who btw lost to floyd who is a prime super featherweight.

I could've also toped it with the 4 top heavyweights of today 2 of which are undefeated meaning nobody can use this backwards logic to prove anyone is better than tyson fury/Usyk.