Busting The Modern Myth!

[gatorDelux]

The problem is that the youth are not being taught correctly.

It is very easy to set up a strength and conditioning program for an athlete. I used to coach HS football... building the raw athlete is not the real challenge.

Boxing has always been a skill sport. It's the sweet science. It takes years of teaching to learn how to block a punch, or to parry, or to throw a proper right hand.

But the modern trainers don't have the knowledge to properly teach these skills. So they focus on building bigger, faster, stronger athletes at the expense of training better boxers.

there is only a small handfull of that oldschool knowledge out there

hopefully those guys spread it around

if the competition is tough fighters r gonna have to get an edge and that edge might be real boxing technique


but like u werev saying

all these speed drills and training dont translate to boxers speed cause u need to mantain that for 12 rounds

and plyometrics dont ad power to ur punches cause power isnt the right wordif u want to get technical about it

its force and to get force u need the proper technocue not box jumps and plyopushups

the biggest thing i notice is u dont see any infighter swarmers that know how to get inside and work the body

u dont see guys that know how to bob and weave and make u miss

cause now people think defense meens hands up covering up
blocking is kindo of a last resort defnese almost IMO
an experienced guy would know how to break through a guys cover up defense

if there was a duran or a joe frazier or henry armstrong, all of these potshotting ametuers would get pined on the ropes and clobberd

[McGoorty]

way i summ it up

the technique wasnt fully developed till say teh 30's maybe late thirties even(but even before then there were some really solidly skillled technicians ie. tunny, leonard)

and since the 70's it declined a little

but teh last 15 years have been weak( with the execption of a few)

but with all the strong young competition comming in now... if they fight eachother it will make even stronger

steal shaprpens steal

and im hopeing for a strong era comming up

As for the statement about technique not fully realised up to the 30's. I can find links from the late 20's, where the experts are lamenting a "decline in skills and the lack of as many great fighters. I posted a link two day's ago where a Canadian journalist says, Mickey Walker is very tough and talented but just imagine what a fighter like Les Darcy (yes I know, him again, but I did tell you he was great) would do to Walker. and there were other comparisons with other MW's........ by the looks of things, Walker was great but not as great as a lot of earlier fighters.

[gatorDelux]

As for the statement about technique not fully realised up to the 30's. I can find links from the late 20's, where the experts are lamenting a "decline in skills and the lack of as many great fighters. I posted a link two day's ago where a Canadian journalist says, Mickey Walker is very tough and talented but just imagine what a fighter like Les Darcy (yes I know, him again, but I did tell you he was great) would do to Walker. and there were other comparisons with other MW's........ by the looks of things, Walker was great but not as great as a lot of earlier fighters.

i know

ther4e were some that were ahead of the curve

but the 40's were stronger IMO that was were it was at the peak as far as i know

[McGoorty]

i know

ther4e were some that were ahead of the curve

but the 40's were stronger IMO that was were it was at the peak as far as i know

It's hard to say either way. The way I see it, the sport by 1910 was at it's peak, there was some corruption then but by the 40's we know it was rife, and we know the mob controlled most big fights. I think the 40's may be as strong but by the mid 50's boxing begins it's downward slide. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The corruption must stifle the sport somewhat in the 40's, but yes the 40's were very strong below the HW level,.... You need to remember something,.... the guys from the first 3 decades were the ones who TAUGHT the 40's generation.......... it was their great and vast knowledge that Robinson, Louis, Zale, Pep and co...... had learnt their techniques........... and that then begs another question,.. WHO TAUGHT GANS, FITZSIMMONS, CORBETT, NELSON, ATTELL, KETCHEL, LANGFORD and all those other guys. obviously fighters who learnt their trade in the 1860' 70' and 80's............... THIS SPORT IS A CHILD of the ancient warriors of sword and sandal fame........ a game of LIFE and DEATH........................ Mankind has fought to the death for more than 30000 years after all........ so by 1800..... we knew lots and lots and lots and lots about slaughtering, wouldn't you say........ and it's also in our DNA.

[StarshipTrooper]

Funny how I posted these two articles over in NSB and got all of one comment (a snide one) between the two of them :hahahaha9:

Poet

[McGoorty]

Funny how I posted these two articles over in NSB and got all of one comment (a snide one) between the two of them :hahahaha9:

Poet

I think I have a few threads proving how the old-timers were better. http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=514198 http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...php?p=11263797 http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=512820 http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=514194 http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...=513312&page=2 http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=497729 PLUG

[StarshipTrooper]

Bumped for the NSB nitwits that are starting to slither into the History Section again (not that I think they'll read the article) :rolleyes9:

[LoadedWraps]

Newer is not better in boxing as it stands, and I am so exhausted from trying to convince people in NSB, but it's no use. I won't make a huge paragraph on why boxing had more value and talent 70 years ago, but I am sure I don't need to here.

I just wish newer fans would take the time and study what the history of the sport is all about, and/or more about the sport in general, instead of senselessly glorifying their favorite fighters without notion of context.

[Daddy T]

I have a problem with people having hard and certain opinions on how an older fighter like say fitzsimmons or jack johnson or something would do against modern guys. Its not so bad when you get into say the 30s/40s onwards cause we start getting some decent footage but anything much further back turns from observed opinion (ie your own opinion based on your knowledge and ability to judge what you see) into second hand opinion (ie your setting your opinion based on what you have heard other people say .. like say because Damon Runyon says jack johnson was the greatest defensive fighter ever its therefore a given that he beats mike tyson) Imo no discussion that starts with' who'd win larry Holmes or Jim Corbett' has any merit at all and is completely pointless.

btw my great grandaddy says John L Sullivan hit like a mule, therefore I'm certain he would shatter Wlad's glass and anybody who disagrees with this informed opinion is clearly wrong.

[Spartacus Sully]

btw my great grandaddy says John L Sullivan hit like a mule, therefore I'm certain he would shatter Wlad's glass and anybody who disagrees with this informed opinion is clearly wrong.

I dont know any one that thinks Sullivan hit like a mule, he definatly hit harder then that 50 years old and just look at him nail that speed bag: