Is the "Old vs New" debate unique to boxing?

[billeau2]

You can measure these things objectively these days, you can measure an athletes maximal aerobic capacity using a metabolic cart, top fighters have access to these things now. Things have moved on from only relying on an old guy in some dingy gym.

Tony Galento? See, that was easy.

Ha I knew you would mention Galento i was toying with the idea of addressing that beforehand in the other post...two things about Tony:

He really stands out because of his alleged condition, so he was rather an anomolie, as compared to today where a lot of boxing heavyweights (not as many MMA heavyweights) are obviously carrying extra heft, usually fat.

Second thing is, He could fight and throw punches...quite a few and managed to perform effectively.

I understand that we measure and that we have specific training that addresses more abstract areas of conditioning but...in the final analysis what we look at is, and always will be performance. The reason I say this is not to be unscientific. When one looks at Tunney versus Dempsey for example, you are looking at an example of two fighters in peak condition. That is the goal of training. How one gets in peak condition is important, but secondary really. Sometimes athletes can borrow fitness developments and make it a development that really makes a difference. So, Nautilus training created for college football teams became a philosophy of training (maximum intensity, minimum time) that was revolutionary. The proof of which is how football players suddenly got bigger and stronger. Even when controlling for steriods.

Your too smart to buy the "old guy in dingy gym" garbage, I won't even respond to that. Athletes condition to perform. There is a school of thought that says if you took Lamont Brewster and took off his excess weight you would have Joe Louis, in effect. I am not so sure of that. I am not so sure that given new conditions in boxing, that it might be better for fighters to try to train for certain different goals related to glove size, etc. What I do know as fact is that fighters traditionally were trained in such a way that they could perform well, were in great shape to box traditionally.

[billeau2]

Yes pretty much 30 year olds of the 1930's were the equivalent of 50 year olds today.

In summary, the "Old vs New" debate, really isn't a debate at all...

It's just that the nutbaggery will always try to make it LOOK like there is a debate...

The overarching principles are thus...

Boxers in general get better and better from generation to generation..

Todays bums would have been yesterdays champs and most importantly...

Yesterdays champs would be today- absolute tomato cans!!

Those are the facts!

It is utterly unimaginable how effortlessly Chris Arreola could have squeezed every ounce of life out of someone like Joe Louis!

One generation

30 year olds the equivalent of 50 year olds...your so ****** I bet you don't know that aging statistics are based on how many people live to advanced age, not the condition of people who live to an advanced age. People lived less in general because of diseases, smoking, etc...but there were always some who lived healthy lives longer. it had nothing to do with their general health and fitness you idiot! you had people who lived to 100 in the roman empire you dolt!

You are your own worse enemy

Learn how long a generation is to start with. Well take it from there

[billeau2]

No, once again, that is simply a nut bag misjudgement OR a nut bag cover up of the real facts..

Basically I skimmed through all of those extensive posts from the more hardened nut bags above and what I found was misconception after misconception..

Some like Bill know that his opinions are nearly totally worthless and he doesn't even believe in them himself. But he knows if he posts really long winded amounts of BS there will be a lot of people who will just choose to accept he knows what's happening.

Specifically here, the only reason guys like Robinson had such extensive careers is because of the extreme bumminess of their competition.

It's obvious that nobody can have 3 figures worth of fights on their record AND have compiled it against good competition!

In fact the opposite is true. Where ever you see this amount of fights, you can be fully assured the fighter was a bum buster mainly!

Today it would be completely unacceptable behaviour for a champion boxer to fight such trash as did Robinson. And the media, sanctioning bodies and fan bases would simply not tolerate it.

Thats called providing proof and facts to back up an opinion. Also giving examples. You don't bother with that though do you? Its just the way it is because I say so! says el ******o australian nutbag elroy

[billeau2]

Elroy again get it through your head your **** will not fly here

Get it through your head champ, Ill be right there with you champ of the nutbags!!! got it champ? where you go and try to put down **** for fertilizer, you got no seeds, you dig?

Your nonsense cannot take root in an environment where the laws of common sense and rationality are sufficient, so pack up your wares, leave and don't let the door hit you on the azz sir nut bag

You have tried your best everytime grabbing when you sense dissention between posters...and you cannot get **** started..

Too bad! again may I suggest taking the radio into the bath with you making sure it is plugged in...

[Syf]

As a practitioner of martial arts and boxing for years, I know that not as much has changed as people have let on. Man will always have two hands, two feet, and 1 heart, and the way that they use them. Sports science has transformed other sports, but central to boxing is the concept of strategy, technique, tenacity, and execution trumping all.

Skill level is apparent to see whether you are viewing tape from yesterday or 90 years ago. Skill is all important. The concept of evolution always holding true pertaining to fighting arts is not true either. In martial arts, there has in fact been a de-evolution over thousands of years as ancient techniques and disciplines are watered down. Communism, the advent of gun powder, and McDojos. This concept of evolution is precisely hinged upon outside factors and stimuli remaining constantly harsh to hone specimen gradually along a progressive line. But factors and stimuli, for martial artists, have in fact, become different. In addition, important teachings have not been passed down in some cases as the old guard were killed off by the commies. Now, in today's world, there is less impetus for them to develop the razor sharp skill of the past. Even mma'ers only stand the threat of a loss if their skill isn't honed well enough... Martial artists of the past needed their skills for the battlefield.

In much the same way, boxing may have a physical facelift due to modern advances in sports science.... But it's entirely possible for skill levels to REGRESS instead of progress. Progress should not be assumed it should be earned. Study the past greats, see their methodologies... Incorporate what you can, while benefitting from advances in sports science. That's the ONLY way so called evolution can occur in fighting arts.

Skill and technique trumps all.

[billeau2]

As a practitioner of martial arts and boxing for years, I know that not as much has changed as people have let on. Man will always have two hands, two feet, and 1 heart, and the way that they use them. Sports science has transformed other sports, but central to boxing is the concept of strategy, technique, tenacity, and execution trumping all.

Skill level is apparent to see whether you are viewing tape from yesterday or 90 years ago. Skill is all important. The concept of evolution always holding true pertaining to fighting arts is not true either. In martial arts, there has in fact been a de-evolution over thousands of years as ancient techniques and disciplines are watered down. Communism, the advent of gun powder, and McDojos. This concept of evolution is precisely hinged upon outside factors and stimuli remaining constantly harsh to hone specimen gradually along a progressive line. But factors and stimuli, for martial artists, have in fact, become different. In addition, important teachings have not been passed down in some cases as the old guard were killed off by the commies. Now, in today's world, there is less impetus for them to develop the razor sharp skill of the past. Even mma'ers only stand the threat of a loss if their skill isn't honed well enough... Martial artists of the past needed their skills for the battlefield.

In much the same way, boxing may have a physical facelift due to modern advances in sports science.... But it's entirely possible for skill levels to REGRESS instead of progress. Progress should not be assumed it should be earned. Study the past greats, see their methodologies... Incorporate what you can, while benefitting from advances in sports science. That's the ONLY way so called evolution can occur in fighting arts.

Skill and technique trumps all.

Ah some help has arrived! Chinese communism is a great example, it pushed the greatest Chinese boxers over to Formosa, otherwise known as Tiawan. Unfortunately not all of them made it...many were killed in events like the boxer rebellion, etc. Chinese martial arts were evolved in the 1500's, military men from the ming dynasty were reviewing the "terrible stick fighting techniques" that were taught in the Shao Lin temple!

Most traditional martial artists accept the fact that when the martial arts become "Budo" in Japan replacing the KoRyu Bushido arts, and when the Chinese Arts became Kung Fu and later on Wu Shu, from Chinese Boxing that the arts had been watered down, civilized so they could be spread from warriors, a caste system in the case of Japan, to the common people.

Absolutely correct post...In fist fighting if you screw up you get a fat lip, with a sword you are dead. the Japanese had an ingenius way of trying to convey swordsmanship principles to a cast where people were not allowed to carry swords anymore...a privalege that was taken from the Samurai Caste just before the second world war... The art of Kendo is practiced with Shinai and involves all the trappings of swordsmanship, but there it has been so "Watered down" that people hit with the shinai, instead of cutting and angles have been eliminated, much like fencing in the west...everything becomes speed and timing instead of body work and deception.

meanwhile in Diatoryu Aikijutsu which birthed Aikido, there are no swords in the art...instead the whole body and arm are used as a sword...one can practice the whole art for a lifetime and not even know that their whole art is a form of swordsmanship with no sword! the earlier unwatered down forms of AikiJutsu were used with the sword BTW.

WuShu in China has become glorified gymnastics really. Many people in the martial arts think modern forms are better because people can go full contact. To each his own...I don't think this is true, rather I believe that if you train to fight in a ring with pads on, you will excel at that. If your idea of self defense is a bar fight, taking someone down and kicking them in the head a few times this may work well for you.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I'm sure it happens with every sport. Just like movies, music, books. Anything really.

Of course, it's all mythical and can never be proven which is what keeps the conversation going. It's all good fun.

I prefer the old-timers since they appear to have possessed something many in the sport today do not, which is a hunger to crush the opponent at all costs. I think it's a question of killer instinct. Some guys have it, but not like a lot of the old-timers did, IMO.

And the old-timers fought 15 rounds, usually had more than 2 fights a year(sometimes 10 or 15 even), wore the horsehair gloves without so much padding and fought at a time when there were 8 recognized boxing champions- one per division. They had harder assignments and had to overcome harder opposition. There are divas today because divas are allowed. A diva wouldn't last in the 1960s and before.

Of course, the younger fighters do get the supplements and diets they old-timers didn't have or know about. Their lifestyles can be much better since they make more money, but I have to wonder if this makes them soft as well. Anyone who has any talent can get a belt in this day and age.

So, there are pros and cons to both sides. And yes, the debate will go on forever, in boxing and every other sport or competitive field.

[Elroy1]

Unbelievable!!

I wonder how many of you guys sprouting such utter tripe in here about "the good old days" ACTUALLY watch those old fights as a form of entertainment as opposed to modern fights...

Somehow I really don't think so!!!

[juggernaut666]

As a practitioner of martial arts and boxing for years, I know that not as much has changed as people have let on. Man will always have two hands, two feet, and 1 heart, and the way that they use them. Sports science has transformed other sports, but central to boxing is the concept of strategy, technique, tenacity, and execution trumping all.

Skill level is apparent to see whether you are viewing tape from yesterday or 90 years ago. Skill is all important. The concept of evolution always holding true pertaining to fighting arts is not true either. In martial arts, there has in fact been a de-evolution over thousands of years as ancient techniques and disciplines are watered down. Communism, the advent of gun powder, and McDojos. This concept of evolution is precisely hinged upon outside factors and stimuli remaining constantly harsh to hone specimen gradually along a progressive line. But factors and stimuli, for martial artists, have in fact, become different. In addition, important teachings have not been passed down in some cases as the old guard were killed off by the commies. Now, in today's world, there is less impetus for them to develop the razor sharp skill of the past. Even mma'ers only stand the threat of a loss if their skill isn't honed well enough... Martial artists of the past needed their skills for the battlefield.

In much the same way, boxing may have a physical facelift due to modern advances in sports science.... But it's entirely possible for skill levels to REGRESS instead of progress. Progress should not be assumed it should be earned. Study the past greats, see their methodologies... Incorporate what you can, while benefitting from advances in sports science. That's the ONLY way so called evolution can occur in fighting arts.

Skill and technique trumps all.

You are simply wrong here....humans age far less on average now,,,,this gives them more prime years as to the old school athletes. Take two athletes of the same age and compare them....what did Ali at 32 look like compared to klitchko at 40 now? that's one example....Floyd Mayweather? Many or most fightwers look and perform better longer...Even Tyson though he was not the same fighter or holyfield...and FOREMAN.....being stronger than in his 20's.....I don't know what else to say! what skill levels have actually regressed...overall particularly defense is much more employed today,fighters move more and this started with the 80's. Martial arts isn't sport fighting..... only thing about martial arts is there are is theres less better teachers now who actually know what they are doing, thats not athletic performance and has nothing to do with athletics competition unless you are training to fight a specific person such as MMA which I covered.

skill and techinique are only applied to what the individual is up against or what the individual is capable himself...would you like any cruiserweight chance over Fury or Wlad...Howabout Mayweather over Butterbean? lol

[juggernaut666]

I'm sure it happens with every sport. Just like movies, music, books. Anything really.

Of course, it's all mythical and can never be proven which is what keeps the conversation going. It's all good fun.

I prefer the old-timers since they appear to have possessed something many in the sport today do not, which is a hunger to crush the opponent at all costs. I think it's a question of killer instinct. Some guys have it, but not like a lot of the old-timers did, IMO.

And the old-timers fought 15 rounds, usually had more than 2 fights a year(sometimes 10 or 15 even), wore the horsehair gloves without so much padding and fought at a time when there were 8 recognized boxing champions- one per division. They had harder assignments and had to overcome harder opposition. There are divas today because divas are allowed. A diva wouldn't last in the 1960s and before.

Of course, the younger fighters do get the supplements and diets they old-timers didn't have or know about. Their lifestyles can be much better since they make more money, but I have to wonder if this makes them soft as well. Anyone who has any talent can get a belt in this day and age.

So, there are pros and cons to both sides. And yes, the debate will go on forever, in boxing and every other sport or competitive field.

the better trained and well groomed fighter will beat the fighter who wants to win more who is also not as genetically gifted MOSt of the time...you can say fighter A would beat fighter B if they were in that era ,but that's a what if .....many top guys would be just average today just as well with better trained guys. you cant measure heart you can however measure the actual skills .