Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[ShoulderRoll]

The number of active fighters has grown which means we could be in for another golden age in the sport.

However the knowledge of fighting and training methods from the old days has degraded not evolved. Just look at the shoulder roll defense for example.

It was common in the '20s through the '50s but these days it's an exotic move that only a few like James Toney or Floyd Mayweather have been able to use successfully.

Or how about the art of inside fighting? How many top fighters today can you name that are decent from long range but have no clue about what to do in the trenches? They would do well to research the corkscrew hooks and shovel hooks that old timers were so well versed in.

[Elroy1]

The number of active fighters has grown which means we could be in for another golden age in the sport.

However the knowledge of fighting and training methods from the old days has degraded not evolved. Just look at the shoulder roll defense for example.

It was common in the '20s through the '50s but these days it's an exotic move that only a few like James Toney or Floyd Mayweather have been able to use successfully.

Or how about the art of inside fighting? How many top fighters today can you name that are decent from long range but have no clue about what to do in the trenches? They would do well to research the corkscrew hooks and shovel hooks that old timers were so well versed in.

The shoulder roll defence is not suited to every fighter and largely depends whether you can make use of it or not. Some fighters would be better served eliminating it (ie. Broner). The mere fact that is has gone out of fashion is evidence that it is no longer as effective.

Inside fighting is a sign of a lack of boxing skills. A failure to get in and out or to keep an opponent at bay, again, further evidence that skills have inexorably improved over time.

And lastly the entire premise of skills degrading or being lost is totally false. If past era skills survive into the present, they BECOME a feature of the modern skillset. And if they don't? They went the way of the dodo for a reason.

Every generation takes all what came before, keeps what works, discards what does not and continues to refine it further.

Obviously!

[Bundana]

The shoulder roll defence is not suited to every fighter and largely depends whether you can make use of it or not. Some fighters would be better served eliminating it (ie. Broner). The mere fact that is has gone out of fashion is evidence that it is no longer as effective.

Inside fighting is a sign of a lack of boxing skills. A failure to get in and out or to keep an opponent at bay, again, further evidence that skills have inexorably improved over time.

And lastly the entire premise of skills degrading or being lost is totally false. If past era skills survive into the present, they BECOME a feature of the modern skillset. And if they don't? They went the way of the dodo for a reason.

Every generation takes all what came before, keeps what works, discards what does not and continues to refine it further.

Obviously!

I know, there's a rule here that says, we MUST think everything Elroy says is nonsense... but this sounds pretty sane to me!

[joeandthebums]

Inside fighting is a sign of a lack of boxing skills. A failure to get in and out or to keep an opponent at bay, again, further evidence that skills have inexorably improved over time.

"Inside fighting" is the art of boxing at close range. Why does making use of this highlight a lack of boxing skills? Would the opposite not be true?

It takes skill to get close to an opponent and not be hit.

If all things were equal between two boxers, the boxer who has mastered the ability of fighting at close range will have the advantage over an opponent who has not.

[Elroy1]

"Inside fighting" is the art of boxing at close range. Why does making use of this highlight a lack of boxing skills? Would the opposite not be true?

It takes skill to get close to an opponent and not be hit.

If all things were equal between two boxers, the boxer who has mastered the ability of fighting at close range will have the advantage over an opponent who has not.

This point deserves some further clarification.

You are still incorrect as far as I am concerned overall.

Sure, I will hand it to you, the ability to fight at close range inside is an art and requires ample "skill attributes" such as reflexes as well. More specifically however, the "mid-range" boxing which we still largely DO see requires the most highly refined type of reflexes, think Haye, think to an even greater extent Mike Tyson.

However the most staunch definition of infighting, whilst still an art and a specific skill, still relies on toughness and strength more than reflexes or timing (i.e. the higher level attriutes of boxing. This is because you are right up close to each other basically grappling whilst looking for the openings and being constantly smothered.

Now although a fighter who finds himself up close infighting often WILL develop the qualities necessary to perform better at that (ignoring the intrinsic weakness of old time compared to modern boxers for this purpose) than aa modern fighter say who doesn't do it so much, THAT is a moot point because the entire concept of such infighting has largely been superceded.

It's kind of like an 18th century soldier being better with a sabre, epee and foil than a modern soldier. The whole concept is meaningless because those things are no longer relevant.

So with this background in mind we find that it is unnecessary for a modern boxer to be so adept at that art because the concepts that win fights today are "outfighting skills", keeping an opponent at bay, and for shorter boxers or for boxers with enough zip, "mid-range" "on-the edge" skills to get into the zone, land an attack, get out of the zone with minimized damage.

These old arts are fascinating in themselves but if you are a trainer and you wanted to train the best fighter, would you concentrate so much on their infighting skills in this day and age???

Of course not! Because you'd be setting your fighter up to lose.

[joeandthebums]

Now although a fighter who finds himself up close infighting often WILL develop the qualities necessary to perform better at that (ignoring the intrinsic weakness of old time compared to modern boxers for this purpose) than aa modern fighter say who doesn't do it so much, THAT is a moot point because the entire concept of such infighting has largely been superceded.

So infighting is no longer utilised because it is no longer needed?

An entire phrase of the sport has been eliminated?

You cited Mike Tyson as a mid-range boxer, he often found himself up close with an opponent - but never became efficient at the range. Do you not feel he would of benefited from possessing those skills in contests such as that against Bonecrusher Smith?

[McGoorty]

Sheer numbers clearly indicate that their where fewer fighters and fewer fights in the old days. Since competition always makes quality rise how can anyone dispute that boxers, in general, are better today than they where in past eras?

Well I think you should find more reliable stats because these are clearly wrong, I have seen other stats that say the exact opposite, in fact I posted them somewhere. The idea that todays crap is better than from some of the other decades (some truly great) I find hilarious. I am not used to you saying stuff like this.

[McGoorty]

The shoulder roll defence is not suited to every fighter and largely depends whether you can make use of it or not. Some fighters would be better served eliminating it (ie. Broner). The mere fact that is has gone out of fashion is evidence that it is no longer as effective.

Inside fighting is a sign of a lack of boxing skills. A failure to get in and out or to keep an opponent at bay, again, further evidence that skills have inexorably improved over time.

And lastly the entire premise of skills degrading or being lost is totally false. If past era skills survive into the present, they BECOME a feature of the modern skillset. And if they don't? They went the way of the dodo for a reason.

Every generation takes all what came before, keeps what works, discards what does not and continues to refine it further.

Obviously!

Inside fighting is a sign of a lack of skills ? there is an art to great infighting, why is it that every post I read of yours is some kind of comedy. That statement about infighting is just ******....... if getting inside gives a fighter an advantage over certain opponents then they should get inside, it worked for many great fighters so to discard it like you do is well..... ******.

[McGoorty]

"Inside fighting" is the art of boxing at close range. Why does making use of this highlight a lack of boxing skills? Would the opposite not be true?

It takes skill to get close to an opponent and not be hit.

If all things were equal between two boxers, the boxer who has mastered the ability of fighting at close range will have the advantage over an opponent who has not.

Well of course we should listen to a guy called Elroy1 and disregard everything Frank Klaus wrote.... after all Frank was a world champion and Elroy is, well,............. Elroy who presumably never fought professionally so yeah.... f**k Frank Klaus.

[McGoorty]

This point deserves some further clarification.

You are still incorrect as far as I am concerned overall.

Sure, I will hand it to you, the ability to fight at close range inside is an art and requires ample "skill attributes" such as reflexes as well. More specifically however, the "mid-range" boxing which we still largely DO see requires the most highly refined type of reflexes, think Haye, think to an even greater extent Mike Tyson.

However the most staunch definition of infighting, whilst still an art and a specific skill, still relies on toughness and strength more than reflexes or timing (i.e. the higher level attriutes of boxing. This is because you are right up close to each other basically grappling whilst looking for the openings and being constantly smothered.

Now although a fighter who finds himself up close infighting often WILL develop the qualities necessary to perform better at that (ignoring the intrinsic weakness of old time compared to modern boxers for this purpose) than aa modern fighter say who doesn't do it so much, THAT is a moot point because the entire concept of such infighting has largely been superceded.

It's kind of like an 18th century soldier being better with a sabre, epee and foil than a modern soldier. The whole concept is meaningless because those things are no longer relevant.

So with this background in mind we find that it is unnecessary for a modern boxer to be so adept at that art because the concepts that win fights today are "outfighting skills", keeping an opponent at bay, and for shorter boxers or for boxers with enough zip, "mid-range" "on-the edge" skills to get into the zone, land an attack, get out of the zone with minimized damage.

These old arts are fascinating in themselves but if you are a trainer and you wanted to train the best fighter, would you concentrate so much on their infighting skills in this day and age???

Of course not! Because you'd be setting your fighter up to lose.

Finally a reasonable post, while I don't agree with it all at least you tried to explain yourself, it sorta shows that big blanket type statements don't make posters look real good, it is after all a lazy approach. You mentioned strength and while not a skill it is surely better to be stronger than your opponent and if the stronger guy also has better infighting skills then getting inside is a great strategy as long as you can get in there without getting tagged by a big one which is in itself a skill, the two go hand in hand. Getting inside can offer the stronger man the opportunity to also tire out his fast moving opponent, I can't remember which old timer said it but one of them said once that he didn't care if the other guy had faster feet and hands because that would only be in the first couple of rounds and he had the the chin to handle anything in the meantime. After a few rounds of him getting inside the other guy was now not so fast and had in fact become just a target.