Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[QueensburyRules]

Well if you are going to take that stance, you havenât proved a lick either. Why are we even debating? Whats the use of our supporting evidence if it will never prove anything? For the record this is something I am aware of. We canât prove these things. But somewhere in-between we can debate them and ponder.

we had a massive thread on the chin idea, tons of ideas / supporting evidence was provided. Non of it is absolute proof. Absolutes shouldnât even be on the menu. I really donât understand why this bothers you.

I donât just say old fighters had tougher chins.

I said they have tougher chins because:

âthe ranks in pro boxing were filled with tougher chinned individuals, as the nature of the sport would only except this type. In fact Haglers coach (Not sure which p brother) said specifically that no matter how talented a fighter was, if he found out he was packing glass they would suggest you hang them up.â

Ok, so its one small snippet of info. Among many, just an example. I evens stated why the ranks would be full of tougher chinned fighters. You HAD to fight. I donât even need to dig up the 1000s of references that would imply the fight game in the 30s and 40s EXPECTED a fight. And if you didnât fight you didnât even get paid sometimes.

how is it you claim I never give any supporting evidence. Are you still stuck on the idea that you THINK I implied they evolved with better chins? I never said that so you can let that one rest.

boxers having better chins back in the day is the same concept of basketball players getting taller. They didnât grow taller, all the 7 fters are funneled into basketball now!

- - You asked an open ended question that has no definitive answer, nor have you provided one, and now grousing about someone not having proved their point in their answer to you?

Priceless!!!

[Bundana]

Well if you are going to take that stance, you havenât proved a lick either. Why are we even debating? Whats the use of our supporting evidence if it will never prove anything? For the record this is something I am aware of. We canât prove these things. But somewhere in-between we can debate them and ponder.

we had a massive thread on the chin idea, tons of ideas / supporting evidence was provided. Non of it is absolute proof. Absolutes shouldnât even be on the menu. I really donât understand why this bothers you.

I donât just say old fighters had tougher chins.

I said they have tougher chins because:

âthe ranks in pro boxing were filled with tougher chinned individuals, as the nature of the sport would only except this type. In fact Haglers coach (Not sure which p brother) said specifically that no matter how talented a fighter was, if he found out he was packing glass they would suggest you hang them up.â

Ok, so its one small snippet of info. Among many, just an example. I evens stated why the ranks would be full of tougher chinned fighters. You HAD to fight. I donât even need to dig up the 1000s of references that would imply the fight game in the 30s and 40s EXPECTED a fight. And if you didnât fight you didnât even get paid sometimes.

how is it you claim I never give any supporting evidence. Are you still stuck on the idea that you THINK I implied they evolved with better chins? I never said that so you can let that one rest.

boxers having better chins back in the day is the same concept of basketball players getting taller. They didnât grow taller, all the 7 fters are funneled into basketball now!

I thought this thread had run its course about a week ago... but if you insist!

You're right, I haven't proved anything - for the simple reason, that I haven't claimed anything! I'm not saying today's boxers are better, that they are better conditioned, that they have stronger chins, that padwork makes them better, that they fight harder. YOU are the one, who make outrageous claims - all with the purpose of making today's boxers look inferior.

"pro boxing were filled with tougher chinned individuals, as the nature of the sport would only except this type". Haven't we been over this already, and seen that this is something you simply make up... and that china-chinned boxers were able to make it into The Ring's Top-10 back in the day? So why do you keep on with this false idea?

Back in the day you HAD to fight, you say. I would put it slightly different: you had to SURVIVE!

Think about it: back during the depression/ND era tens of thousands part-time boxers tried their hand at boxing. Most of these were desperate to earn a little extra money, to make ends meet. They were not striving for a world title - they just wanted to be able to put food on the table.

So how did they go about this - by trying to bash in the heads of their opponents, many of which were in the same situation as themselves? In fights that didn't really mean anything? isn't it more likely that these fighters, who were all in the same (desperate) boat, so to speak, tried to help each other through hard times, without taking (or inflicting) too much punishment... so they could all live to fight another day? Wouldn't that make sense? That's probably why we see so many fights from that time, where the boxers were thrown out because they went too easy on each other - making the sham too obvious.

So no, there's no proof, that hard times created hard-chinned, courageous warriers, who were prepared to fight till they dropped. That's just a myth some people like to perpetuate - while at the same time trying to make today's boxers look like cowards, who quit too soon when the going gets tough. THIS is what I'm arguing against (if no one else will)!


By the way, of all the strange things you have said, one thing in paticular I can't get over: your claim that modern boxers have lost the oldschool skills, needed to set an opponent up for the coup de grâce! Do you really not know, how absurdly ridiculous this sounds? You MUST be aware, that this is total nonsense - so why do you say weird things like that?

[them_apples]

I thought this thread had run its course about a week ago... but if you insist!

You're right, I haven't proved anything - for the simple reason, that I haven't claimed anything! I'm not saying today's boxers are better, that they are better conditioned, that they have stronger chins, that padwork makes them better, that they fight harder. YOU are the one, who make outrageous claims - all with the purpose of making today's boxers look inferior.

"pro boxing were filled with tougher chinned individuals, as the nature of the sport would only except this type". Haven't we been over this already, and seen that this is something you simply make up... and that china-chinned boxers were able to make it into The Ring's Top-10 back in the day? So why do you keep on with this false idea?

Back in the day you HAD to fight, you say. I would put it slightly different: you had to SURVIVE!

Think about it: back during the depression/ND era tens of thousands part-time boxers tried their hand at boxing. Most of these were desperate to earn a little extra money, to make ends meet. They were not striving for a world title - they just wanted to be able to put food on the table.

So how did they go about this - by trying to bash in the heads of their opponents, many of which were in the same situation as themselves? In fights that didn't really mean anything? isn't it more likely that these fighters, who were all in the same (desperate) boat, so to speak, tried to help each other through hard times, without taking (or inflicting) too much punishment... so they could all live to fight another day? Wouldn't that make sense? That's probably why we see so many fights from that time, where the boxers were thrown out because they went too easy on each other - making the sham too obvious.

So no, there's no proof, that hard times created hard-chinned, courageous warriers, who were prepared to fight till they dropped. That's just a myth some people like to perpetuate - while at the same time trying to make today's boxers look like cowards, who quit too soon when the going gets tough. THIS is what I'm arguing against (if no one else will)!


By the way, of all the strange things you have said, one thing in paticular I can't get over: your claim that modern boxers have lost the oldschool skills, needed to set an opponent up for the coup de grâce! Do you really not know, how absurdly ridiculous this sounds? You MUST be aware, that this is total nonsense - so why do you say weird things like that?

This CLAIM idea you go on about….the only differentiation between me and you is I started the thread. What else would I call the thread? The post itself is just a series of opinions which you say is ok in your books. This would make sense seeing you spoint many opinions on the daily.

but yes, the CLAIM part you speak of, is simply the thread title. How unfair to separate me from you in my arguments on me making a CLAIM (aka thread title)

not only that, it was a great thread title, for a good part of 2022 it was filled with banter and many a great point was brought up. That thread made everyone smarter on both sides. So it was a great Claim.

you saw the small picture and you saw it well, but the big picture you didn’t see at all!

as for the nonsense part, the only thing nonsense is the tone in which you act appalled. Either you missed the angle on purpose or not, you know the intention of that opinion of mine was to denounce modern fighters ability to do so, not to say they were totally incapable of it. If that was the case then yes thats absurd, but whats more absurd is you getting that idea from what I’m saying. Clearly they aren’t magically unable to set someone up

[Bundana]

This CLAIM idea you go on aboutÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂæ.the only differentiation between me and you is I started the thread. What else would I call the thread? The post itself is just a series of opinions which you say is ok in your books. This would make sense seeing you spoint many opinions on the daily.

but yes, the CLAIM part you speak of, is simply the thread title. How unfair to separate me from you in my arguments on me making a CLAIM (aka thread title)

not only that, it was a great thread title, for a good part of 2022 it was filled with banter and many a great point was brought up. That thread made everyone smarter on both sides. So it was a great Claim.

you saw the small picture and you saw it well, but the big picture you didnâÂÂt see at all!

as for the nonsense part, the only thing nonsense is the tone in which you act appalled. Either you missed the angle on purpose or not, you know the intention of that opinion of mine was to denounce modern fighters ability to do so, not to say they were totally incapable of it. If that was the case then yes thats absurd, but whats more absurd is you getting that idea from what Iâm saying. Clearly they arenât magically unable to set someone up

The CLAIM thing is not just about the title of that thread - but about the many mysterious things you claim in post after post.

For some reason you continue with this thing about how the oldtimers HAD to have a strong chin to make it - even though we have seen, that this isn't true.

That most modern fighters have glass chins... well, I have yet to see an explanation, for why this could be the case.

Boxers today giving up too soon - compared to the oldtimers, who of course fought to the bitter end? How can we possibly judge that, when more than 99% of what went on "back in the day" is hidden from us (no footage)?

As for modern boxers having lost the knowhow to put an opponent away, you say: "the intention of that opinion of mine was to denounce modern fighters ability to do so, not to say they were totally incapable of it". The obvious question here would of course be: Why would you even try to denounce modern fighters ability to do so, when there's obviously nothing that backs up such a weird opinion. Looks to me like just another strange attempt to belittle modern boxers.


What REALLY baffles me, is this almost maniacal obsession of yours, to put down modern boxing/boxers every chance you get! Nothing today is good enough, and in every category you can dream of, the moderns can't compare to the oldtimers. I can't recall having seen bias this onesided before!

[kara]

The CLAIM thing is not just about the title of that thread - but about the many mysterious things you claim in post after post.

For some reason you continue with this thing about how the oldtimers HAD to have a strong chin to make it - even though we have seen, that this isn't true.

That most modern fighters have glass chins... well, I have yet to see an explanation, for why this could be the case.

Boxers today giving up too soon - compared to the oldtimers, who of course fought to the bitter end? How can we possibly judge that, when more than 99% of what went on "back in the day" is hidden from us (no footage)?

As for modern boxers having lost the knowhow to put an opponent away, you say: "the intention of that opinion of mine was to denounce modern fighters ability to do so, not to say they were totally incapable of it". The obvious question here would of course be: Why would you even try to denounce modern fighters ability to do so, when there's obviously nothing that backs up such a weird opinion. Looks to me like just another strange attempt to belittle modern boxers.


What REALLY baffles me, is this almost maniacal obsession of yours, to put down modern boxing/boxers every chance you get! Nothing today is good enough, and in every category you can dream of, the moderns can't compare to the oldtimers. I can't recall having seen bias this onesided before!

It's very hard to compare fighters from yesteryear to the guys of today. Maybe Joe Frazier wipes the floor with Tyson Fury or maybe Fury demolishes him in one round. Very hard to compare guys in fantasy fashion.

[Bundana]

It's very hard to compare fighters from yesteryear to the guys of today. Maybe Joe Frazier wipes the floor with Tyson Fury or maybe Fury demolishes him in one round. Very hard to compare guys in fantasy fashion.

Very true!

[I_Didn't_Hear_No_Bell]

Boxers have clearly evolved to be better physically and technically since SRR, but the business of boxing has changed. Promoters are cherrypicking opponents from the start of their careers, even up and comers only fight a handful of times a year. You'll never see anyone dominate boxing to that level again because you'll never see anyone fight that many times again. Part of it is due to money, and part of it is due to what we know about CTE, and I can't begrudge fighters for wanting to make money and keep their brains mostly intact.

[QueensburyRules]

Boxers have clearly evolved to be better physically and technically since SRR, but the business of boxing has changed. Promoters are cherrypicking opponents from the start of their careers, even up and comers only fight a handful of times a year. You'll never see anyone dominate boxing to that level again because you'll never see anyone fight that many times again. Part of it is due to money, and part of it is due to what we know about CTE, and I can't begrudge fighters for wanting to make money and keep their brains mostly intact.

- - Your golden evolution opportunity to inform us how the above is true.

Yes, the business part of the sport has changed as it has changed all sports, however Boxing is the only major sport that is now a former major sport, relegated to the backwaters of disorganization.

See the hamhanded way the biggest money fight in the history of boxing was handled that generated a hundred million $$$ worth of lawsuits post fight.

[JAB5239]

Boxers have clearly evolved to be better physically and technically since SRR, but the business of boxing has changed. Promoters are cherrypicking opponents from the start of their careers, even up and comers only fight a handful of times a year. You'll never see anyone dominate boxing to that level again because you'll never see anyone fight that many times again. Part of it is due to money, and part of it is due to what we know about CTE, and I can't begrudge fighters for wanting to make money and keep their brains mostly intact.

(Sniff sniff) anyone else smell that smell? It smell like money.

[I_Didn't_Hear_No_Bell]

- - Your golden evolution opportunity to inform us how the above is true.

Yes, the business part of the sport has changed as it has changed all sports, however Boxing is the only major sport that is now a former major sport, relegated to the backwaters of disorganization.

See the hamhanded way the biggest money fight in the history of boxing was handled that generated a hundred million $$$ worth of lawsuits post fight.

Boxing isn't a former major sport, it's still a major sport, it does big numbers and makes boxers richer than ever. Again the business has changed, it moved to a PPV model, which means less eyes on the fights overall, but I don't see anyone paying 59.99 to watch a baseball game lol.