Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[ShoulderRoll]

Trainers don't make the sport the fighters do.....you are only as good as your trainer though. You are arguing techniques they don't go anywhere either but are revamped or taking to other levels depending on the fighter.



Floyd Patterson < Mike Tyson

The way I see it Floyd Patterson, Jose Torres, and Mike Tyson were all able of become world champions thanks to one specific set of old time techniques. It's a win for the old ways.

[juggernaut666]

And just like the fighters themselves, the TRAINERS take what was there previously and build upon it.

You know where this goes right.. The guys the Mayweather dad and uncle learned off did not know all the Mayweather's knew, likewise the guy who taught Roach and Steward and so on.

The direction of knowledge growth goes from past to future, people weren't infinitely smart at the beginning and have gotten dumber ever since and they wont be dumber tomorrow!

These guys are certainly NOT nut bags (atleast for any of the reasons yoou are implying).

A nut bag is clearly anybody who subscries to the notion that the old timers were etter/knew more than today (hence OLD TIME nut bags).

It does NOT mean that all the old timers of the sport were nut bags! It is a reference to the current sect that has sealed itself off from reality in past worship where no new ideas can then arise, exactly like a religion, like a viral meme.

As for your American defence.. Sure!

America contriuted greatly to the development of boxing. I would never argue otherwise!

'The direction of knowledge growth goes from past to future, people weren't infinitely smart at the beginning and have gotten dumber ever since and they wont be dumber tomorrow!" being also in martial arts this is certainly true we stay with the original techniques in form but they are modified in combat!

[juggernaut666]

The way I see it Floyd Patterson, Jose Torres, and Mike Tyson were all able of become world champions thanks to one specific set of old time techniques. It's a win for the old ways.

Tyson had skill levels /power etc..that would look futuristic in any other time period you are referencing too...its not about old or new school really but refining the techniques and putting them together better,mostly defense which was the most lack in the old school days.

[imperial1]

Boxing of today lacks great trainers ,boxers at can't fight for the full 3 rds ,boxers of today have very lousy foot work .. I don't see how today's boxers are better than their predecessors ..

[billeau2]

Tyson had skill levels /power etc..that would look futuristic in any other time period you are referencing too...its not about old or new school really but refining the techniques and putting them together better,mostly defense which was the most lack in the old school days.

That is absolutely correct. In so far as boxing became a separate endevour from martial arts it is hard for people with no martial arts background to see how similar martial arts and boxing are with regard to theory and praxis. As you said Juggy the old forms don't change, they are modified to fit circumstance.


Most people looking at a Koryu school of Japanese Ju Jutsu would not have any idea what they were looking at. But these forms are the text book for the system, they contain all the elements that can be reformed, modified, expanded upon and sometimes....even changed! Some of these forms have existed since the 1500's.

If we look at boxing in similar fashion, we can see that even many concepts of James Figg still remain in the sport. The biggest thing that I can see retained by boxing is the clear cut distinction between Defense and Offense...There are many martial arts, particularly Japanese sword arts where there is no concept of a defensive movement per se. Figg got his idea from fencing, where there are parries and other defensive moves, however, even within fencing, if one looks at sabor technique, there is very little, to no emphasis on defensive movements.

The points Juggy made about forms being original are the main reason why I, as a martial artist, find it difficult to attach judgements about modern and original technique being "better" or "worse." What I try to emphasize is when a fighter is using technical excellence, and when a fighter is not. I find that a lot of fighters that start later, and train with incompitant trainers, tend to not have technical skills the equal of fighters that trained longer in the sport, and with very good trainers.

I do think there were times in history when more technical excellence was the norm in boxing, I also think that one cannot hold it against modern fighters that the conditions have changed.... bigger gloves, less rounds, punch count emphasis...when fighters adapt to these changes. Olympic rules and stand up technique that has been emphasized, is however, questionable with respect to technical excellence.

But lets keep in mind that as far back as the late eighteen hundreds, boxing trainers have been critisizing what was then called the "British" method of leading with the weak hand, standing straight up, and hoping to catch the opponent with the strong hand eventually.

These are just a few reasons why I hold the opinion that boxing does not follow a straight line trend of "evolving." There are exceptional fighters now, as was the case back in the day.... There were times when boxing was strong and when it was weak. But it is worth remembering that the set of tehniques that make boxing effective have not really changed...conditions have changed! Bigger gloves effect how one transfers power on a punch, the ring size determines footwork, etc. Underlying these permutations are a set of canon like physical laws determining the basics of boxing.

[Weltschmerz]

That is absolutely correct. In so far as boxing became a separate endevour from martial arts it is hard for people with no martial arts background to see how similar martial arts and boxing are with regard to theory and praxis. As you said Juggy the old forms don't change, they are modified to fit circumstance.


Most people looking at a Koryu school of Japanese Ju Jutsu would not have any idea what they were looking at. But these forms are the text book for the system, they contain all the elements that can be reformed, modified, expanded upon and sometimes....even changed! Some of these forms have existed since the 1500's.

If we look at boxing in similar fashion, we can see that even many concepts of James Figg still remain in the sport. The biggest thing that I can see retained by boxing is the clear cut distinction between Defense and Offense...There are many martial arts, particularly Japanese sword arts where there is no concept of a defensive movement per se. Figg got his idea from fencing, where there are parries and other defensive moves, however, even within fencing, if one looks at sabor technique, there is very little, to no emphasis on defensive movements.

The points Juggy made about forms being original are the main reason why I, as a martial artist, find it difficult to attach judgements about modern and original technique being "better" or "worse." What I try to emphasize is when a fighter is using technical excellence, and when a fighter is not. I find that a lot of fighters that start later, and train with incompitant trainers, tend to not have technical skills the equal of fighters that trained longer in the sport, and with very good trainers.

I do think there were times in history when more technical excellence was the norm in boxing, I also think that one cannot hold it against modern fighters that the conditions have changed.... bigger gloves, less rounds, punch count emphasis...when fighters adapt to these changes. Olympic rules and stand up technique that has been emphasized, is however, questionable with respect to technical excellence.

But lets keep in mind that as far back as the late eighteen hundreds, boxing trainers have been critisizing what was then called the "British" method of leading with the weak hand, standing straight up, and hoping to catch the opponent with the strong hand eventually.

These are just a few reasons why I hold the opinion that boxing does not follow a straight line trend of "evolving." There are exceptional fighters now, as was the case back in the day.... There were times when boxing was strong and when it was weak. But it is worth remembering that the set of tehniques that make boxing effective have not really changed...conditions have changed! Bigger gloves effect how one transfers power on a punch, the ring size determines footwork, etc. Underlying these permutations are a set of canon like physical laws determining the basics of boxing.

How do you reckon Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson would unfold?

[juggernaut666]

That is absolutely correct. In so far as boxing became a separate endevour from martial arts it is hard for people with no martial arts background to see how similar martial arts and boxing are with regard to theory and praxis. As you said Juggy the old forms don't change, they are modified to fit circumstance.


Most people looking at a Koryu school of Japanese Ju Jutsu would not have any idea what they were looking at. But these forms are the text book for the system, they contain all the elements that can be reformed, modified, expanded upon and sometimes....even changed! Some of these forms have existed since the 1500's.

If we look at boxing in similar fashion, we can see that even many concepts of James Figg still remain in the sport. The biggest thing that I can see retained by boxing is the clear cut distinction between Defense and Offense...There are many martial arts, particularly Japanese sword arts where there is no concept of a defensive movement per se. Figg got his idea from fencing, where there are parries and other defensive moves, however, even within fencing, if one looks at sabor technique, there is very little, to no emphasis on defensive movements.

The points Juggy made about forms being original are the main reason why I, as a martial artist, find it difficult to attach judgements about modern and original technique being "better" or "worse." What I try to emphasize is when a fighter is using technical excellence, and when a fighter is not. I find that a lot of fighters that start later, and train with incompitant trainers, tend to not have technical skills the equal of fighters that trained longer in the sport, and with very good trainers.

I do think there were times in history when more technical excellence was the norm in boxing, I also think that one cannot hold it against modern fighters that the conditions have changed.... bigger gloves, less rounds, punch count emphasis...when fighters adapt to these changes. Olympic rules and stand up technique that has been emphasized, is however, questionable with respect to technical excellence.

But lets keep in mind that as far back as the late eighteen hundreds, boxing trainers have been critisizing what was then called the "British" method of leading with the weak hand, standing straight up, and hoping to catch the opponent with the strong hand eventually.

These are just a few reasons why I hold the opinion that boxing does not follow a straight line trend of "evolving." There are exceptional fighters now, as was the case back in the day.... There were times when boxing was strong and when it was weak. But it is worth remembering that the set of tehniques that make boxing effective have not really changed...conditions have changed! Bigger gloves effect how one transfers power on a punch, the ring size determines footwork, etc. Underlying these permutations are a set of canon like physical laws determining the basics of boxing.

"There are exceptional fighters now, as was the case back in the day.... There were times when boxing was strong and when it was weak. But it is worth remembering that the set of tehniques that make boxing effective have not really changed...conditions have changed! Bigger gloves effect how one transfers power on a punch, the ring size determines footwork, etc. Underlying these permutations are a set of canon like physical laws determining the basics of boxing."



This basically all true...however boxing is a bit more easier to dissect than MMA/Martial arts..for the simple reason of the simplicity of the sport in comparison....Watching two guys under the same style "Boxer" with limited rules even though it has different boxing styles within it,is easier to compare old and new ways of how the sport has changed, with the refining of all around abilities,understanding and particularly athletic adavances which is clearly the biggest leap I see. though the more athletic fighter is the one that usually has the advantage. Techniques really don't change its who utilizes them better.Theres really only so much a punch in boxing will be modified where in Martial arts theres literally hundreds of pacific ones ,in various styles.


Boxing..... very simplistic since theres only so many punches that are used and much easier to determine on video who really was better,everyone will have an opinion on it, I see many flaws from past timers that were not refined in there time,i would say watch many 80's fighters as opposed to 60's and there is a clear technical and athletic difference.

[Elroy1]

Boxing of today lacks great trainers ,boxers at can't fight for the full 3 rds ,boxers of today have very lousy foot work .. I don't see how today's boxers are better than their predecessors ..

- Yesterdays boxers were for the most part, plodders. Specifically the 200lbers moved like the 240lbers do today.

We can go into this issue a bit further if you like, suffice to say you can't win here.

- Likewise you think a boxer can't fight a full 3 rounds today, immediately disproven by checking boxrec.

Now the most important part.

What is a "great trainer" exactly.

I'll tell you what it is, it's a trainer who happened to ring up a great fighter.

As SOON as you swallow that fighters like WK, VK, Povetkin, TYson, Holyfield, LEwis etc are better fighters than anything in the past you also must swallow that in asolute terms their trainers are also etter than anything in the past.

Oviously.

And this is not to RIDICULE the past, merely highlighting that it is the law of entropy.

[imperial1]

- Yesterdays boxers were for the most part, plodders. Specifically the 200lbers moved like the 240lbers do today.

We can go into this issue a bit further if you like, suffice to say you can't win here.

- Likewise you think a boxer can't fight a full 3 rounds today, immediately disproven by checking boxrec.

Now the most important part.

What is a "great trainer" exactly.

I'll tell you what it is, it's a trainer who happened to ring up a great fighter.

As SOON as you swallow that fighters like WK, VK, Povetkin, TYson, Holyfield, LEwis etc are better fighters than anything in the past you also must swallow that in asolute terms their trainers are also etter than anything in the past.

Oviously.

And this is not to RIDICULE the past, merely highlighting that it is the law of entropy.

When I say boxers can't fight for the full 3 rds I mean constantly being on your toes movement now a days guys result to clinching you said for the most part boxers f yesterday year were mostly plodders especially the big guys have you not seen the head waste divsion in the last 10 yrs?

As far as great trainers

DeMatto
Arce
Futch
Steward

These guys made champions ,knew the game in and out trainers today aren't that good in building fighters from scratch ..Thats what I meant

[VG_Addict]

As far as great trainers

DeMatto
Arce
Futch
Steward

These guys made champions ,knew the game in and out trainers today aren't that good in building fighters from scratch ..Thats what I meant

I'd much rather have Futch, Steward, and Arce than Hunter, Roach, and Garcia.

Just compare who they trained:

Futch: Bowe, Frazier, Michael Spinks.