Which boxer pioneered boxing techniques as we know them today

[Bundana]

One might well ask where we are today. Well, post baby boomer generation, he came the first generation of America to statistically underperform there parents. If you look at boxing presently in a way it has gone backwards.

There are exceptions to this. But what you see is a lot of amateur trained fighters who started late, did not really get seasoned, and who do not really prepare physically as boxers have in the past.

And if you're going to judge any sport, you have to look at the general level performance, not the best, and not the worst. You want the statistical average what falls in the bell curve not the extremes of it.

If you watch a typical heavyweight fighter from this era, and compare them to a previous such statistical point, you will notice the difference in skills. Yes you will sometimes also notice the difference in size. I don't know if this correlates and how important it is we won't know for a few years yet imo.

Interesting!

Do you think, the average boxer from 100 years ago was better (in terms of skill, experience, physical preparation, etc.) than today - and that what we see now proves, that the sport has gone backwards?

[automaton89]

Usually something has to happen in the heavyweight division to be recognized as game changing in boxing. This does not mean the heavyweights came up with the ideas. But when we see the heavyweights perform it puts the rest of the world on blast about developments.

I divide box into 3 epoches, you have pre Dempsey, where the focus was more on positioning, comprehensive skill sets, grappling among them, and footwork.

In many ways you see some sort of a glorification of all these aspects when you watch Tunney, The consumate representative of this style.

Dempsey change the focus to the punch. Through Dempsey we learned about the punches and the focus and emphasis on how to make them stronger.

You see the glorification of this technique in the next epoche, that of Joe Louis, who brought the consciousness of hitting technique to an ultimate point. Most people would agree, Ted williams and Joe Louis are Apollonian, physical archetypes for perfection of technical craft. Williams was perhaps the first noted technical hitter in baseball, and changed many perceptions of the game through his hitting, much as Louis did so in punching.


One can look at baseball and boxing and seat parallels here. The 1920s started the superstar era, you have Ruth and you had Dempsey, in the 1940s he saw the culmination of something started by Ted Williams and Joe Louis, baseball and boxing had both left any trace of the sandlot behind.

Anyway, the final period where we are today, probably started in the '70s. Again, all these things as a dialectic started earlier, but we saw them in the heavyweight division and in this case, Muhammad Ali.

Ali became the first fighter to truly take the idea of moral courage, natural ability, and entertaining value to create the epitome of the technically relaxed boxer puncher. Fighters like Ray Robinson had been doing it, you saw the perfection of it in Ali.

I think the queen bee said it best though in his post when he said it's a collaborative effort. It's a dialectic and it shows itself at a certain time historically.

Joe louis had a lot of influence on Marciano, Liston, but the modern fighters have stronger postures and I wonder who the founder of that was.

[automaton89]

Interesting!

Do you think, the average boxer from 100 years ago was better (in terms of skill, experience, physical preparation, etc.) than today - and that what we see now proves, that the sport has gone backwards?

Oh please.. you can ask about the 60s fighters (strongest era) but not a 100 years back . That's out of the question

[billeau2]

Interesting!

Do you think, the average boxer from 100 years ago was better (in terms of skill, experience, physical preparation, etc.) than today - and that what we see now proves, that the sport has gone backwards?

I think human beings in the past were better prepared for trauma. The world was simply a more traumatic place. By way of example, on the donner pass, people were stuck. Nowadays they'd be rescued. People kind of knew they had to deal with their problems and would not be rescued.

This made people psychologically tougher and maybe even stronger physically per the gifts they had. Maybe...

I don't think people were more skilled. I do think they had more time to devote to gaining skills. Because it was a question of values. For a kid of 13, if he was allowed to go into a gym and take a beating his attitude was he was going to have a craft. I learned martial arts this way. Old school lol. When you value something you devote more energy.

I shouldn't have used the word backwards. I think what happened in the sport sometime mid-19th century, the amateur style took off. You see it in places like Cuba and the Soviet block where only amateur fighting had roots.

I think that style has to develop a cogency through the dialectic of interacting with the professional polished style that has carried many fighters over the centuries in the free world where amateur fighting is only one option of many.

There's a long history of amateur fighting being put on the shelf by professional trainers. I have a boxing book from mid 1800s where trainers cry about amateur fighting preventing fighters from using the back hand punches.

So my point is I think many amateur habits have to be cultivated and transformed. It's happening though, Ukrainian fighters are very strong technically, Cuban fighters have always been, and they all come from strong amateur backgrounds.

If you read posts from Juggernaut when not in a back and forth with other posters lol, you can read some of the very knowledgeable things that fighters nowadays have cultivated in training. I think he's one of the best posters on the subject. So it's happening. You also have very incredible fighters from all Eras

[billeau2]

Joe louis had a lot of influence on Marciano, Liston, but the modern fighters have stronger postures and I wonder who the founder of that was.

Fighters often idolize doesn't necessarily reflect stylistically. I don't know what you mean by postures. And there are no founders. Things happen through a process of empirical give and take. Joe and Jim are good friends and being that they are males have no problem with punching each other in the face. Joe says this will work Jim says it won't, we now have information and how we go.

When Tunney fought Dempsey it has totally passed everybody that this was a watershed moment in boxing history. Tunney what's a technical fighter from the old pre-classical system. He was mentored by the likes of Corbett. Dempsey was the new punching machine. This face-off was also about a face-off of approaches.

We can discount the details, the age of Dempsey perhaps, how good each man was, but we got to see the styles against each other empirically. I believe the result was pretty even both had their moments. But this is how history is made. In this case, it was made silently. One day people will appreciate these fight especially the first one.

[automaton89]

Fighters often idolize doesn't necessarily reflect stylistically. I don't know what you mean by postures. And there are no founders. Things happen through a process of empirical give and take. Joe and Jim are good friends and being that they are males have no problem with punching each other in the face. Joe says this will work Jim says it won't, we now have information and how we go.

When Tunney fought Dempsey it has totally passed everybody that this was a watershed moment in boxing history. Tunney what's a technical fighter from the old pre-classical system. He was mentored by the likes of Corbett. Dempsey was the new punching machine. This face-off was also about a face-off of approaches.

We can discount the details, the age of Dempsey perhaps, how good each man was, but we got to see the styles against each other empirically. I believe the result was pretty even both had their moments. But this is how history is made. In this case, it was made silently. One day people will appreciate these fight especially the first one.

Joe Louis's crouched over posture to the Side was used by Listons especially when Ali was wailing away at him. And Marciano had it all the time

[billeau2]

Joe Louis's crouched over posture to the Side was used by Listons especially when Ali was wailing away at him. And Marciano had it all the time

Ok, I get the point. Lotta pressure fighters used the crouch as well.

[cfang]

I like this topic. There are 3 heavys who changed the game I think. Dempsey is different to his predecessors with all the bobbing and weaving and combos. All out attack as opposed to the previous gloved heavys who fought like they had one foot in the bare knuckle era.

Next is Louis fights like a modern fighter really. He is a step up from the crude max baers of the world. Then there is Ali. The dancing and movement was incredible. It owed a bit to srr but was at least 50% all Ali.

modern heavys are variations on those themes really.

[them_apples]

Usually something has to happen in the heavyweight division to be recognized as game changing in boxing. This does not mean the heavyweights came up with the ideas. But when we see the heavyweights perform it puts the rest of the world on blast about developments.

I divide box into 3 epoches, you have pre Dempsey, where the focus was more on positioning, comprehensive skill sets, grappling among them, and footwork.

In many ways you see some sort of a glorification of all these aspects when you watch Tunney, The consumate representative of this style.

Dempsey change the focus to the punch. Through Dempsey we learned about the punches and the focus and emphasis on how to make them stronger.

You see the glorification of this technique in the next epoche, that of Joe Louis, who brought the consciousness of hitting technique to an ultimate point. Most people would agree, Ted williams and Joe Louis are Apollonian, physical archetypes for perfection of technical craft. Williams was perhaps the first noted technical hitter in baseball, and changed many perceptions of the game through his hitting, much as Louis did so in punching.


One can look at baseball and boxing and seat parallels here. The 1920s started the superstar era, you have Ruth and you had Dempsey, in the 1940s he saw the culmination of something started by Ted Williams and Joe Louis, baseball and boxing had both left any trace of the sandlot behind.

Anyway, the final period where we are today, probably started in the '70s. Again, all these things as a dialectic started earlier, but we saw them in the heavyweight division and in this case, Muhammad Ali.

Ali became the first fighter to truly take the idea of moral courage, natural ability, and entertaining value to create the epitome of the technically relaxed boxer puncher. Fighters like Ray Robinson had been doing it, you saw the perfection of it in Ali.

I think the queen bee said it best though in his post when he said it's a collaborative effort. It's a dialectic and it shows itself at a certain time historically.

that is a very good point, Dempsey glorified the punch.

How important that is, is hard to say.

[them_apples]

Joe louis had a lot of influence on Marciano, Liston, but the modern fighters have stronger postures and I wonder who the founder of that was.

Louis actually had one of the most educated stances in boxing. He is one of the only guys that can walk forward offering almost nothing to hit. When people think of defense they always want to see someone duck or slip punches. They should learn to count punches that are actually landing on a fighter.

Louis frequently found himself stalking fighters, even those bigger than him. The reason being, his stance. Blackburn was a genius - literally. The way Louis stands, given he keeps facing you from this angle (he pivots on his back foot to ensure this) offers you 0 openings to hit him, without needing to do anything at all. If that isn't good defense, I don't know what is. There is a reason Schmeling had to find a "special" opening to even catch Louis. He was considered very hard to hit. And even in this situation, I think it had to do a lot with Louis underestimating him.

Furthermore, he adopts this shuffling, feet close to ground footwork - but magically finds himself in and out of position where and when he needs to be. That's because he has FAST feet but he is hiding it because he is a brilliant fighter. This was all Blackburns work.

Even down to Louis weight distribution of strong thick legs and a lean upperbody would indicate agility. The one thing missing in fighters today is deception.