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

[Elroy1]

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in
places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their
food and tyrannize their teachers."

Socrates c. 415 B.C.

You know I partially agree here, it SEEMS to me that Gen Y kids are far spoilt and worse mannered compared to Gen X which were worse than the Boomers..

But the Socrates signature turns our perceptions on their head here. If we extrapolate this all the way back to 415 BC as would be the logical conclusion here to do, we find that people got better and better the further back in time we go.

But we see the OPPOSITE in every way.. Abject slavery was abolished only recently. Oragnised religion was most prevalent PREVIOUSLY... Public slaughter was most prevalent in the past. People are smarter and have a greater knowledge base and technology than ever before and they have been getting athletically more superior with every generation.

So something is not right with Socrates view and your current one which is aligned to it...

Today, right here on Boxingscene, we have a term for such views....

OLD TIME NUT BAGGERY! (OTNB)

[billeau2]

Holy was tough, however he never actually beat a SHW that was relevant other than Foreman who was slow and maybe Mercer...Holyfield was maybe as close to perfect fighter as one can get, his main problem was long tall jabbers...He beat Bowe once but that's maybe his top win. he surley would have been more successful at cruiserweight, with less competiton and much weaker punchers along with having less to deal with rangy fighters.Toney never beat anyone of note we all know this, certainly don't think beating a fighter way past prime is anything special also considering Toney rarely took solid shots and had excellent defense ,I find it hard to believe Holyfield after Lewis had much left, without that footwork he relied on he was done he slowed down tremendously no matter what shape was in ,Toney fought in the pocket and didn't have to really move anywhere so advantage...Toney .In short Holyfield could look good against Valuev rather easy b/c of how extremely slow he was and less talented...im not really sure what any 2000's Holyfield proves no matter what he would weigh?


I don't consider Arreola the top heap of the division maybe at some poinhe was,he was a pretty good track star and basketball player...I don't recall him ever gassing ,he was a pretty good athlete like Toney very deceptive looking. The thing with Toney is hes not structured to carry 230 plus pounds at 5'11 but it makes him very difficult to take out.Looking at te current stack of the heap you have extrely in shape guys...Haye /Wilder/ Povetkin Klitchko /Joshua/Parker/ Pulev / Arias / Chisora/ the Bowe look alike I forgot his name...there are many in shape guys...and even Fury who is also deceiving looking.

Thats an excellent analysis of the Holy Toney fight...I agree, HOly like most fighters lost a lot of movement and he needed this movement to press which is how he beat the bigger guys. This indeed worked in Toney's favor. I would extend this analysis to Sam Peter. A guy who had decent punching but could not move, and managed to get in shape the second fight enough to eek out a win against Toney, like a respectable heavyweight should. I don't think much of the guys Toney beat either, but they were a pretty good sample of the division at the time.

[billeau2]

If you can punch that many punches in a fight that's a clear indication of the shape someones in if anything. Well grappling was allowed more in those days,however does it take more out you ,or does it give you more rest?I think its probably both bt you cant go by grappling,isnt that is what todays division is most noted for? I think theres more grappling today but it gets broken up more,so its a what if? I do agree that its the conditions of the eras..however that's the point...the myth todays fighters are out of shape isn't really true...they may breath heavier but so does any bigger guy who has to intake more oxygen.....the smaller fighter can beat a bigger one but that's also depending on the individual.

One has to take a fighter's condition on a case by case basis. Most people do not understand the point you made about Oxygen efficiency. This is the reason why a large guy in perfect physical condition will probably never win the Boston Marathon.

Grappling effectively (as you know) is a lot about efficiency. And again...some of the old timers showed tremendous skills in this department while others, not so much....

An interesting aside Juggy. Danzen Ryu master Henry Oasaku and his group had jiu jitsu matches with boxers from around 1910 and onward. There was borrowing to some degree, this included wrestlers, so its possible there were wrestling and jiu Jitsu techniques acquired by boxers. Judo also. I have an old Japanese manual originally written when the Portugese came in around the 16 hundreds and...some of the Japanese KoRyu sword schools adapted techniques from the thrusting/stabbing attack of the Spanish styled fencers who were the Portugese fighting men.

So there was probably some borrowing, at least up until the second world war, but in Brazil Judo was practiced and developed at this time.

I just wonder how much borrowing actually found its way into the ring because I have noticed some guys using technique that looks like Judo based standing grappling.

[billeau2]

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in
places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their
food and tyrannize their teachers."

Socrates c. 415 B.C.

From the Euthyphro dialogue I believe on piety. What is piety being the question.

oh man!! I would give something of value to see Socrates set Elroid up! Plato wrote all Socratic dialogues as Socrates never wrote anything down so he would have to be there as the scribe.

Socrates: ah who is thy pinhead who I have the pleasure of speaking?

Elroid: Elroid and thats a fact as I know and can tell all who want to know that fighters today are superior in every regard and thats a fact!

Socrates: my on my being in the presence of such brilliance, please excuse as I shield my eyes for you sir have succeeded where virtually all have been wont to fail. Would you please endevour to tell this old fool what a fact is? for many moons have passed and yet...

And this would be the start and finish of Elroid! I doubt boxing would ever enter the picture

[billeau2]

You know I partially agree here, it SEEMS to me that Gen Y kids are far spoilt and worse mannered compared to Gen X which were worse than the Boomers..

But the Socrates signature turns our perceptions on their head here. If we extrapolate this all the way back to 415 BC as would be the logical conclusion here to do, we find that people got better and better the further back in time we go.

But we see the OPPOSITE in every way.. Abject slavery was abolished only recently. Oragnised religion was most prevalent PREVIOUSLY... Public slaughter was most prevalent in the past. People are smarter and have a greater knowledge base and technology than ever before and they have been getting athletically more superior with every generation.

So something is not right with Socrates view and your current one which is aligned to it...

Today, right here on Boxingscene, we have a term for such views....

OLD TIME NUT BAGGERY! (OTNB)

Logic has nothng to do with "views" it applies at all times in all places. So for example: Maybe you like the color purple but on mars the color purple is hated...that is a perception of sorts.

But 2+2 will always = 4 here, and on the other side of the universe. You are confusing so many kinds of knowledge but to think that people are in some way better, or worse, as a whole would mean that your IQ has to be really low...thats the only explanation for reaching a conclusion like you did.

The Socratic dialogues are still used today by people...the logic is not "better, or worse" it is relevance. For example the argument for patriotism is taught in military academies from the Socratic dialogue "the apology" because it is relevant...not better or worse.

your an idiot and I think it must be dawning on you that this statement is a fact.

[them_apples]

Boxing is an old ass sport and its one of the only sports where it is a goal to give your oponent a concussion. I sort of feel the rougher times of yesteryear cater better to this than the current day. Also there are few good coaches around today to pass down good info. Back in the day boxing was a deep sport with a ton of knowledge going around.

You can definently see improvements coming out of jack johnsons era but the line gets blurry right around the 1940s. The old timers were clearly realists with a lot of balls so when you see them utilizing skills it kind of gives them the best of both worlds.

Once in a while we get a throwback and you can see first hand that toughness and balls still play a big role in boxing, but the fighters like this are few and far between.

People ranted about gatti, ward and margarito for example; you can see their faces after fights all swelled up. They beat up more athletically gifted fighters with pure will power. (even with the illegal wraps, commend margarito for walking through cottos punches both times, and taking pacquiaos best shots for 12 brutal rounds).

Ok, now go have a look at some vintage boxers. They ALL had toughness and heart to the highest pedigree. Many of them walked away with faces looking like gatti and ward. Take into account that some of these guys were great athlètes as well (robinson, gavilian, armstrong, duran, hagler, leonard etc).

For me there isn't much of a comparison. The boxers back in the day were simply a more serious breed who did nothing but fight from day 1.

I could see a guy like carmen basilio simply going balls to the wall on a guy like adrian broner and beating the **** out of him because he was a fearless mofo who came to fight for 15 rounds.

[Elroy1]

Logic has nothng to do with "views" it applies at all times in all places. So for example: Maybe you like the color purple but on mars the color purple is hated...that is a perception of sorts.

But 2+2 will always = 4 here, and on the other side of the universe. You are confusing so many kinds of knowledge but to think that people are in some way better, or worse, as a whole would mean that your IQ has to be really low...thats the only explanation for reaching a conclusion like you did.

The Socratic dialogues are still used today by people...the logic is not "better, or worse" it is relevance. For example the argument for patriotism is taught in military academies from the Socratic dialogue "the apology" because it is relevant...not better or worse.

your an idiot and I think it must be dawning on you that this statement is a fact.

So just to recap... I showed un-controversially how this Socratic statement must be false.. And you rebut in the face of all reason to hold it to be true..

Socrates statement was in itself the perception and my statement, the actual fact.. Obviously!!

But I am the idiot right???

Your not even doing a good job of selling the nutbaggery anything in the intelligence department..

And you are the BEST they have to offer???

PPPPlease!!!

[Ray Corso]

Elroy take a break son, your getting your azz handed to you and if you really don't know it your even dumber than you write!

Your tko'd while in a daze so go to the nearest corner and rest! The KO is near

Take a break kid........ your done for now......

Ray

[The Old LefHook]

Elroy take a break son, your getting your azz handed to you and if you really don't know it your even dumber than you write!

Your tko'd while in a daze so go to the nearest corner and rest! The KO is near

Take a break kid........ your done for now......

Ray

He is dumb, Ray. All one has to do is introduce classic words of wisdom that are of interest to all mankind to highlight this shallowness, as he rushes in where angels fear to tread. He missed the point of the quote, he missed the point of the thread and he missed the quote's relation to the thread.

The power of the quote is in realizing the perspective from which it comes is universal, the perspective of an elder, the conservative perspective, has always been there, predating the youthful perspective by exactly and merely one generation. The quote does exactly what good poetry does--it connects us to men of times long past by showing they were identical to us in many ways we count as our most human traits. The clash of age and youth is very old, after all. It is a human universal. Cronus overthrew his father Uranus, and then proceeded to eat his own children to prevent his own overthrow. This myth recognized that the overthrower is usually no better than the overthrown, and that truth belongs to neither, and there is no ladder of moral ascent from one generation to the next.

Elroy's puerile attempt to extrapolate backwards from each generation and thereby show that mankind has gotten better because their elders were always wrong, is a piece of real scholarship, isn't it? He holds all other events in the world still, while he does his extrapolation, as if only what elders and youngsters said at dinner mattered.

The scholarly conclusion is again: NUTBAGGERY. The man really had ought to be teaching at a major university with that kind of intellectual equipment. His focus and power of thought are unbelievable.

Ah, well. I don't mind manhandling the boy from time to time for the good of the public cause.

[Elroy1]

Hmm that's funny Ray..

Because it seems to me I have three nut bags here trying their best and I'm simply chucking them all around like ****in rag dolls using little more than simple logic and common sense!!

Nut baggery can't compete with that!!



This is what I think of your "opinion" Ray..

:bukkake: