Busting The Modern Myth!

[StarshipTrooper]

Bat i totally agree yet try telling that to today's younger fans, even if they read Cox articles they would trash it as `garbage`

True, but MOST of the usual suspects on that score are blocked from posting in any of my threads :grin9:

Poet

[BattlingNelson]

Bat i totally agree yet try telling that to today's younger fans, even if they read Cox articles they would trash it as `garbage`

That's possible I guess. Still I feel that some acknowledge that there's more to boxing than Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pac. Our sport is rich in history both in terms of legends, drama, exitement and myths. History is the main thing that elevates boxing high above MMA and it's always wise to listen to old geezers like Cox.

[Scott9945]

The good thing about Cox' work is that it's backed up with facts. Facts that can puncture myths. Myths like 'modern training gives better conditioned fighters'. A myth thouroughly put to death by the above classic article by Cox.

I do have to dispute that filter cigarettes aren't at least a little better than non filter ones.

[BattlingNelson]

I do have to dispute that filter cigarettes aren't at least a little better than non filter ones.

Haha oh yeah I agree with that.

You know they used whisky between rounds in the early days and today they use water.

Is water better than whisky?

[Tiozzo]

Old is overrated.

New is overrated.

I think you're both right. Some people overrate the old for ''bad reasons'', same for the new.

In the same breath, we can say that old and new are sometimes underrated.

[them_apples]

Busting The Modern Myth! Part 1

By: Monte D. Cox


What makes people believe everything new is better?

Go to a store, everything’s “new and improved”, “now with added,” and blah, blah, blah… Some products have improved taste and texture. Mostly, it’s the same ol’, same ol’.

Filtered cigarettes were supposed to reduce health risks. More smoke and mirrors, but they’ve been the biggest sellers since they were introduced.

Boxing’s just as fallible. Jake Wegner, a boxing historian and researcher, wrote in the IBRO Journal # 82 in June 2004 about the difference between a boxing fan and a boxing historian: ‘A boxing fan is content with just watching fights; a boxing historian needs much more. He needs to get access to the fighters and get inside accounts. Historians ask questions.

‘A fan will read that Willie Pep once won the third round of his fight with Jackie Graves without throwing a punch and believe the myth. A historian will read through the reels of newspaper microfilm from the city where the fight took place, interview spectators when possible and compare newspaper accounts.

‘This is important because history becomes heresy if the facts are not reported and spoken of in an accurate manner.

‘Would it make a difference if you knew that the newspapers of the time never reported a story about Pep winning a round in such a manner and that the fable did not emerge until decades later? Or would it matter that the actual newspaper accounts state that the third round was the most rabid of the night, saying, “A clicker couldn’t count the blows.” Would you still believe the tale? You would if you were a person eager to spread legend and predisposed to accepting stories because they agree with your particular ideas. You wouldn’t if you are a historian. You would want to know the truth and once presented with the facts would accept them as such.

The myth most often foisted today is: Fighters are “bigger, faster, stronger and better” than ever. Do they have superior fundamentals? Do they throw more punches? Are they “new and improved” and better than the legends?

The new breed spouts off about the sport’s “evolution” But the old-time greats were just as skilled in the lower weight classes as the moderns.

A swarmer then is a swarmer today, and they were much better at in-fighting. The slick boxers of that era had an even bigger bag of tricks than the TV darlings. They were better at feinting, trapping, and glove blocking.

What makes a complete fighter? Speed, power, precision punching, combinations, footwork, toughness, durability, endurance, and boxing skill. In the last 60 years of “evolution,” how many fighters have been better overall than “Sugar” Ray Robinson?

There are many myths perpetuated on boxing boards about the great fighters of the past.

“No fighters before 1980 were any good.”

“No fighters before 1970 were any good.”

“No fighters before 1960 were any good.”

“No fighters before WW2 were any good.”

“No fighters before 1930 were any good.”

“They didn’t throw sustained combination punches before 1920.”

“All fighters from the early 20th century were crude, with no semblance of skill.”

“The old-time fights were very slow-paced.”

“Because of superior nutrition and training, today’s fighters are better than those of the past.”

Why not add: The world is flat – all are myths!

Boxing training hasn’t changed much in over 100 years. Jogging, jumping rope, medicine balls, bag work, sparring, and even rowing machines have been around since the late 19th century. While there have been advances in nutrition and supplements, this hasn’t helped today's crop fight as many rounds or as often as those of the past.

One often sees fighters – especially heavyweights now -- tire before the 12th round.

Training hasn’t improved. If anything there are less qualified trainers than ever before. Joe Frazier commented in KO Magazine, March 1999, ‘These guys aren’t trained by real champions, by great ex-fighters.”

The best trainers in history were fighters who knew all the ins-and-outs of the game. Rocky Marciano's trainer, Charley Goldman, claimed to have had over 300 pro fights. Jack Blackburn, Joe Louis’ trainer, was one of the great fighters of the turn of the century and had over 160 pro fights. He fought the likes of Joe Gans, Sam Langford, and Harry Greb.

Ray Arcel, who learned from some of the greats, like Benny Leonard and Whitey Bimstein, noted shortly before his death, ‘Boxing is not really boxing today. It’s theater. Some kids might look good. But they don’t learn their trade. If you take a piece of gold out of the ground, you know its gold. But you have to clean it. You have to polish it. But there aren’t too many guys capable (today) of polishing a fighter.”

The only significant change in the game is fighters box fewer rounds. Styles have remained consistent

By the early 20th century, there were four basic styles: the out-boxers, like Jim Driscoll, Abe Attell, Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, and Benny Leonard; the well-balanced boxer-punchers, like Joe Gans and Sam Langford; swarmers, like Battling Nelson, and crude sluggers like Stanley Ketchel.

Early 20th century boxers were much better infighters than the current breed. This is due, in part, to Muhammad Ali, who rarely went to the body, and amateur rules that don’t give sufficient weight to body blows.

I agree with some of it, but you can see a definite improvement when you compare a large time gap. Like the 20's to the 70's and on.

I think some people (i used to) used it too drastically and make 10 years seem like 100.

Looking at the olympics, if there is any improvement it is very, very small improvements over time. So compare bolt to someone from the 40's...then yes you will have a decent level of improvement.

Compare Jack Johnson to Muhammed Ali, and then you can see the same thing in boxing.

[Spartacus Sully]

I do have to dispute that filter cigarettes aren't at least a little better than non filter ones.

depends, id say hand rolled non filtered are much better then store bought filtered ones.

[Scott9945]

depends, id say hand rolled non filtered are much better then store bought filtered ones.

Probably. I was referring to the old school non filters like Lucky Strikes, Camels, etc. The tobacco companies put harmful chemicals on the paper to make it burn more evenly.

[Spartacus Sully]

Probably. I was referring to the old school non filters like Lucky Strikes, Camels, etc. The tobacco companies put harmful chemicals on the paper to make it burn more evenly.

but was it really a myth that those were healthier then filtered ones?

i can see there being a myth that might be true that hand rolled non filtered are better but i cant see any one claiming that non filtered lucky strikes are better then filtered what evers.

[Greatest1942]

That's possible I guess. Still I feel that some acknowledge that there's more to boxing than Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pac. Our sport is rich in history both in terms of legends, drama, exitement and myths. History is the main thing that elevates boxing high above MMA and it's always wise to listen to old geezers like Cox.

Your absolutely right Bat. I will support that Cox is an excellent historian.

I will also add that commodities have improved while human toughness hasn't. The type of life the oldtimers spent we can't even imagine. Yes today's lifters lift far more weight, sprinters run way faster these things have improved. But unless you face real hardships, hunger in life you are not going to have that inherent toughness thats so required in a fist fight.

I doubt if todays bigger faster army men will liketo stand in greek Phalynx or as a Roman legionarry.

Boxing is more than speed power etc. Its the intangibles that count also. Also the number of fighters in 1940's or earlier were a lot more than today. Its harder to be the top one amongst a 100 than of a 30.