The Develpment of Boxing 1880's onward

[McGoorty]

Hello Blokes and Guys sorry I have been away so long

I have been thinking on some of the posts I have read here about the subject of old timers vs those of the heady days of the mid 30's to mid 60's where we can see many great fighters with every skill and attribute for great success in the sport. I will leave most of this up for members to give their opinions and would especially like opinions from those who have fought professionally or have been a professional trainer or at least a good one.

.........................

I do think myself that by no later than 1910 there were quite a few with comparable skills and attributes and that the game had evolved massively from 1892 to say 1908. I have seen some film of fighters in the 1910 -1923 era and I believe they get a lot of bad press these days compared to those of the 40's. Old time experts INSIST that many of the earlier fighters were better than the guys of the 40's and 50's and its unreasonable to dismiss these guys as just silly old codgers, many of were men whose names carried a hell of a lot of weight.

Your thoughts on this please.

[billeau2]

Hello Blokes and Guys sorry I have been away so long

I have been thinking on some of the posts I have read here about the subject of old timers vs those of the heady days of the mid 30's to mid 60's where we can see many great fighters with every skill and attribute for great success in the sport. I will leave most of this up for members to give their opinions and would especially like opinions from those who have fought professionally or have been a professional trainer or at least a good one.

.........................

I do think myself that by no later than 1910 there were quite a few with comparable skills and attributes and that the game had evolved massively from 1892 to say 1908. I have seen some film of fighters in the 1910 -1923 era and I believe they get a lot of bad press these days compared to those of the 40's. Old time experts INSIST that many of the earlier fighters were better than the guys of the 40's and 50's and its unreasonable to dismiss these guys as just silly old codgers, many of were men whose names carried a hell of a lot of weight.

Your thoughts on this please.

Without listing all the arguments heard round and round here are a few things I consider:

Prior to around the 1970s or so....the social construct of someone who fought changed. In the very old days fighters were thought to be dependent on courage and training identical to actual combat. The pre 1940's guys were excellent grapplers, a lot of the fight was in the defense...for example the lead hand was a straight shot, no turn on the arm. It was effective when used with the body and if not defended against it was a KO punch, also it made it hard when the arm was held against the body to grapple the guy. So when we look at these guys its hard to see where the skill is, but it was definitely present! These guys were bad asses and bar room brawlers who became technically skilled at defense, grappling, angles and and other such things

In the Golden age suddenly you had these great trainers and gyms. Guys became respectable....Prizefighters. These guys were incredibly knowledgable and even though they were athletic they were first and foremost fighters and not athletes. This was the most impressive era because you had the best trianing, all ranges of combat (the fighting distance extended outwards more) guys apprenticed and truly learned the science of the game. You now had different preferences of fighting, a lot of specialized movement, etc. These things has been in the old timers but were brought out more at this time.

In the modern era fighters became athletes....things changed for the worse. Gloves got bigger and suddenly protecting inside was not so important....why fight inside at all when one could try for a KO? the hands came up higher and the rounds got less so that the object more or less has become to KO a person in fewer rounds, guys like Cotto who can throw combos to the body and fight in the clinch have become more rare by the day. As athletes the fighter is less trained to fight with technique and more trained to be able to use natural qualities to overwhelm the opponent with speed, strength and other natural talents. The modern boxing God is the Roy Jones, Ali pantheon.... Guys who were so naturally gifted that they could never have been taught a thing and could have been succesful fighters. Even great fighters like James Toney and Mayweather are hardly appreciated for how they set up opponents, counter and know all skills needed in the ring...

So for example, we have a guy like David Haye who is an excellent athlete, can punch hard for 12 rounds, only wants to fight occasionally and looks like a body builder on roids. Compare him to a fighter in the 50s like Marciano who was roughly the same size, not nearly as athletic but had a lot more skills, had tremendous heart and could fight 3 minutes of every round.

Thats how I see it. In the end boxing is putting mufflers on the hands and punching each other....we socially construct our expectations and create our boxers out of these social constructions. If greatness could be determined by who wins a fight that would be wonderful but judges are no help. When for example, Sweet Pea Whitaker...one of the best fighters ever, a man of monumental athletic gift and skill outclassed a fighter who was not nearly as skilled.... Chavez, the judges saw fit to not give him this victory and the fact that Jones has become a bum because he now loses to opponents he could have beat with no hands when at his best....tell us nothing of greatness. Only our own expectations and understanding of the skills involved and how they differ between an athlete and a warrior can tell is about greatness.

Accordingly the older fighters were better imo. Greater size and athletic ability in itself does not trump over fighting skill and experience.

[McGoorty]

Without listing all the arguments heard round and round here are a few things I consider:

Prior to around the 1970s or so....the social construct of someone who fought changed. In the very old days fighters were thought to be dependent on courage and training identical to actual combat. The pre 1940's guys were excellent grapplers, a lot of the fight was in the defense...for example the lead hand was a straight shot, no turn on the arm. It was effective when used with the body and if not defended against it was a KO punch, also it made it hard when the arm was held against the body to grapple the guy. So when we look at these guys its hard to see where the skill is, but it was definitely present! These guys were bad asses and bar room brawlers who became technically skilled at defense, grappling, angles and and other such things

In the Golden age suddenly you had these great trainers and gyms. Guys became respectable....Prizefighters. These guys were incredibly knowledgable and even though they were athletic they were first and foremost fighters and not athletes. This was the most impressive era because you had the best trianing, all ranges of combat (the fighting distance extended outwards more) guys apprenticed and truly learned the science of the game. You now had different preferences of fighting, a lot of specialized movement, etc. These things has been in the old timers but were brought out more at this time.

In the modern era fighters became athletes....things changed for the worse. Gloves got bigger and suddenly protecting inside was not so important....why fight inside at all when one could try for a KO? the hands came up higher and the rounds got less so that the object more or less has become to KO a person in fewer rounds, guys like Cotto who can throw combos to the body and fight in the clinch have become more rare by the day. As athletes the fighter is less trained to fight with technique and more trained to be able to use natural qualities to overwhelm the opponent with speed, strength and other natural talents. The modern boxing God is the Roy Jones, Ali pantheon.... Guys who were so naturally gifted that they could never have been taught a thing and could have been succesful fighters. Even great fighters like James Toney and Mayweather are hardly appreciated for how they set up opponents, counter and know all skills needed in the ring...

So for example, we have a guy like David Haye who is an excellent athlete, can punch hard for 12 rounds, only wants to fight occasionally and looks like a body builder on roids. Compare him to a fighter in the 50s like Marciano who was roughly the same size, not nearly as athletic but had a lot more skills, had tremendous heart and could fight 3 minutes of every round.

Thats how I see it. In the end boxing is putting mufflers on the hands and punching each other....we socially construct our expectations and create our boxers out of these social constructions. If greatness could be determined by who wins a fight that would be wonderful but judges are no help. When for example, Sweet Pea Whitaker...one of the best fighters ever, a man of monumental athletic gift and skill outclassed a fighter who was not nearly as skilled.... Chavez, the judges saw fit to not give him this victory and the fact that Jones has become a bum because he now loses to opponents he could have beat with no hands when at his best....tell us nothing of greatness. Only our own expectations and understanding of the skills involved and how they differ between an athlete and a warrior can tell is about greatness.

Accordingly the older fighters were better imo. Greater size and athletic ability in itself does not trump over fighting skill and experience.

I really appreciate your effort in writing that, we needed a broad overview now we can get into more detail because there have always been different schools of style befor eCorbett became famous. We do have some truly amazing early books an technique and what was thought the best ways to win. lets take the early 20th century when many many incredible specimens were seen inside the ring. Joe Jeanette looks more like Ali than many Ali impersonators which leads me to believe that some fighters were indeed slick boxers with a hit and run style. --------------------------------------------- -------------------------- You mentioned social constructs, that fits perfectly here. A hit and run guy (not Jeanette, he looks a bit Ali like but not really a runner )... and there were some in those days, BUT the social construct here was the crowds, if you did not entertain they throw chairs at you and your career is in fire straights so the slick fighters had to compromise. to me the best compromise is maybe my mate Les Darcy who had every skill and could fight inside as well as a Frank Klaus and be great on outside. Sammy Mandell is a slick guy with awesome skills but he is a 20's guy so he MUST be seen to get stuck in. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- To name some fighters with varying styles and to get your opinion on them (if you can watch them on film ) Mandell.... Darcy.... Tunney... Wilde....Packy McFarland,.... Dempsey..... thats a good start there and they are all on film, in Darcy's case I made a big tribute with footage from 5 different opponents so thats easy to find just ask..... any other examples like say Fitzsimmons or whoever pre 30's guy you wanna analyze be my guest. I also have links to textbooks from Klaus, O'Brien etc

[McGoorty]

The oldest style schools I have read of seem to have been vastly influential in the development. It seems to me that Jack Broughton's teachings made a massive impact and many fighters emulated his style to great success. ------------------------------------ -------- The next school of thought and style seems to be that of Daniel Mendoza who wrote a treatise and text on what he thought was best for a fighter. This mans influence still resonates today, he advocated the idea that if you can hurt and avoid hurt, all the better and he made boxing a lot less like fencing (which was where Figg and Broughton based boxing on, it isnt a crazy idea, sword is nothing more than the extension of the hands, but Mendoza did make boxing more recognisable to us. Mendoza was a great grappler and still taught that but he was all about detonating a blow on opponents chin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The third school I know about is the Mace/Foley School. Jem Mace is recognised as a sort of giant leap forward in boxing and started to preach a newer more modern style. Jem Mace was a great globetrotter of boxing, proabaly the first man to ever fight in Europe, America and Australia. It was here in my land downunder where Mace met a young tearaway and a fast learner, his name was Larry Foley (the grandaddy of Australian Boxing).. and for the first time Aussie fighters started to make massive reputations in America. Incidentally Larry Foley has perhaps THE single most impressive record of any bareknuckle fighter, this man was simply near a superhuman as boxing ever produced, he fought a career that spans near 50 years at very least he spans 5 decades of the sport. As far as I know Foley never lost a fight, ----------------- --------------- BUT, its not as a fighter we remember Larry Foley, it is his contributions as a trainer that we owe most gratitude to as his style was passed on to many great fighters, and some out and out ATG's, The biggest name Is Bob Fitzsimmons who Foley met in Australia and trained Bob to the eve of greatness. Many fans have simply no idea that FITZ began his career in Australia but he did... Bob was an English EX PAT nothing more, he spent his early life in NZ and Australia. -------------------------------------- --------------------- Foley also taught the great Peter Jackson and many others like legendary Paddy Slavin. Slavin, Jackson and Fitz all went to America and had success although Slavin's was less than Bob's obviously. From Bob and Jackson's great fame and popularity young Americans saw many American fighter emulate that. Much of Fitz's text book on the art has the large presence of Foley there, by reading Bob's book you have a direct link to the great Jem mace.. I think every real fan must read that book.. I have the link here somewhere. For me to delve further into the Foley school I will have to re read some stuff, so far everything in this post is pure memory