Could today's fighters adapt?

[elfag]

macriano was only fighting twice a year after he got famous.


Yeah some of these guys had a lot of fights like Pep and Robinson. And most of them were bums it was just to make money and stay active.


When a modern fighter did it like Julio Ceasar Chavez, people just said well 80 of the 100 guys were bums so who cares.

[elfag]

All of marcianos non champion opponents were bums

His record is trash. He had like 35 fights against random plumbers and factory workers. If all those random tradesmen count towards his 49-0 then McGreggor counts for mayweather's 50-0 and consider Marciao's record beat.

As soon as marciao got famous from fighting shopworn joe louis you can see he went to fighting twice a year just like modern fighters do. Marciano realistically only had like 10 fights against decent opponents.

[automaton89]

Your points are well taken.

When it comes to HW Champions fighting twice a year goes back to the beginning of the game. Save for Joe Louis.

Don't think Marciano acted in any odd manner, that should add or distract. Fought about as often as one might expect.

This is why I believe we need to look closer at the number of fights leading up to a fighter's first title shot. This is were we will find a difference. Maybe.

Who Marciano's competition was is a different matter.

Marciano beat two all time greats, when they were active. But they were really old.

[Dr. Z]

Could today's fighters (doesn't matter division) adapt to the rules and rigorous schedule of the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's? I'm of the opinion styles change because rules change. But fighting 2 or 3 times a year to fighting 8, 9, 10 times a year would be challenging. Would Floyd Mayweather have been able to keep that grueling schedule with brittle hands? Could Fury getting woefully out of shape between fights?

I'm of the opinion overall they could. Floyd (just as an example) may not. Not because he wasn't great, but because the same medical technology wouldn't be there.

I also believe fighters of the past would adapt and flourish today. Punching and movement really haven't changed, and they're grit was undeniable.

Anyway, who are some fighters that you think would or would not adapt to the past era's?

Skill wise, certainly.

But boxing was a much rougher sport back then... so ..

In modern times many fights re-hydrate after weight in. This mean that Welterweight are really Middle weights.

Once we understand that, you can pick Welters over Middles. Go ahead use any ATG lists.

See my point?

[billeau2]

Could today's fighters (doesn't matter division) adapt to the rules and rigorous schedule of the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's? I'm of the opinion styles change because rules change. But fighting 2 or 3 times a year to fighting 8, 9, 10 times a year would be challenging. Would Floyd Mayweather have been able to keep that grueling schedule with brittle hands? Could Fury getting woefully out of shape between fights?

I'm of the opinion overall they could. Floyd (just as an example) may not. Not because he wasn't great, but because the same medical technology wouldn't be there.

I also believe fighters of the past would adapt and flourish today. Punching and movement really haven't changed, and they're grit was undeniable.

Anyway, who are some fighters that you think would or would not adapt to the past era's?

Nature is such people always adapt. Genetically we have not changed for many many moons. And medical science does not account for the power of the mind to control the body when it is young healthy and able.

Obviously if you took fighters now and just put them into that situation it would be hell for them. But they're fully capable with time. Many people would say if you look at MMA people should not be capable of that. Imagine getting smashed in your legs with roundhouse kicks constantly, yet people manage. The Root sport of Thai fighting they only fight for about 10 years and retired before 30. Yet guys smash each other and manage to keep walking.

You have throwback fighters that just really like to fight. That's what I love about James toney. I believe because he likes it so much he would have no problem.

[billeau2]

Kempo Karate was my first experience with codified fighting. In that discipline, you were promoted to the next belt level not by improving as a fighter, but by your ability to precisely replicate what the sensei was teaching. In other words, there was no room for adaptation based on individual characteristics found to be in yourself OR to what you were facing in an opponent. Do as the master teaches and you'll be OK is the idea.

Boxing/Fighting sports are very different. In those, you practice a range of techniques, roll them togeter in fluid sequence, and select what's demanded based on what you're facing dynamically; and you develop your skills based on your individual characteristics. In boxing, two twin brothers weighting 175 lbs train, but one brother stands 5'7" and the other is 6'2". In Kempo you are taught the very same things, but in Boxing the brothers essentially learn two different ways to fight. I found the latter approach to unarmed combat to be more organic, intuitive and effective; at least for me.

So Boxing as a martial arts is based on various situations and personal strengths; by it's very nature.
Faced with a guy faster than you, stronger than you, a grappling intentioned opponent, an opponent who gasses early, in the hot vs. Cold air, slippery ground or grippy, in the dark or bright light, one attacker or two.....you vary the application of what you do, and you do that on the fly. In battle, one size will never fit all.
So I think that given the incentive to do so, professional grade fighters can and will adapt.
Long vs short duration, glove size, frequency of fighting balanced against work in gym; those can all be dealt with if the heart and skill are there.
That's a big part of Boxings effectiveness.

Those are some great points. I would have to say teaching martial arts now for over 40 years, that the distinction between ineffective and protocol really becomes a fine line. When you are training people to fight you have to give them an opportunity to develop techniques that suit them. This applies in any fighting discipline. Fortunately so many arts don't do this anymore.

I teach people that forms are simply a textbook. They allow you to take something to develop it organically. By having the root forms you retain the art. Similar process in ancient India in learning the Vedic hymns. The brahmins move the head in a specific direction for each syllable, so they learn the text through memory but with that feedback loop for the body.

Forms give people something to work with conceptually. That also applies to two man forms in the more ancient Japanese arts, in addition to solo forms. People need to fight to get better, just as with boxing and wrestling.

Before anybody learns anything special they should be on the mat for at least 10 years just hammer and tongs! Then they'll appreciate it

[them_apples]

Yeah man, basically every champion ever beats the former champion, the champion before him, the champion before him, the LHW champion, and the lesser belt champions, the inventor of rope-a-dope, a prospect with over 95 wins to 3 losses none of which coming from the HW division, the british lhw move up also undefeated at HW, and the Ring pick for the next great HW champion prospect.

All these guys who have long win streaks like JCC or Harry Matthews they all got records that feature prime boxers retiring five fights or less after having faced the principle character. They all got heaps of broken bones attributed to their punches.

Any man weighing 185 can easily put out 925 footpounds of energy. That's not more torque than your car or pistol at all, dudes be throwing truck power every day, no big whoop.

Everyone has beaten guys who invented techniques as popular as the sucka punch, rope-a-dope, and shuffle.

Everyone of these dudes with these long ass win streaks that feature a majority of opponents retiring shortly after the damage they took from the principle character also has a record that features an all time high KO ratio






Marciano's the only boxer in boxing history to be the same age as another man and lack a full career's worth of experience as that other man and be presented like as if that is somehow a benefit to him.



Tyson Fury a fighting man, Mayweather been doing it since he was a baby, etc. Always said like that experience is a benefit to the boxer. Except Ezzard and Rocco, then that guy who is definitely not terribly older than Marciano is past it, shop worn, despite being at the height of his career and earning his highest honors.



And the truth is plain to see. People hate on Marciano because the way he fights hurts their wee *******. So they detract from the undetractable. Marciano's resume is fantastic, actually. Actually he has no major rival from his era because ... duh ... he kicked their ass. Matthews is a name in any other era, the dude on a win streak tear in the HW division is a name in any other era, you hardly see his ass mentioned in rocky conversations and if you date it to 2010, aka me, my og account, Matthews is all but never mentioned. Being the ring pick, ring doesn't always do that ****. When Ring says watch this guy to be the great champ of this era ****ers pay attention and the ****er who demolishes him gets praise. Not marciano doe.

IOt's pretty ****ing absurd. Especially since you don't need to try to knock the dude's resume to knock his technique or physical limitations. T-rex arms is a fair criticism. Him fought plumbers doe is just tard ****.

Read my mind.

nobody even bothers to actually watch rock. They don’t see how good he is. This is why I hate arguing with people about Marciano, because they have hate glasses on that will not allow them to. Marciano actually fought and beat some very good fighters, but more than that - it’s HOW he beat them. Just watch.

while Walcott, Moore and Charles were extremely game and some could even argue close to their best. Moore got himself in tremendous shape for the match - and was always in shape in general.

another thing people don’t realize that doesn’t make any sense - is they say Marciano beat light heavies. But Marciano pretty much WAS a light heavy. No he couldn’t effectively make 175, but all 3 of those guys barely could either. Walcott and Charles certainly couldn’t. They weighed even more than Rocky on fight night.

either way you look at it, he’s the same size as them and destroys 3 atg’s in a short period of time. Destroys them. If this doesn’t at least raise an eyebrow from you then its the hater glasses. You also should take in he gave them rematches that ended much earlier and to be honest, never even began.

then you have Liston, people tout as the most underrated heavy, his most famous win is knocking out Floyd Patterson, a man much smaller and weaker than him. Why is Liston rated so highly?

it’s obvious to any real boxing fan that Marciano is a league above a Liston. But 99 percent of todays boxing fans would disagree. They are wrong though.

it’s actually bothersome how the history section is littered with idiots now that don’t understand what they are missing. Years ago when Marciano wasn’t long gone, it wouldn’t have gotten this bad. People knew how good Marciano was. He’s the one you never bet against. He understood fighting was a test of wills.

you have speed
you have power
you have strength
you have iron chins
you have stamina…

what people don’t take into account is effort, the most important of all. This is both mental and physical.

[Bundana]

Two interesting numbers to know would be . . .

Between 1980-2020 and 1920-1960

• How many fights before they got a title fight.
• Number of total fights career (champions only).

Dempsey: 64 --> 73

Mayweather Jr.: 24 --> 50

Holmes: 27 --> 75

Pacquiao: 24 --> 72

Graziano: 59 --> 83

Charles: 72 --> 121

Just need to look at 50 more from each period and we might know something, or not.


My numbers are only close.

* Charles had several 12 & 15 round fights (Moore, Maxim, Baski, Fitzpatrick) during his 72 fight run-up to the HW Title, but none are registered as title bouts.

* Pacquiao has 48 fights since his first world title fight, with 46 of them being the championship distance of 12 rounds. Amazing!

Without really looking into this - I'm pretty sure, that the oldtime champions, from many decades ago, had (on average) a lot more fights, before fighting for a world title than today. As well, of course, many more career fights.

If a serious investigation turned out to show, that this is indeed the case, the question would be: what does this tell us - if anything?

[Bundana]

Yea I know. But numbers are all we got. We can't measure bone density as some think; we can't measure fortitude either.

Exactly!

I can't help but laugh, when someone keeps talking about a certain boxer being big boned - as if we really know that to be the case.

The same with fortitude, of course. I strongly doubt, if oldtimers held a monopoly on this particular characteristic - while it is more or less lacking in modern boxers' make-up. Doesn't make sense!

[them_apples]

Exactly!

I can't help but laugh, when someone keeps talking about a certain boxer being big boned - as if we really know that to be the case.

The same with fortitude, of course. I strongly doubt, if oldtimers held a monopoly on this particular characteristic - while it is more or less lacking in modern boxers' make-up. Doesn't make sense!

If you knew the reality of it

its just as absurd to think the numbers mean much at all. Cause in the end I highly doubt they do. Like weight for example.