Bivol & Beterbiev

[DeeMoney]

Baseball fans are on to something. Boxing is itself a skill, and the fighters from the past typically fought more times and more frequently. Which lends itself to the development of higher levels of skill and mastery.

Focusing just on athleticism can be misleading in both sports when comparing past and present.

Boxing is a sport, and by definition relies on athleticism. Thats not to write that athleticism solely wins, but it damn sure is important to winning. Your athletic makeup dictates how you execute those skills, otherwise Robert Garcia would be boxing right now, and not just explaining how to box. I will accept that there is logic behind the premise that boxing more frequently keeps skills sharp, but that assumes that current boxers aren't working on skills throughout the year as well.

Just because they aren't competing in a professional match doesn't mean they still aren't learning and working. You learn by studying, not taking the test, fighters can learn aside from during the actual prizefight. Moreover, its not as if those techniques that fighters learned 100 years ago were just thrown away. They were passed on and taught to others.

[Willie Pep 229]

Boxing is a sport, and by definition relies on athleticism. Thats not to write that athleticism solely wins, but it damn sure is important to winning. Your athletic makeup dictates how you execute those skills, otherwise Robert Garcia would be boxing right now, and not just explaining how to box. I will accept that there is logic behind the premise that boxing more frequently keeps skills sharp, but that assumes that current boxers aren't working on skills throughout the year as well.

Just because they aren't competing in a professional match doesn't mean they still aren't learning and working. You learn by studying, not taking the test, fighters can learn aside from during the actual prizefight. Moreover, its not as if those techniques that fighters learned 100 years ago were just thrown away. They were passed on and taught to others.

I agree, I disagree.

I agree, today's fighters are just as skilled and you can learn the martial art of boxing in the gym.

Plus today, the dedicated ones are better athletes than in the past.

I disagree, prize fighting is not a sport. Just because one uses a martial art (boxing) to win a fist fight does not make it a sport.

There is no place in a prize fight for tallying points. It is a s-tupid concept.

This is unarmed combat; mastering boxing skills doesn't deserved to be rewarded, if you can't use those skills to win the "fight."

Unfortunately, today we have judges, limited rounds, and we give points for pretty looking skills. Just like we would if it was a boxing match. (read sarcasm).

But this isn't boxing, it's a prize fight.

If the old timers could fight themselves into shape, that's great. It works.

If the new guys can master the art via a trainer, and push their athleticism to the max, that's great. It works.

I'll take it either way, so long as they come to fight. But fight, I am not paying to watch them display their skills. I want a fight, I don't want to "go to the scorecards."

Not a sport. That's a euphemism to avoid the guilt of admiting you like the violence.

[ShoulderRoll]

Boxing is a sport, and by definition relies on athleticism. Thats not to write that athleticism solely wins, but it damn sure is important to winning. Your athletic makeup dictates how you execute those skills, otherwise Robert Garcia would be boxing right now, and not just explaining how to box. I will accept that there is logic behind the premise that boxing more frequently keeps skills sharp, but that assumes that current boxers aren't working on skills throughout the year as well.

Just because they aren't competing in a professional match doesn't mean they still aren't learning and working. You learn by studying, not taking the test, fighters can learn aside from during the actual prizefight. Moreover, it’s not as if those techniques that fighters learned 100 years ago were just thrown away. They were passed on and taught to others.

But techniques that fighters learned were indeed thrown away, and the subtle details of how to apply some of them are in danger of being lost.

• How many modern fighters use the shoulder roll defense? And of the small percentage that do how many use it properly? The ones who were successful with it like Floyd Mayweather and James Toney had ties to the old school through their trainers.
• How many use the cross arm defense? How many can combine and switch seamlessly between it and the shoulder roll as Tim Witherspoon shows? (Tim had an old school Philadelphia trainer.)
• How many know the subtle infighting tricks that Roberto Duran can be seen teaching on video?
• Where are all the top level peekaboo fighters today? There won’t be any unless the remaining Cus D’Amato protégés running his old gym manage to resurrect it as they are trying to do.
• Why was that Golovkin video that went semi-viral titled “the lost art of shifting?”

Athleticism, modern weight training, and PEDs can’t replace knowledge and mastery of the craft.

[DeeMoney]

But techniques that fighters learned were indeed thrown away, and the subtle details of how to apply some of them are in danger of being lost.

• How many modern fighters use the shoulder roll defense? And of the small percentage that do how many use it properly? The ones who were successful with it like Floyd Mayweather and James Toney had ties to the old school through their trainers.
• How many use the cross arm defense? How many can combine and switch seamlessly between it and the shoulder roll as Tim Witherspoon shows? (Tim had an old school Philadelphia trainer.)
• How many know the subtle infighting tricks that Roberto Duran can be seen teaching on video?
• Where are all the top level peekaboo fighters today? There won’t be any unless the remaining Cus D’Amato protégés running his old gym manage to resurrect it as they are trying to do.
• Why was that Golovkin video that went semi-viral titled “the lost art of shifting?”

Athleticism, modern weight training, and PEDs can’t replace knowledge and mastery of the craft.

I wonder how many techniques of the past, and which specifically, were actually thrown away? And were they discarded because of some sort of laziness or over reliance on athleticism? Or were they discarded because fighters and trainers believe there was a better method, or at least more of a method more suited to the times?

So much of what we see on film from the pre 1920s era seems to be a continuation of techniques more suited to bareknuckles or the grappling styles that were allowed back then. However, as we transitioned into a modern style those techniques were replaced by those more suited to the new sport of boxing. Institutional knowledge is always passed down, advancements are always made by standing on the backs of giants (who in turn did the same for the generation before). If something is no longer used it is because we believe to have something better. You just listed a slew of modern fighters who used a variety of skills and techniques that were passed down to them. And if they are the most effective means to achieving victory then the next generation will use them too.

Though this does elude to a concern I always have had, that fighters and trainers will find devolve into one generic "best practices" catch all technique. I have always been concerned that there is a coming Nash Equilibrium if you will in regards to technique, where all fighters are told that one given method is the best and so they all fight the same way. But as of now, thats unfounded. Take the two fighters whose names are on this post, they use two very different tactics and techniques, as do many others.

[DeeMoney]

I agree, I disagree.

I agree, today's fighters are just as skilled and you can learn the martial art of boxing in the gym.

Plus today, the dedicated ones are better athletes than in the past.

I disagree, prize fighting is not a sport. Just because one uses a martial art (boxing) to win a fist fight does not make it a sport.

There is no place in a prize fight for tallying points. It is a s-tupid concept.

This is unarmed combat; mastering boxing skills doesn't deserved to be rewarded, if you can't use those skills to win the "fight."

Unfortunately, today we have judges, limited rounds, and we give points for pretty looking skills. Just like we would if it was a boxing match. (read sarcasm).

But this isn't boxing, it's a prize fight.

If the old timers could fight themselves into shape, that's great. It works.

If the new guys can master the art via a trainer, and push their athleticism to the max, that's great. It works.

I'll take it either way, so long as they come to fight. But fight, I am not paying to watch them display their skills. I want a fight, I don't want to "go to the scorecards."

Not a sport. That's a euphemism to avoid the guilt of admiting you like the violence.

I only use sport in the definition that it requires a certain amount of physical exertion to be successful. An amount that being more athletically gifted gives you a relative advantage in being successful. Strength, speed, endurance are all athletic measurables, being stronger, faster and having more endurance is an advantage in being successful in boxing.

I know you aren't disagreeing with me, just establishing a different view on the phrase "sport". So I defined my use to avoid any difference of semantics.

[billeau2]

Boxing is probably the only sport where the fans claim that everybody from the history is better than everybody from modern era.,

Because every sport evolves in a slightly diferent fashion. Money determines a lot... Football players are bigger, better because of money spent on R&D. When you watch a baseball game? Players are not doing more things than players did, but a pitcher throws much harder, faster, that is a fact.

Reasoning bacwards for boxing: Guys in the ring fight less rounds, have bigger gloves, do much much less things, and then we see that per capita much less money goes to boxing, or to put it more accurately, the money there in the sport is divided into many more piles, and competes with money for other combatives...

To put things in perspective: Brazil historically has perhaps the most robust combatives in the world... All forms of wrestling have been there, matches have been done of all sorts, from carnival shows to professional bouts, Ju Jitsu has been there professionally for most of the same historical period because of the Portugese and japanese relationship... And Boxing has been there. How many great Brazilian fighters do we see historically? Joffre? maybe a few others? compared to the other Spanishj nations like mexico and Cuba? Why? probably because the interest, the money was divided amongst so many different alternatives. Boxing never did get the foothold there that it has in other South American, Central American and island nations for a reason similar to combnatives today.

Under these conditions we might expect to see a decline in boxing...

[billeau2]

Boxing is a sport, and by definition relies on athleticism. Thats not to write that athleticism solely wins, but it damn sure is important to winning. Your athletic makeup dictates how you execute those skills, otherwise Robert Garcia would be boxing right now, and not just explaining how to box. I will accept that there is logic behind the premise that boxing more frequently keeps skills sharp, but that assumes that current boxers aren't working on skills throughout the year as well.

Just because they aren't competing in a professional match doesn't mean they still aren't learning and working. You learn by studying, not taking the test, fighters can learn aside from during the actual prizefight. Moreover, its not as if those techniques that fighters learned 100 years ago were just thrown away. They were passed on and taught to others.

You would be suprised... Fighters and trainers often lack technical chops. Not all, but there is an attitude that I see when I worked with boxers 9as a martial artist) showing them fairly basic concepts that really made them think they were learning very technical aspects of the sport. Fighters were taught things like fighting line, how to create a false fighting line, angles, and to start it was expected they learn all the techniques. There were not fighters who were helpless after one basic approach. A fighter like Joyce for example, whom could literally not make any adjustments in the ring.

The expertize and patina of excellence imo is off the metal here.

[billeau2]

But techniques that fighters learned were indeed thrown away, and the subtle details of how to apply some of them are in danger of being lost.

• How many modern fighters use the shoulder roll defense? And of the small percentage that do how many use it properly? The ones who were successful with it like Floyd Mayweather and James Toney had ties to the old school through their trainers.
• How many use the cross arm defense? How many can combine and switch seamlessly between it and the shoulder roll as Tim Witherspoon shows? (Tim had an old school Philadelphia trainer.)
• How many know the subtle infighting tricks that Roberto Duran can be seen teaching on video?
• Where are all the top level peekaboo fighters today? There won’t be any unless the remaining Cus D’Amato protégés running his old gym manage to resurrect it as they are trying to do.
• Why was that Golovkin video that went semi-viral titled “the lost art of shifting?”

Athleticism, modern weight training, and PEDs can’t replace knowledge and mastery of the craft.

Great post Shoulder!

Can i also interject some basic concepts that are so lacking? First of all the amateur style with its basic set up is predominant. But fighting theory involves an understanding of fighting line, subtle weight shifts, footwork. Footwork that needs a fighter to be on their toes often enough... how many heavyweights can do that for a round? much less 15 rounds? Not to mention head movement... something Usyk has used along with other technical skills to dominate bigger men.

[billeau2]

I wonder how many techniques of the past, and which specifically, were actually thrown away? And were they discarded because of some sort of laziness or over reliance on athleticism? Or were they discarded because fighters and trainers believe there was a better method, or at least more of a method more suited to the times?

So much of what we see on film from the pre 1920s era seems to be a continuation of techniques more suited to bareknuckles or the grappling styles that were allowed back then. However, as we transitioned into a modern style those techniques were replaced by those more suited to the new sport of boxing. Institutional knowledge is always passed down, advancements are always made by standing on the backs of giants (who in turn did the same for the generation before). If something is no longer used it is because we believe to have something better. You just listed a slew of modern fighters who used a variety of skills and techniques that were passed down to them. And if they are the most effective means to achieving victory then the next generation will use them too.

Though this does elude to a concern I always have had, that fighters and trainers will find devolve into one generic "best practices" catch all technique. I have always been concerned that there is a coming Nash Equilibrium if you will in regards to technique, where all fighters are told that one given method is the best and so they all fight the same way. But as of now, thats unfounded. Take the two fighters whose names are on this post, they use two very different tactics and techniques, as do many others.

Actually as far back as the mid1800's trainers were talking about boxing degrading into scoring points, amateur style training, and other issues... But Dempsey started the revolution focusing on punches... This was the difference in fighting classical versus pre classical.

[Marchegiano]

Boxing is probably the only sport where the fans claim that everybody from the history is better than everybody from modern era.,

kinda true, if you talk about globalization everyone agrees but they still think the old dudes were better. I dunno man, sometimes I question if even the greatest ATGs were just in small pools of talent. I mean if Wilder only had the American talent pool to worry about he'd look great too and who knows who would have finally beat him. Some of these dudes only fought white dudes. A full career of nothing but American and sometimes British white dudes? Sounds easy to me.

I might could be swayed to take Beterbeiv over Tunney. Maybe, I dunno. Just saying I see why y'all get frustrated with us really.


Edit- I just noticed how racial that sounds. I didn't mean America or British white dudes are easy because they're white or where they came from. I meant it's a far smaller talent pool than the modern global talent pool.