Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[them_apples]

Well, I guess you have to actually dive into the old records, to understand what was really going on.

Take a look at part of Battling Levinsky's record:
1912-05-24 outpointed **** Gilbert over 15 rounds at Jacksonville
1912-06-07 outpointed **** Gilbert over 15 rounds at Jacksonville
1912-06-14 outpointed **** Gilbert over 20 rounds at Jacksonville

Gilbert was a low-level journeyman with a losing record, so why was he matched 3 times, over 3 weeks, with a much more experienced future HOFer? I doubt the two had been booked for those 3 dates in advance, so here's what I think went on: the fans apparently enjoyed their first fight so much, that they were asked back for a second appearance two weeks later. When that was also a success, they were asked back for a 3rd fight already the following week. The two obviously had a good thing going, and I sincerely doubt Levinsky tried very hard to go for a knockout.

Incidentally, the two were back in Jacksonville 6 months later for a 4th meeting, where Levinsky won on points after 25 rounds!

Of course there were many much longer series from the ND era than Levinsky-Gilbet. For example:

Pancho Villa fought Mike Ballerino 10 times.
Jack Britton fought Johnny Griffith 9 times, and Soldier Bartfield 8 times.
Jack Dillon fought Battling Levinsky 10 times and George Chip 12 times.
Battling Levinsky fought Porky Dan Flynn 9 times.
Johnny Dundee fought Joe Welling and Benny Leonard 8 times each.
Harry Greb fought Al Delmont 8 times and Chuck Wigging 9 times.

I might add, that all of these fights lasted the full distance! Not a single one ended inside schedule... so no, the fans weren't always screaming for a knockout, but could obviously also enjoy a fine boxing exhibition. Don't you think this indicates (doesn't prove, but indicates!), that in at least some fights the two combatants may have carried each other - so they could both live to fight another day? Or is that thought too weird for you?

Theres nothing wrong with this snippet of information, but to use this incident as a way to prove this was some common, normal thing that went on then not so much. Of course they did stuff like this, some probably went in drunk, some sick I bet there was even a situation where a a man with crutches fought under the lights. 1000s of bouts took place, many (tons) not even documented.

we can’t get side tracked by an interesting story as evidence of some percentage around the board type “claim” as you would put it.

from many biographies Out there on old boxers, I noticed the going theme in the story was the decision to go pro was a dangerous and serious one that they more than often understood the prospect of death and permanent damage. It’s still this way today, but the ref wasn’t especially looking out for you back then (we have visual evidence of this).

not only that, many of you on here are much much older than I. Even when I grew up in the mid 90s the average kid out there on the street had a chip on their shoulder and the ones that took up boxing certainly weren’t buddy buddy thinking lets slap our way to some easy money. In fact this sounds like something that would happen today more so with Floyd Mayweather openly talking about the business aspect of boxing in all his buildups. Even worse it probably happens in high profile fights!

Why do we overlook the social temperament if the times? Its a real one. Public opinion has changed in so many different ways. What was acceptable and what was not. Fist fighting was so common that even punching a cop while drunk might only catch you an ass wooping and a night in the cell. Kids used to fight in the street for fun and for money. Many people grew up hungry and left home and very early ages like 14-15. By default the average person alone would have to have thicker skin.

environments shape us, this can’t be magically overlooked in boxing. It’s just another point among many. But if we think society today has gotten much softer and that boxing is somehow unaffected by this then I would suggest we think again.

[them_apples]

So if we take the absolute top fights from back in the day, and compare them to the top fights of recent years... can we detect a change over time, when it comes to those parameters you mention?

That's a very good question... but we have so little footage of the old timers, that I'm not sure we can answer this in a meaningful way. There were some cracking fights in the past, but also some complete duds... just like today! I don't see how we can determine, with reasonable certainty, which era comes out "on top", so to speak.

The biggest question is what era do they fight in? Do we go forward or do we go backwards?

because presumably, it would have to be fair.

for example is it 15 rounds or 12? Who does this benefit?

how early will the ref wave the fight off

punchers gloves and 8 oz? Attached thumb? (Allowing for more grappling)

same days weigh ins? If its second day should all old fighters take on those in weight classes below them?

on this note, a victory that is aided by the rules changing shouldn’t be considered a victory at all. This often happens in the olympics making a lot of olympic records bogus. You can see those tests they did with old olympians times and giving the newer athlete old gear and old rules, on average only 50% were actually surpassed - and given many of these tests were record holding type competitions, time alone increases probability of them being broken not genetics.

so if Canelo is truly 180 lbs at 154 (which I almost don’t believe unless they are somehow IV deflating him) then he should be in with ezzard charles, michael spinks and moorer etc etc.

of course I don’t actually think that is entirely fair, but if we go by the NUMBERS it is - which is your preferred method. And many if you think size and weight are truly square. To me for example, Canelo LOOKs like a middleweight who's carrying too much weight (likely roids). Thats just my opinion though.

my stance is this, most fighters are in the right class, some might jump down a class - but most of the guys today are coming in too heavy, they just know that with 2 days they can squeeze so much out. This is just my opinion though (not a fact). I would bet a large some of money that statistics if they existed - would tell you that 2 day weighs ins made fighters lazier not safer.

[Bundana]

Theres nothing wrong with this snippet of information, but to use this incident as a way to prove this was some common, normal thing that went on then not so much. Of course they did stuff like this, some probably went in drunk, some sick I bet there was even a situation where a a man with crutches fought under the lights. 1000s of bouts took place, many (tons) not even documented.

we can�t get side tracked by an interesting story as evidence of some percentage around the board type �claim� as you would put it.

from many biographies Out there on old boxers, I noticed the going theme in the story was the decision to go pro was a dangerous and serious one that they more than often understood the prospect of death and permanent damage. It�s still this way today, but the ref wasn�t especially looking out for you back then (we have visual evidence of this).

not only that, many of you on here are much much older than I. Even when I grew up in the mid 90s the average kid out there on the street had a chip on their shoulder and the ones that took up boxing certainly weren�t buddy buddy thinking lets slap our way to some easy money. In fact this sounds like something that would happen today more so with Floyd Mayweather openly talking about the business aspect of boxing in all his buildups. Even worse it probably happens in high profile fights!

Why do we overlook the social temperament if the times? Its a real one. Public opinion has changed in so many different ways. What was acceptable and what was not. Fist fighting was so common that even punching a cop while drunk might only catch you an ass wooping and a night in the cell. Kids used to fight in the street for fun and for money. Many people grew up hungry and left home and very early ages like 14-15. By default the average person alone would have to have thicker skin.

environments shape us, this can�t be magically overlooked in boxing. It�s just another point among many. But if we think society today has gotten much softer and that boxing is somehow unaffected by this then I would suggest we think again.

So your reply to my post is, that you think fighters carrying each other to make some easy money, is even more common today than back in the old days. And your proof is that Mayweather likes to talk about the business side of boxing! Well, I do believe you may be onto something here... I mean, it's very difficult to argue against proof as solid as that!

[Bundana]

In fact this sounds like something that would happen today more so with Floyd Mayweather openly talking about the business aspect of boxing in all his buildups. Even worse it probably happens in high profile fights!

Ok, being serious for a moment... other than you of course wish it to be so, what makes you say something strange like that?

What evidence do we have to suggest, that fights where boxers carry each other - "works" as billeau2 calls them - are more prevalent today than back in the day? Back during hard times, where most boxers just wanted to make a little money - against other boxers in the same situation as themselves. Wouldn't it have been in everybody's best interest to get through these fights as painlessly as possible - rather than trying to knock each other's head off! Is it just me... or doesn't this sound fairly sensible?

[QueensburyRules]

Ok, being serious for a moment... other than you of course wish it to be so, what makes you say something strange like that?

What evidence do we have to suggest, that fights where boxers carry each other - "works" as billeau2 calls them - are more prevalent today than back in the day? Back during hard times, where most boxers just wanted to make a little money - against other boxers in the same situation as themselves. Wouldn't it have been in everybody's best interest to get through these fights as painlessly as possible - rather than trying to knock each other's head off! Is it just me... or doesn't this sound fairly sensible?

- - Tubby Lar who was still skinny then is reputed to carry Ali the best he could while winning the rounds.

I say reputed because I refused to watch that and Berbick because of the years of obvious physical decline prior rendering Ali equivalent to an oversized 8 yr old.

What fighter wants to deliver the coupe de grace of permanent if not fatal injury on the great champ?

See Big Niko vs Field as another example.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Tubby Lar who was still skinny then is reputed to carry Ali the best he could while winning the rounds.

I say reputed because I refused to watch that and Berbick because of the years of obvious physical decline prior rendering Ali equivalent to an oversized 8 yr old.

What fighter wants to deliver the coupe de grace of permanent if not fatal injury on the great champ?

See Big Niko vs Field as another example.

Don't watch it . . . It turns my stomach . . . There are a couple of times where Ali shakes and stumbles without being hit, just trying to make a quick move was beyond his capability. It is sad very sad.

[Willie Pep 229]

Ok, being serious for a moment... other than you of course wish it to be so, what makes you say something strange like that?

What evidence do we have to suggest, that fights where boxers carry each other - "works" as billeau2 calls them - are more prevalent today than back in the day? Back during hard times, where most boxers just wanted to make a little money - against other boxers in the same situation as themselves. Wouldn't it have been in everybody's best interest to get through these fights as painlessly as possible - rather than trying to knock each other's head off! Is it just me... or doesn't this sound fairly sensible?

You can probably find those kinds of fights today but they're taking place in 2nd world countries like Russia and such. But certainly not in Vegas.

Today there is too much money in becoming a champion not to go all in for every fight.

It's also why you can't fix a fight like in the good old days. Sure you can get guys to lay down for record building purposes, but they'll never be able to fix a championship go ever again.

In contradiction to what I just said, LOL A few years back there was a WBA Super HW title or some nonsense like that, that was being passed back and forth between multiple Russian fighters. The title never left Russia. What they were doing, at least how it looked on paper, was taking turns playing at champion. I got the feeling the fights were being staged in high school gymnasiums, or possibly in a parking lot.

[them_apples]

Ok, being serious for a moment... other than you of course wish it to be so, what makes you say something strange like that?

What evidence do we have to suggest, that fights where boxers carry each other - "works" as billeau2 calls them - are more prevalent today than back in the day? Back during hard times, where most boxers just wanted to make a little money - against other boxers in the same situation as themselves. Wouldn't it have been in everybody's best interest to get through these fights as painlessly as possible - rather than trying to knock each other's head off! Is it just me... or doesn't this sound fairly sensible?

These type of responses are literally pointless. This is a forum where we are sharing opinions and can only do so much as to explain why we hold these opinions.

we won’t be finding much in the way of dead factual proof on many topics. Do I have to keep wording things every 2 sentences to remind you that this is an opinion I hold? Doesn’t make any sense.

your opinion that modern fighters have improved with modern conditioning is just an opinion and you wish it to be so. Not much point in arguing about that - so stop responding with posts demanding facts when you won’t get any from anyone because we are discussing fights that happened 50+ years ago. Yeah its easy to get facts on the colour of ones trunks, but facts involving 500 billion intangibles won’t happen.

supporting points on a opinions we hold is all we have. I don’t think you have enough evidence to show that old fighters regularly were friends who went easy on each other to make money. Like anything this only happens in certain instances. But likewise I’ve seen enough contemporary fighters slip up on fake rivalries they have created - almost fist bumping each-other after the fact.

do you think Canelo and GGG “went all out” ?
When Mayweather danced around the ring after fighting Pacquiao, do you think they went all out? Was that a great performance? (I really don’t think so and I’ve watched that fight so many times). Don’t even get me started on Floyd vs Mcgregor.

remember the fraudulence usually comes out years after the fact. Non of the info we got on old fighters was floating around like it is today. Everyone believed whatever was sent their way.

[Bundana]

These type of responses are literally pointless. This is a forum where we are sharing opinions and can only do so much as to explain why we hold these opinions.

we won�t be finding much in the way of dead factual proof on many topics. Do I have to keep wording things every 2 sentences to remind you that this is an opinion I hold? Doesn�t make any sense.

your opinion that modern fighters have improved with modern conditioning is just an opinion and you wish it to be so. Not much point in arguing about that - so stop responding with posts demanding facts when you won�t get any from anyone because we are discussing fights that happened 50+ years ago. Yeah its easy to get facts on the colour of ones trunks, but facts involving 500 billion intangibles won�t happen.

supporting points on a opinions we hold is all we have. I don�t think you have enough evidence to show that old fighters regularly were friends who went easy on each other to make money. Like anything this only happens in certain instances. But likewise I�ve seen enough contemporary fighters slip up on fake rivalries they have created - almost fist bumping each-other after the fact.

do you think Canelo and GGG �went all out� ?
When Mayweather danced around the ring after fighting Pacquiao, do you think they went all out? Was that a great performance? (I really don�t think so and I�ve watched that fight so many times). Don�t even get me started on Floyd vs Mcgregor.

remember the fraudulence usually comes out years after the fact. Non of the info we got on old fighters was floating around like it is today. Everyone believed whatever was sent their way.

Just because you despise modern boxers, doesn't mean Canelo carried GGG - or Mayweather carried Pacquiao!


A carry-job is when someone like Canzenori refused to humiliate fellow-ATG Dundee... who at the time was coming to the close of a long career:
BoxRec: Event


A "work" is when BOTH boxers refuse to do any fighting, and try to carry EACH OTHER.
Like Mickey Walker vs Jimmy Jones:
BoxRec: Event

Or Paul Berlenbach vs Tony Marullo:
BoxRec: Event

Or Harry Wills vs Sam McVea:
BoxRec: Event

Or Maxie Rosenbloom vs Jim Braddock:
BoxRec: Event

Or Young Stribling vs Leo Deibel:
BoxRec: Event

Or Joe Dundee vs Pinky Mitchell:
BoxRec: Event


... and hundreds of fights like those, between lesser known journeymen, who tried to survive the hard times by helping each other.


Why is it unfair of me, when I question your opinions? If I told everybody here, that oldtimers had weaker chins that today's boxers, and also were softies who gave up too quickly, when faced with adversity... would you not question, where on earth I get that from? Would you not want to see at least SOME KIND of evidence, that could back up such a statement? I would find it strange, if you wouldn't!

But apparently you feel you should be able to come on here, and post whatever weirdness you can dream up in your fantasy, in order to denigrate modern boxers - and not have anyone question your opinions. I don't think so!

[ShoulderRoll]

Stephen "Breadman" Edwards was asked what benefit there would be to taking more frequent, non-title bouts against opponents with few fights or losing records.

I felt his answer was spot on.


Bread's Response: I think Duran took non title fights because it was the custom of the time. It helps you stay sharp without having long grinding camps and it helps you stay close to the weight. In this era it wouldn't work because the money is different and it seems to get forbidden by the big bosses.

It always helps a fighter to stay sharp. Anything involving skill, requires repetition. So fighting often is good as long as you aren't fighting killer after killer. But again, I think the economics are different today.