AMAZING! James Corbett and Gene Tunney demonstrating tactics.

[Scott9945]

Not sure evolution works that way. Not over three generations either.

People often get mixed up on the term "evolution". The reason is the long running debate about the development of humans from other species. But the actual word evolution doesn't necessarily pertain to that. It can mean a much shorter period of time. An example would be the evolution of space travel, computers, GPS, etc.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

[QUOTE]

Unfortunately the reason why there is a dilemna is not a simple understanding like the one you present. Your post is excellent but....some issues have a certain complexity to them and boxing is one of those situations. The reason for this that I can see is that boxing is a hybrid, it is part sport and part combat. Sports do evolve for a number of reasons: Technology, i.e. a baseball glove today compared to a glove in the 1920's, socal factors, football players today are not college kids playing a club sport, they are athletes where big financial interests are represented....Put another way, going to a ball game today cost a lot more because there is a lot more financial impetus in sports, and this is reflected by (and this is important) The amount of time, money, education put into sports development....Heck when I was a kid (I am 50) most major league players came from California because they could play ball all year round. Now a days? ball players are scouted, developed and took in from all over the world...OF COURSE BASEBALL (and other sports) will get better!!

I'm 10 years younger than you, and agree with most of what you said. I tell my kids all the time that boxing isn't fighting, it's a sport.

Boxing is not wholly a sport. A lot of people feel that other sports have taken the brunt of talent away from boxing. Also figting which is part of boxing has been developed over the life of our species. In fact, body mechanics, combat efficiency, etc are not well represented in most modern sport endevours. lets use baseball for an example: The pure refexes of a Rod Carew, or Ted Williams, have been replaced by the speed, muscle memory and fitness training of hitters like Bobby Bonds. While sports have gotten better, body mechanics have taken a back seat to fitness. In fighting body mechanics are very important and are as much a part of progress as physical conditioning.

I think you are exaggerating a bit here with all due respect. There are great fighters today that exhibit the very mechanics and techniques you are talking about. Young fighters too, guys like Mikey Garcia which has a command of distance the likes you can compare to anyone in the history of boxing and that's not an exaggeration. Guys like Rigondeux who is a master boxer, his footwork and defense IMO are the products of a modern era of boxing knowledge and training. I have seen him live on a few occasions and I can say he's the best defensive boxer I have ever seen personally. I agree that athleticism has come to the forefront, but I also think you sell short the fighters of today because you see so many fighters that are missing those qualities you talk about.

Boxing has become limited. It has become an emphasis on fighting from a high guard, limited footwork, with an attempt to KO the opponent. WE no longer even usually see body punching, strategy involving traps and feints, etc. Some fighters do still use these skills and these fighters usually dominate. Ward, Hopkins, Mayweather (to a degree), Toney. A fat James Toney held the entire Heavyweight division captive by simply using skills that are considered old school...for example.

Marquez, Mikey Garcia, Rigondeux, Santa Cruz are but a few that do those things. Again, I agree with you for the most part because boxing has become a more fringe sport compared to where it once was but you are not giving the modern fighters their due.

The trainers you see and speak to are in the present moment. Of course they see progress as well they should, but they cannot view progress objectively. Boxing is becoming more of a sport but this has meant that the emphasis on footwork, feints, traps, body punching, etc are all being neclected. The proof of this is in not so much in what we see but what we do not see....again think of the lack of all the skills that are no longer part of a fighter's skill set.

Again, I just have to disagree with this. I think you are living too much in the past and one thing I have noticed is that you are emotionally attached to the era you grew up watching. I catch myself doing the same thing. I call it the "Bert Sugar" effect, where modern fighters no matter how great, will never live up to the legends of old. Even if they break records, fight until they are 45 years old, show amazing skills and talent, it won't matter. It's like when you catch a fish, at first it's 9lbs, after 20 years of telling the story, the fish is now 40lbs and it capsized the boat just to reel it in...hahaha

Other things also become apparent. The lack of activity is a problem with modern fighters. 12 rounds and a lot if these guys have stamina issues. Madianna, a decent pressure fighter, has to do all kinds of things to go twelve rounds? Most pressure fighters had to be able to go for 15 rounds, this is just an example.

This I agree with, fighters don't fight as much as they did in the past but this has a lot to do with money. More money is now in boxing, and therefore more money it takes to put on shows, sell PPV's, tickets, etc...

At the end of the day boxing has characteristics of both: a sport and part of our genetic make up. Ironickly if you watch primates fight, with big overhand strikes, and look at how our bodies develop, with our forehead protruding, as compared to our exposed chin, our exposed groin, our plexus....we have obviously been designed, to resist an attack from the top... This tells us that how we were designed to fight and the many strategies and styles that have developed, often become more socially relevant than combat relevant. In the case of boxing when you are fighting a man for 25 rounds, with smaller gloves, you have to know more things to do and how to defend against these things because there are rules but you are still essentially fighting. In 12 rounds, with the smaller rounds, the bigger gloves, the limited amount of skills employed, yes boxing will change to accomidate these rules, becoming more a sport, losing many aspects that were initially employed, etc. But this does not make better fighters!

I have seen gloves from the 60's and gloves from today and I can't say the gloves of then were smaller. I know that a pair of 8oz Reyes are about as brutal a glove you will find to fight in.

I think you are confusing toughness with skill. There's no doubt of the toughness of the old time fighters, in that you will not get one argument from me. They were much tougher then, because America was a much different place than it is today. At the same time, Eastern Europe and Latin America now is what America was then, and why you see those types of fighters come from those parts of the world now.

Again, Football is a sport and today with the rules, with the talent influx and with the brain power (coaching and quarterbacking primarily) we can definitely say that a superbowl champ from last year would destroy the 1968 Green Bay Packers! (unless you are terry bradshaw inside joke!). The sport has changed to accomidate the rules, expectations etc. I love Kenny Stabler. he was slick as oil and mean as a hungry alley cat, but I harber no illusions....Stabler never had the IQ, the training, the coaching, or the evolution of the sport that Peyton maning has been exposed to.

I agree, but football isn't a fair comparison. I think not only would the Sb champ of today beat the SB champ of the 60's, I think any team of today would beat them. Offensive linemen were 240lbs in the 60's, there are linebackers who weight that now, and run 4.5 40 yard dashes and bench press 600lbs.

BUt Boxing is not wholly a sport and the talent, sophisitication of the enterprise, etc have all negatively been affected in boxing....Thats just the truth and who says so? Most guys who have lived through a few epoches of boxing say so.

I do agree with you to a certain extent. Again, I agree, boxing can't be compared to football, baseball, basketball or any other team sport. I do think though that the changes in technique, nutrition, equipment is apparent in boxing and I think to deny that is just closing your eyes because you don't ever want to see the golden age of boxing that you loved so much, be diminished in any way.

I think I'm not doing that, but just like everything else has changed, so has boxing. I do agree it's not the world wide sport it once was, and didn't capture the imagination and respect it once did in this country, but it still does else where. In Mexico it's one of the lifeblood of the people, same in Cuba and Puerto Rico. Gone are the glory days of boxing, but to say that Floyd Mayweather couldn't hang with the greats of old is simply not true.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Not sure evolution works that way. Not over three generations either.

Not the evolution we are talking about...

I'm not referring to the theory of evolution, I'm referring to the evolution of the sport through time.

[New England]

The 40's-60's had the most depth in talent, and the technique that is used today has been around since then, if you really know the sport well you would know that unlike pretty much every other sport in the world, boxing is regressing as far as talent depth and schools of thought and expertise. Fighters fight less often, against worse opposition, and though modern medicine and nutritional knowledge has come leaps and bounds since the golden era of boxing, anyone who suggests athletes today in boxing are a level above athletes back then in terms of conditioning and agility, are sorely mistaken.

A 10 year old having better technique than Tunney? I find that quite ridiculous, maybe a kid phenom, I know pros that are ranked top 10 in their division and have awful technique with certain punches or actions so even if it were true, it doesn't mean much if you try to apply it to the greater population.


I can't stand it when someone doesn't recognize Marciano for the greatness that he was. When people fail to acknowledge his high ring IQ and defensive prowess I just have to ignore them and move on, I can't deal with that level of ignorance.



That's not eveolution, that's just another fighter using his own variation or ding it his own way, evolution would be if all the hilly shell variations melted into one and everyone used only that variation from there on out. And that would never happen because even if you try and replicate someones style perfectly you are going to have your own version of if whether it's due to differences in physique, speed, fighting style, ring IQ, etc.

there's a huge difference between the technique being displayed in the video and the high level technique you'd see prior to world war 2 through the 70's, and even 80's and 90's. you still see flashes of great technique today, and even technical innovators. behind a puffy grand glove, floyd mayweather had some of the best defense and fundamentals you're ever going to see. would it work with a 6 oz horsehair glove? i doubt it. that doesn't mean he's less technical than james corbett, or that he's less crafty.


the talent level in boxing has certainly gone down. fewer kids box today than have boxed historically, especially in america. that's what a talent pool is. you get kids when they're young, and mold them. the more talented, the better. the more kids you've got, the more talent you'll get.



technique, however, is not the same as talent. technique is a learned and developed skill. it has the benefit of hindsight. it changes from generation to generation. some things are improved upon, and others are kept. some things are even left out completely. i like the word "schooling." technique is schooling.

the things that tunney was innovating in the 20's, gans was inventing at or around 1900, a young fighter is taught in the gym today.


corbett boxed at the championship level not long after they had just started using boxing gloves. he is not going to be more technical than somebody trained by eddie futch, who has several extra generations of boxing knowledge to pull from.

corbett used to pull away from punches. he clinched A TON. usually his shots would look like something he'd been throwing for years, but once in a while he'd look awkward and off balance, like he'd never thrown that particular shot in his life. he clearly doesn't have the tens of thousands of hours of repetition you'll find in a highly schooled boxer from 1960.


when i called corbett, and even tunney crude, it was in the context of all of the boxing that has followed them. credit goes to them for being pioneers of the technical and learned aspects of boxing. that doesn't mean that techniques- especially boxing, footwork, defensive, and counterpunching skills- haven't improved drastically since the freaking 1890's.



i will say this:
old timers wrestle with the best of them. they break themselves .

the prince [andre ward,] could learn a thing or two about getting rough inside from some of the tape

[Ben Bolt]

That is absolutely evolution.

Evolution is the change that happens over time, from an original concept. Like I said, I train with a coach who trained under George Benton, he even tells me that the shoulder roll that Mayweather uses, is not the same way he was taught in the classic philly way.

He said that Bernard Hopkins is a better example of that. I think why you guys get offended is because you think that we are disrespecting the old time fighters and that's simply not true.

I just think it's absurd (with all due respect) to think that a sport as old as boxing, has not evolved over 100 years of existence, when it obviously has. The techniques, the nutrition, training methods and even apparatus has changed dramatically over time.

I have trained in many gyms, been around the country and in many different parts of the world and I have had this conversation before with some of the best trainers in boxing. I can tell you that they all agree that boxing has most definitely evolved and changed.

I mean, if it didn't, that would be embarrassing for a sport so fluid and effective as boxing. It's not an ancient form of Karate, or Kung Fu that is stuck in it's culture and traditions, it's a modern martial art that consists of fluid, quick strikes with the fists from the waist up. It's limited in it's attack, but has a history of many different variations because of the different schools of boxing around the world.

Listen to Nacho Bernstein talk about Arturo Cullo Hernandez and the influence he had in Mexico. He learned from the Cuban greats and then developed his OWN style in Mexico which you can see today. All of Nacho's fighters carry that style which is very distinctive. Lead hand high, constant head movement and very disciplined and defined punches with emphasis on technicality.

That wasn't seen 50 years ago, it was studied, built upon and then created by Cullo Hernandez, and passed on to Nacho to make scores or world champions from Mexico City alone.

Take Ali and how he moved, there were old time trainers that said he fought like a coward because he didn't stand and trade the way the old timers did. Yet it was Ali who revolutionized the way a HW can fight, with movement and fluidity. His athleticism changed the game, and since athletes are getting bigger, stronger, faster and more agile, you can see this now.

Marciano was 188lbs and 5'10" and was HW champ, now we have monsters that are 6'7", 250 lbs in the HW division. That in itself is evolution of the human physique.

Boxing evolves my friend, everything does and that's not a knock or disrespect to the old time fighters. If anything it's an homage to them because we learned from them and built on top of that.

As much as I prefer the oldtime fighters, being more interested in yesterday's warriors than today's, I cannot argue against the opinions of Cuauhtémoc1520.

As mentioned, it would be embarrassing for the sport of boxing if it hadn't evolved over the decades.

And I'm pretty sure of that it has evolved - to a great extent.

It doesn't mean that any glory is taken away from heroes of the past.
What works well in one era might have to be modified to work well in another.
We are all children of our time.

One of my favorite quotes:
"You cannot separate a champion from his time." - Sonny Liston

[billeau2]

Not sure evolution works that way. Not over three generations either.

Yeah and believe me some of us go to great lengths to make just that point. What you might be referring to is a reference to how primates fight....I have to say that is very important because it demonstrates how much of our fighting is social. you can see the animal in us when for example we are doing the monkey dance (touching our chest, pointing our finger into the other guys chest, etc) but we usually resort immediately to a social context. We hold our rage and instead of jumping on the guy we put our fists up, or instead of trying to bash a head in from an 0verhand position we grab and wrestle....in nature this grabbing is usually a sign that the combat is ritual and not for keeps.

the other point I wanted to make was that body mechanics are still very relevant, its really what martial arts are about, along with psychological changes brought about by the art...otherwise if we were all big bruisers with no sense of fear and pain we wouldn't need martial arts!

Combat, the science of which is called hopology by the way, is a weird combo of effiecency and of different adaptations, sometimes confused with progress vis a vis evolution in that sense of the word....You show me any weapon weilded with the efficiency of a Samurai welding master swordsman, or a well trained Gurhka with blade, among others...and I would be much suprised!

[billeau2]

[QUOTE=Cuauhtémoc1520;14827998]

I'm 10 years younger than you, and agree with most of what you said. I tell my kids all the time that boxing isn't fighting, it's a sport.



I think you are exaggerating a bit here with all due respect. There are great fighters today that exhibit the very mechanics and techniques you are talking about. Young fighters too, guys like Mikey Garcia which has a command of distance the likes you can compare to anyone in the history of boxing and that's not an exaggeration. Guys like Rigondeux who is a master boxer, his footwork and defense IMO are the products of a modern era of boxing knowledge and training. I have seen him live on a few occasions and I can say he's the best defensive boxer I have ever seen personally. I agree that athleticism has come to the forefront, but I also think you sell short the fighters of today because you see so many fighters that are missing those qualities you talk about.



Marquez, Mikey Garcia, Rigondeux, Santa Cruz are but a few that do those things. Again, I agree with you for the most part because boxing has become a more fringe sport compared to where it once was but you are not giving the modern fighters their due.



Again, I just have to disagree with this. I think you are living too much in the past and one thing I have noticed is that you are emotionally attached to the era you grew up watching. I catch myself doing the same thing. I call it the "Bert Sugar" effect, where modern fighters no matter how great, will never live up to the legends of old. Even if they break records, fight until they are 45 years old, show amazing skills and talent, it won't matter. It's like when you catch a fish, at first it's 9lbs, after 20 years of telling the story, the fish is now 40lbs and it capsized the boat just to reel it in...hahaha



This I agree with, fighters don't fight as much as they did in the past but this has a lot to do with money. More money is now in boxing, and therefore more money it takes to put on shows, sell PPV's, tickets, etc...



I have seen gloves from the 60's and gloves from today and I can't say the gloves of then were smaller. I know that a pair of 8oz Reyes are about as brutal a glove you will find to fight in.

I think you are confusing toughness with skill. There's no doubt of the toughness of the old time fighters, in that you will not get one argument from me. They were much tougher then, because America was a much different place than it is today. At the same time, Eastern Europe and Latin America now is what America was then, and why you see those types of fighters come from those parts of the world now.



I agree, but football isn't a fair comparison. I think not only would the Sb champ of today beat the SB champ of the 60's, I think any team of today would beat them. Offensive linemen were 240lbs in the 60's, there are linebackers who weight that now, and run 4.5 40 yard dashes and bench press 600lbs.



I do agree with you to a certain extent. Again, I agree, boxing can't be compared to football, baseball, basketball or any other team sport. I do think though that the changes in technique, nutrition, equipment is apparent in boxing and I think to deny that is just closing your eyes because you don't ever want to see the golden age of boxing that you loved so much, be diminished in any way.

I think I'm not doing that, but just like everything else has changed, so has boxing. I do agree it's not the world wide sport it once was, and didn't capture the imagination and respect it once did in this country, but it still does else where. In Mexico it's one of the lifeblood of the people, same in Cuba and Puerto Rico. Gone are the glory days of boxing, but to say that Floyd Mayweather couldn't hang with the greats of old is simply not true.

Great response. Unfortunately we are only allowed to give so much Green K

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

[QUOTE=billeau2;14829458]

Great response. Unfortunately we are only allowed to give so much Green K

For the record, I agree with most of what you say and it's a nice change having a lagit discussion about boxing in this place.

You are very knowledgeable about the sport and it's been real interesting.