Old School vs. New School

[SCtrojansbaby]

This perceived depth is only because there were a lot more fights, guys like Kassim Ouma and Paulie Mallinaggi would have been considered solid B level fighters back then because they were able to pull off a couple of fluke upsets against guys who are going to fight 10+ times a year.

As opposed to modern boxing where for the most part you are fighting 2 or 3x a year against a fully focused opponent.

[McGoorty]

I agree 100% with fighters being tougher back then, but there are plenty of good fighters today who could compete in any era. The difference as you pointed out is the depth of the talent pool between then and now. There were just so many more well rounded and skilled fighters back in earlier era's than today.

I was arguing on another board last week and a poster claimed today's era as much better because boxing is more world wide and Europe's eastern bloc countries are now able to compete professionally. He went as far as to say if Russian's were able to go pro in the 60's and 70's no one would have heard of the Ali's, Frazier's and Foreman's. That was quickly put to rest when the poster Steak put of video's of these fighters beating the best Europeans as amateurs.

The problem with that poster's assumption though was first, boxing may have more countries competing professionally today, but it really isn't anymore worldwide when you look at the numbers of professional fighters from past era's in comparison to today. The invent of cable and satellite tv just make it seem that way because you can find boxing on many more channels around the world as well as the internet. And two, The United States was dominant not because of tougher or more talented fighters (toughness and talent can be found everywhere) but because of the amount of quality trainers that have been developed over years when boxing was the second most popular sport only to baseball. The rest of the world has now caught up because boxing's popularity in the US has fallen off, so has the amount of top notch quality trainers. But even today many of the world's most talented fighters still come here to be trained by the few men left who actually know how to train a fighter in the many skills of boxing rather than just teaching them how to punch and get in shape. THAT, in my opinion, is why fighters are not as good across the board today in comparison to past era's. Less quality trainer's means less quality fighters.

Good reply Jab,.. the one thing I overlooked was this,.. The U.S. had so many great fighters then, because of A-- the things we have already discussed, and B-- Poverty, is the no. 1 reason fighters take up boxing. Ex-Australian WW champ, Tommy Burns actually hated the idea of boxing until one day, when he asked his mate a simple question, " Umm, how much money did you say boxers make from a fight ?", upon hearing the reply, Tommy Burns started training and became a National superstar with Hollywood looks and an all action Boxer/Puncher style.................. the point is that America was once full of large slums, and 90 % of the world's greatest fighters came from places like those in the states....... poverty is NO option,... not for a tough guy.

[McGoorty]

This perceived depth is only because there were a lot more fights, guys like Kassim Ouma and Paulie Mallinaggi would have been considered solid B level fighters back then because they were able to pull off a couple of fluke upsets against guys who are going to fight 10+ times a year.

As opposed to modern boxing where for the most part you are fighting 2 or 3x a year against a fully focused opponent.

I can't agree less with that, mate, there was nothing percieved about the depth back then, it is a fact,...... opinions don't beat FACTS.

[McGoorty]

Talent pool talent pool talent pool

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

There's just much less chance of us getting another Ray Robinson or Ali out of a much smaller talent pool.

too true mate, I stated on another thread somewhere that in Australia in 1950 there were EIGHTEEN times as many Welterweights in Australia then there are now. There was over 360 WW's in a population of about 5 million. Now in Australia there are less than 20 at last count, Population of Australia now,.... 21 million, so boxing in Australia was at least 100 times more popular. Boxing is not amongst the top 20 sports here now, it was only behind Cricket, Rugby League and Australian Rules Football (aerial ping-pong), in the old days.

[JAB5239]

I can't agree less with that, mate, there was nothing percieved about the depth back then, it is a fact,...... opinions don't beat FACTS.

............Bingo!!..............

[fitefanSHO]

Boxing, like any other discipline, is always evolving and getting better.

It's a process that can be seen from John L Sullivan to Jack Johnson; all the way to Floyd Mayweather, and into the future with guys like Nonito Donaire. The sport evolves and so do the fighters. Evolution is a process of improvement, not decline.

A case can easily be made that fighters today are "better" than the old fighters because they have more evolved skills, better training, and benefit of learning from those who came before them. But the case can also be made that older fighters were tougher because the circumstances they fought under were tougher and more demanding, with far less reward.

It's a matter of perspective, like all things.

That's my 2 cents.

[StarshipTrooper]

Boxing, like any other discipline, is always evolving and getting better.

It's a process that can be seen from John L Sullivan to Jack Johnson; all the way to Floyd Mayweather, and into the future with guys like Nonito Donaire. The sport evolves and so do the fighters. Evolution is a process of improvement, not decline.

A case can easily be made that fighters today are "better" than the old fighters because they have more evolved skills, better training, and benefit of learning from those who came before them. But the case can also be made that older fighters were tougher because the circumstances they fought under were tougher and more demanding, with far less reward.

It's a matter of perspective, like all things.

That's my 2 cents.

The problem is that evolution (biological or otherwise) isn't a process of improvement per se.....it's a process of change but those changes aren't always for the better. The vast majority of changes that you see evolving in practically every field are lateral changes: Neither better nor worse, just different.

There is also the problem of the limitations of any given field of endeavor: You essentially max out the potential improvements that can be made. There's only so many ways you can throw a left hook and those were figured out long ago. It's not like technology which is pretty opened ended (though it certainly has it's share of dead ends in certain specific fields).....but even technology has historically gone backwards at times (remember the Dark Age?).

Poet

[McGoorty]

The problem is that evolution (biological or otherwise) isn't a process of improvement per se.....it's a process of change but those changes aren't always for the better. The vast majority of changes that you see evolving in practically every field are lateral changes: Neither better nor worse, just different.

There is also the problem of the limitations of any given field of endeavor: You essentially max out the potential improvements that can be made. There's only so many ways you can throw a left hook and those were figured out long ago. It's not like technology which is pretty opened ended (though it certainly has it's share of dead ends in certain specific fields).....but even technology has historically gone backwards at times (remember the Dark Age?).

Poet

Good reply ( AGAIN ),... I agree with the lot,... Sure evolution is always occuring, but as you say Poet, not always better. Human beings have evolved over the Millennia and are SMARTER than the Dinosaurs by miles (thousands of them),.... But how would Sam Langford go in a fight with SpineOSaurus (for those of you who don't know,... Spineosaurus is the greatest land predator to ever roam the earth, it is the No. 1 Big Daddy of them all, bigger and better than the No. 2 Big Daddy, Giganotosaurus, which could DEVOUR the one time No. 1 but now No. 3,...... I ain't just a boxing fan !!!!!),.... well this mean bugger with the over a foot long claws and teeth.......... well Y'all get my drift, dont'cha,..... this one critter would slaughter every single HW in history in about an hour or so,............................................... ...........AND Mark this "Golden Age Bashers" ---- The Old Timers WERE SPINEOSAURUS !!!! to today's guys ( I still think a handfull or so of todays fighters could be great in most era's,... But only a handfull...................... Oops. I forgot to "lol"

[StarshipTrooper]

Good reply ( AGAIN ),... I agree with the lot,... Sure evolution is always occuring, but as you say Poet, not always better. Human beings have evolved over the Millennia and are SMARTER than the Dinosaurs by miles (thousands of them),.... But how would Sam Langford go in a fight with SpineOSaurus (for those of you who don't know,... Spineosaurus is the greatest land predator to ever roam the earth, it is the No. 1 Big Daddy of them all, bigger and better than the No. 2 Big Daddy, Giganotosaurus, which could DEVOUR the one time No. 1 but now No. 3,...... I ain't just a boxing fan !!!!!),.... well this mean bugger with the over a foot long claws and teeth.......... well Y'all get my drift, dont'cha,..... this one critter would slaughter every single HW in history in about an hour or so,............................................... ...........AND Mark this "Golden Age Bashers" ---- The Old Timers WERE SPINEOSAURUS !!!! to today's guys ( I still think a handfull or so of todays fighters could be great in most era's,... But only a handfull...................... Oops. I forgot to "lol"

The thing with biological evolution is it takes place over hundreds of thousands or eve millions of years.....not a few short decades. Genetically (were biological evolution takes place) we are no different today then we were 4,000 years ago. Give us another hundred thousand years and maybe we'll have picked up some genetic differences by then.

Poet

[jabsRstiff]

I'd say there are better better athletes throughout sports today than there were years back, but....

At the top level, the best athletes have gone beyond that to being "investments". The risks that used to be taken no longer are being taken, and boxers are certainly no exception. There's a coddling of the elite that wasn't happening decades ago. Pitchers have ****ing "pitch counts", for Christ's sake!