Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[QueensburyRules]

There's this idea out there... that the oldtimers were these brave warriers, who fought all the time, bettering themselves in tough fights and gaining experience, that modern fighters can only dream of!

Let's go back to boxing's "Golden Age" - the roaring 1920s. Smack in the middle of the ND era, where many boxers had a much busier schedule than today. But how much do we really know, about what was going on during that time?

In BoxRec's database there are more than 330,000 fights from that decade. How many of those can we watch on YouTube today? I don't know - but possibly less than 1%, would be my guess. As I said, I don't know - so I'm prepared to be corrected on that one!

Anyway, whether it's 1% or 2%, or whatever... what we have access to seems to be the absolute cream of the crop from that time. I can't find any down-the-bill 4 or 6 rounders between two journeymen, who would never amount to anything. Again, there may be some on YouTube - I just haven't come across any!

So my question is... what happened in the 98-99% of the (lower-level) fights, we can't examine? Is it too outlandish to think that, this being the ND era, some (certainly not all!) of these many fights between journeymen could have been "exhibition style" bouts... where the emphasis was more on getting to the finish line relatively unscathed, that it was on knocking each other's head off? I mean, they were all just trying to make a buck during hard times - so no reason to go all out on each other. Especially not, if they had another fight coming up just around the corner... which they of course sometimes had.

Yes, it's great to fantasize, that our heroes of yesteryear were all these courageus, tough men, who always came to fight. A nice thought indeed - but how close to reality is it?

What do you guys think?

- - Less than 0.1%

Ray a product of his offensive times also had a decent defense when needed.

IBRO fairly ranks him at middle, but most of his losses accumulate after his ill fated near death experience with heat prostration vs Maxim. Had he not let people talk him into LH, he'd have ruled another five years and retired richer than he did retire.

THAT SRR would prob merit #1middle. Only middle I might pick to beat him is Monzon that might go to a trilogy it would be such a good fight.

[billeau2]

There's this idea out there... that the oldtimers were these brave warriers, who fought all the time, bettering themselves in tough fights and gaining experience, that modern fighters can only dream of!

Let's go back to boxing's "Golden Age" - the roaring 1920s. Smack in the middle of the ND era, where many boxers had a much busier schedule than today. But how much do we really know, about what was going on during that time?

In BoxRec's database there are more than 330,000 fights from that decade. How many of those can we watch on YouTube today? I don't know - but possibly less than 1%, would be my guess. As I said, I don't know - so I'm prepared to be corrected on that one!

Anyway, whether it's 1% or 2%, or whatever... what we have access to seems to be the absolute cream of the crop from that time. I can't find any down-the-bill 4 or 6 rounders between two journeymen, who would never amount to anything. Again, there may be some on YouTube - I just haven't come across any!

So my question is... what happened in the 98-99% of the (lower-level) fights, we can't examine? Is it too outlandish to think that, this being the ND era, some (certainly not all!) of these many fights between journeymen could have been "exhibition style" bouts... where the emphasis was more on getting to the finish line relatively unscathed, that it was on knocking each other's head off? I mean, they were all just trying to make a buck during hard times - so no reason to go all out on each other. Especially not, if they had another fight coming up just around the corner... which they of course sometimes had.

Yes, it's great to fantasize, that our heroes of yesteryear were all these courageus, tough men, who always came to fight. A nice thought indeed - but how close to reality is it?

What do you guys think?

This idea you have that starts your post is in fact a Pendulum. It swings back and fourth between the old timers were skill deficient barbarians who basically hit each other in the face and grunted, swinging all the way to old timers being brave warriors, yada yada...

Both extremes are silly. If you look carefully at commentary and combatives you see similar things: when I was writing for the martial arts mags and you had these ads... these guys would write this crap like "them Samurai would fly kick warriors off of horses." And other ignorant musings...

There definitely has been a decline of certain values in America. People as a whole... make of that what you will.

[Willie Pep 229]

There's this idea out there... that the oldtimers were these brave warriers, who fought all the time, bettering themselves in tough fights and gaining experience, that modern fighters can only dream of!

Let's go back to boxing's "Golden Age" - the roaring 1920s. Smack in the middle of the ND era, where many boxers had a much busier schedule than today. But how much do we really know, about what was going on during that time?

In BoxRec's database there are more than 330,000 fights from that decade. How many of those can we watch on YouTube today? I don't know - but possibly less than 1%, would be my guess. As I said, I don't know - so I'm prepared to be corrected on that one!

Anyway, whether it's 1% or 2%, or whatever... what we have access to seems to be the absolute cream of the crop from that time. I can't find any down-the-bill 4 or 6 rounders between two journeymen, who would never amount to anything. Again, there may be some on YouTube - I just haven't come across any!

So my question is... what happened in the 98-99% of the (lower-level) fights, we can't examine? Is it too outlandish to think that, this being the ND era, some (certainly not all!) of these many fights between journeymen could have been "exhibition style" bouts... where the emphasis was more on getting to the finish line relatively unscathed, that it was on knocking each other's head off? I mean, they were all just trying to make a buck during hard times - so no reason to go all out on each other. Especially not, if they had another fight coming up just around the corner... which they of course sometimes had.

Yes, it's great to fantasize, that our heroes of yesteryear were all these courageus, tough men, who always came to fight. A nice thought indeed - but how close to reality is it?

What do you guys think?

Do you buy into the belief that a committed (i.e. loud) crowd can turn a boxing match turn into a fight?

While you are correct that we can't possibly know the reality of how the common ham and egg level fights actually played out, do you prescribe to the belief that a 1930s crowd would be more demanding and less tolerant of fighters who refused to engage, or do you believe a crowd is a crowd at any date. I.e. That crowd expectations have not really changed much?

I am not sure . . . I'm am asking.

What I would argue is that those crowds of yesterday were more hostile towards referees who stopped the action 'too quickly,' (little to no concern about fighter safety existed) and wonder if that same intolerance didn't carry over to what they demanded as far as the action goes.

Maybe you're correct, I am a romantic in my interpretation of the past, but also maybe the crowd's standards were higher and that forced more action than today. Maybe!

[Bundana]

This idea you have that starts your post is in fact a Pendulum. It swings back and fourth between the old timers were skill deficient barbarians who basically hit each other in the face and grunted, swinging all the way to old timers being brave warriors, yada yada...

Both extremes are silly. If you look carefully at commentary and combatives you see similar things: when I was writing for the martial arts mags and you had these ads... these guys would write this crap like "them Samurai would fly kick warriors off of horses." And other ignorant musings...

There definitely has been a decline of certain values in America. People as a whole... make of that what you will.

If you have read at least some of my posts here during the past decade - you will know, that I'm not taking side in the old vs new argument. If a fighter was great 100 years ago, it was because he was one of the best of his time. I don't think we can ask for more than that!

I don't even particularly care which eras are "better". My interest is boxing history, and finding out what really was going on at different times.

When I feel inclined to jump in with my opinion, it's when I read about how boxing nowadays is dying, that all the good traineres are disappearing, that most modern boxers have glass jaws... and how they are sissies, who wouldn't survive in the old days. You know, against true fighters, who were formed by harder times!

I'm sorry, but unverifiable nostalgic fantasies like that don't impress me!

[billeau2]

If you have read at least some of my posts here during the past decade - you will know, that I'm not taking side in the old vs new argument. If a fighter was great 100 years ago, it was because he was one of the best of his time. I don't think we can ask for more than that!

I don't even particularly care which eras are "better". My interest is boxing history, and finding out what really was going on at different times.

When I feel inclined to jump in with my opinion, it's when I read about how boxing nowadays is dying, that all the good traineres are disappearing, that most modern boxers have glass jaws... and how they are sissies, who wouldn't survive in the old days. You know, against true fighters, who were formed by harder times!

I'm sorry, but unverifiable nostalgic fantasies like that don't impress me!

it is just that Pendulum... New fighters through evolution are stronger, scientifically able to pass limits imposed by the environment (nutrition, etc), they punch harder etc etc... versus new fighters are sissies, no skills, etc.

I personally believe that all trends should be examined individually with a clear distinction between a correlation and a statistical meaningful change in some aspect. I try to go where the data takes me. I may not always succeed at this, but I do try lol!

[billeau2]

Do you buy into the belief that a committed (i.e. loud) crowd can turn a boxing match turn into a fight?

While you are correct that we can't possibly know the reality of how the common ham and egg level fights actually played out, do you prescribe to the belief that a 1930s crowd would be more demanding and less tolerant of fighters who refused to engage, or do you believe a crowd is a crowd at any date. I.e. That crowd expectations have not really changed much?

I am not sure . . . I'm am asking.

What I would argue is that those crowds of yesterday were more hostile towards referees who stopped the action 'too quickly,' (little to no concern about fighter safety existed) and wonder if that same intolerance didn't carry over to what they demanded as far as the action goes.

Maybe you're correct, I am a romantic in my interpretation of the past, but also maybe the crowd's standards were higher and that forced more action than today. Maybe!

Your post to Bundana made me consider something that has stuck in my proverbial craw for a while now... It is like that "elephant" in the middle of the room...Ok ok no more incomplete analogies! But people seem to never discuss the fact that a referee served as a judge, sometimes (in New jersey for a while) as the only judge, to score boxing matches.

I actually like this. I think it is instrumental to scoring a fight properly because the ref is looking directly at the action, it could even be argued he/she is part of the action. To me this was a great aspect of scoring fights that has gone by the wayside.

[Bundana]

Do you buy into the belief that a committed (i.e. loud) crowd can turn a boxing match turn into a fight?

While you are correct that we can't possibly know the reality of how the common ham and egg level fights actually played out, do you prescribe to the belief that a 1930s crowd would be more demanding and less tolerant of fighters who refused to engage, or do you believe a crowd is a crowd at any date. I.e. That crowd expectations have not really changed much?

I am not sure . . . I'm am asking.

What I would argue is that those crowds of yesterday were more hostile towards referees who stopped the action 'too quickly,' (little to no concern about fighter safety existed) and wonder if that same intolerance didn't carry over to what they demanded as far as the action goes.

Maybe you're correct, I am a romantic in my interpretation of the past, but also maybe the crowd's standards were higher and that forced more action than today. Maybe!

Do I think, that crowds back in the day may have been more demanding - forcing the journeymen of the time to engage in more action packed bouts, than we see today? That is certainly a possibility! But since I have never seen any of these fights, and therefore can't evaluate any crowd reaction... my answer must be, that I honestly don't know! I don't see, how anyone can have an opinion that can be seriously verified, when it comes to a question like this!

How about if fans 100 years ago, during the ND era, were so accustomed to fights (at least some of them) looking more like sparring sessions.. that they were more lenient, when it came to fights that weren't all-out action affairs? Isn't that a possibility as well?

As said - I don't really know!

[Willie Pep 229]

Do I think, that crowds back in the day may have been more demanding - forcing the journeymen of the time to engage in more action packed bouts, than we see today? That is certainly a possibility! But since I have never seen any of these fights, and therefore can't evaluate any crowd reaction... my answer must be, that I honestly don't know! I don't see, how anyone can have an opinion that can be seriously verified, when it comes to a question like this!

How about if fans 100 years ago, during the ND era, were so accustomed to fights (at least some of them) looking more like sparring sessions.. that they were more lenient, when it came to fights that weren't all-out action affairs? Isn't that a possibility as well?

As said - I don't really know!

RE Boldface

I do. You're negating historical study.

Let me say more so I don't sound like a troll.

I believe we can study a historical period and evaluate its social temperaments as compared with our own. All societies leave historical foot prints behind that tell us about their values.

Visual is only one message they can leave behind, there are many more clues out there.

I of course have not tried to study it, so you are correct about me, I don't know.

But thinking with my gut tells me that if I went after it I would probably find that a circa 1933 fight crowd is going to act differently than a 2022 crowd.

I think it is a reasonable historical evaluation that can be made, if studied.

[Bundana]

RE Boldface

I do. You're negating historical study.

Let me say more so I don't sound like a troll.

I believe we can study a historical period and evaluate its social temperaments as compared with our own. All societies leave historical foot prints behind that tell us about their values.

Visual is only one message they can leave behind, there are many more clues out there.

I of course have not tried to study it, so you are correct about me, I don't know.

But thinking with my gut tells me that if I went after it I would probably find that a circa 1933 fight crowd is going to act differently than a 2022 crowd.

I think it is a reasonable historical evaluation that can be made, if studied.

You may very well be right.

Do you also think there are historical foot prints, that can tell us about (for example) the average boxer's toughness and willingness to fight - in one era compared to another?

[QueensburyRules]

Your post to Bundana made me consider something that has stuck in my proverbial craw for a while now... It is like that "elephant" in the middle of the room...Ok ok no more incomplete analogies! But people seem to never discuss the fact that a referee served as a judge, sometimes (in New jersey for a while) as the only judge, to score boxing matches.

I actually like this. I think it is instrumental to scoring a fight properly because the ref is looking directly at the action, it could even be argued he/she is part of the action. To me this was a great aspect of scoring fights that has gone by the wayside.

- - Agree, and if and when when the ref blows it, no committee of judges can be found. Commish and ref solely to blame.

Mercante used supplemental rules to award Joe over Ali in FOCentury. The other 2 judges removed from the action had it wider for Joe as did I and as did Nat.