Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analyzing boxing's old model

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Analyzing boxing's old model

    Something like this:

    Fighting 10-12 times a year (just a rough guess for the sake of the point i'm making), 2 or 3 of them serious opponents the rest "tune ups". The benefits are physical but also psychological. fighting under the lights can be distressing on the nerves. Stepping into the ring more frequently will harden the fighter mentally, making him a professional and more comfortable in the ring. Less stage fright makes a more relaxed and calculated fighter that won't tire himself out.

    a point could be made that fighters didn't take more damage cause they fought so much, no, they took more damage from specific key damaging fights. People forget that some of these wars we have watched for entertainment are causing permanent damage. Some of the beatings are so bad it could be likened to stoneing someone to death but stopping short of killing them, because occasionally a very tough individual can or could endure a lot more than we would think. A good way of seeing this, is to watch videos that have been edited to remove the attacking fighter so we can only view the opponent who is taking punishment. watching somebodies head violently snap back 200+ times in 1 hour should tell you all you need to know.

    back to the first point, This gives the fighter a lot more "in ring" experience which obviously is different than sparring. the timing, the speed from small gloves, the damage, cuts and of course the crowd and record is on the line. It doesn't mean they were taking punishment for 200 fights. Many of Moore and Robinsons fights they would have taken almost no damage at all and saved it for the bigger events.


  • #2
    Originally posted by them_apples View Post
    Something like this:

    Fighting 10-12 times a year (just a rough guess for the sake of the point i'm making), 2 or 3 of them serious opponents the rest "tune ups". The benefits are physical but also psychological. fighting under the lights can be distressing on the nerves. Stepping into the ring more frequently will harden the fighter mentally, making him a professional and more comfortable in the ring. Less stage fright makes a more relaxed and calculated fighter that won't tire himself out.

    a point could be made that fighters didn't take more damage cause they fought so much, no, they took more damage from specific key damaging fights. People forget that some of these wars we have watched for entertainment are causing permanent damage. Some of the beatings are so bad it could be likened to stoneing someone to death but stopping short of killing them, because occasionally a very tough individual can or could endure a lot more than we would think. A good way of seeing this, is to watch videos that have been edited to remove the attacking fighter so we can only view the opponent who is taking punishment. watching somebodies head violently snap back 200+ times in 1 hour should tell you all you need to know.

    back to the first point, This gives the fighter a lot more "in ring" experience which obviously is different than sparring. the timing, the speed from small gloves, the damage, cuts and of course the crowd and record is on the line. It doesn't mean they were taking punishment for 200 fights. Many of Moore and Robinsons fights they would have taken almost no damage at all and saved it for the bigger events.
    Let me see, if I understand this correctly...

    Are you saying, that recent top boxers with very few pro fights (Lomachenko, Usyk, Bivol, Rigondeaux, Inoue, etc.) would have been even better if they, in addition to their actual fights, had engaged in half a dozen (or so) "tune ups" every year, against inferior oppositition?

    Comment


    • #3
      Lots to unpack here. As a preface, Bundana asks a good, leading question. Going back only 60 years, jetting off quickly to fight locations straight out of the gym was not as easy, especilly for non big money fighers. The colloquial expression "Ham & Egger" indeed is one of the many with a Prizefighting origin (down for the count, against the ropes, in your corner...), referring to the quick, cheap, high protein meal that a traveling boxer would consume as he traveled by rail between Rochester, New York, Newark, Hartford, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc., taking fights as a vocation; so staying in fighting shape by fighting more and sparring (like a *****) less was an imperative. Taking easier fights meant that the accumulated punishment would even out to some degree. Both old and modern approaches of course offered plenty of physical trauma (Ali took most of his during sparring. Many good ones do). Another shift in old/new is in how fighters today are marketed as irresistible force or immovable object without a blemish as a means of advancement. In the old days it was understood that you improve with the experience of dropping a few on the road. And indeed they did. Today such learning is relegated to rumors of being KOd in the gym. Learning how to scramble up, cover up and shake it off is lost. A neurologist is OK with the new way, but someone knowledge about boxing history, the topic of this board; understands what has been downgraded over time.

      them_apples them_apples likes this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Willow The Wisp View Post
        Lots to unpack here. As a preface, Bundana asks a good, leading question. Going back only 60 years, jetting off quickly to fight locations straight out of the gym was not as easy, especilly for non big money fighers. The colloquial expression "Ham & Egger" indeed is one of the many with a Prizefighting origin (down for the count, against the ropes, in your corner...), referring to the quick, cheap, high protein meal that a traveling boxer would consume as he traveled by rail between Rochester, New York, Newark, Hartford, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc., taking fights as a vocation; so staying in fighting shape by fighting more and sparring (like a *****) less was an imperative. Taking easier fights meant that the accumulated punishment would even out to some degree. Both old and modern approaches of course offered plenty of physical trauma (Ali took most of his during sparring. Many good ones do). Another shift in old/new is in how fighters today are marketed as irresistible force or immovable object without a blemish as a means of advancement. In the old days it was understood that you improve with the experience of dropping a few on the road. And indeed they did. Today such learning is relegated to rumors of being KOd in the gym. Learning how to scramble up, cover up and shake it off is lost. A neurologist is OK with the new way, but someone knowledge about boxing history, the topic of this board; understands what has been downgraded over time.
        First off, great post!! Second......we have a saying when we fight, and I'm sure we're not the only ones. "We don't lose. We either win or we learn."
        Willow The Wisp Willow The Wisp likes this.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bundana View Post

          Let me see, if I understand this correctly...

          Are you saying, that recent top boxers with very few pro fights (Lomachenko, Usyk, Bivol, Rigondeaux, Inoue, etc.) would have been even better if they, in addition to their actual fights, had engaged in half a dozen (or so) "tune ups" every year, against inferior oppositition?
          Hey buddy!
          Lomachenko had 397 amateur fights, Usyk 350, Bivol 283, Rigondeaux 475 and Inoue 81.
          The type of learning that helped old model boxers perfect their craft, was for those superb talents embedded into their amateur career. It should go without saying. So for them and those like them, No. They would derive little from padding their legers.​
          Bundana Bundana likes this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bundana View Post

            Let me see, if I understand this correctly...

            Are you saying, that recent top boxers with very few pro fights (Lomachenko, Usyk, Bivol, Rigondeaux, Inoue, etc.) would have been even better if they, in addition to their actual fights, had engaged in half a dozen (or so) "tune ups" every year, against inferior oppositition?
            My two cents . . .

            Yea I do! --> probably would have left them damaged goods like so many fighters of the past, so it's best they did not/do not do it But I would think those fights would make for a fighter better.

            I can only speak first hand about folk style wrestling, (which of course does not damage the body as much as boxing) but we always saw it as a maxium, the guy who wrestled regularly (all year long) had a distinct advantage over those who didn't (those who only wrestled during the season.)

            One can train hard, and even scrimmage often, but the edge that real matches offered brought about more growth.

            Excuse me for butting in.

            Willow The Wisp Willow The Wisp likes this.

            Comment


            • #7
              - - Trying to nail Apple jelly to the wall. Good luck!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Willow The Wisp View Post

                Hey buddy!
                Lomachenko had 397 amateur fights, Usyk 350, Bivol 283, Rigondeaux 475 and Inoue 81.
                The type of learning that helped old model boxers perfect their craft, was for those superb talents embedded into their amateur career. It should go without saying. So for them and those like them, No. They would derive little from padding their legers.​
                I would say amateur fights are a different experience altogether, if comparing them to professional bouts.
                Last edited by them_apples; 11-09-2022, 01:42 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bundana View Post

                  Let me see, if I understand this correctly...

                  Are you saying, that recent top boxers with very few pro fights (Lomachenko, Usyk, Bivol, Rigondeaux, Inoue, etc.) would have been even better if they, in addition to their actual fights, had engaged in half a dozen (or so) "tune ups" every year, against inferior oppositition?

                  the extra tune ups would keep them mentally sharper and feeling like a fighter. Can't prove it because it hasn't happened - but I couldn't picture a world where that wouldn't make a better fighter, and the styles of Archie Moore, Charles etc reflect that. Less tense, not as wound up and always thinking. It's funny you only see this at the tail end of fighters careers now, right when they are just starting to get real experience.
                  Last edited by them_apples; 11-09-2022, 01:39 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Willow The Wisp View Post
                    Lots to unpack here. As a preface, Bundana asks a good, leading question. Going back only 60 years, jetting off quickly to fight locations straight out of the gym was not as easy, especilly for non big money fighers. The colloquial expression "Ham & Egger" indeed is one of the many with a Prizefighting origin (down for the count, against the ropes, in your corner...), referring to the quick, cheap, high protein meal that a traveling boxer would consume as he traveled by rail between Rochester, New York, Newark, Hartford, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc., taking fights as a vocation; so staying in fighting shape by fighting more and sparring (like a *****) less was an imperative. Taking easier fights meant that the accumulated punishment would even out to some degree. Both old and modern approaches of course offered plenty of physical trauma (Ali took most of his during sparring. Many good ones do). Another shift in old/new is in how fighters today are marketed as irresistible force or immovable object without a blemish as a means of advancement. In the old days it was understood that you improve with the experience of dropping a few on the road. And indeed they did. Today such learning is relegated to rumors of being KOd in the gym. Learning how to scramble up, cover up and shake it off is lost. A neurologist is OK with the new way, but someone knowledge about boxing history, the topic of this board; understands what has been downgraded over time.
                    Thats crazy to think how common a job boxing was in the great depression, considering the 30% unemployment rate or whatever it was. anyone willing to get hit might give it a shot, although it was deemed dangerous as we all know.
                    Last edited by them_apples; 11-09-2022, 01:42 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP