Interesting article on the pioneers of the early 20th century

[Pugilist_Spec]

http://postimg.org/image/8jjvn3rnn/

http://postimg.org/image/r5f6sd0f7/

Opinions?

[soul_survivor]

Good piece and in all honesty, it's what I've been saying for years and been eaten alive by so called historians on this forum. Ain't no heavyweight before Ali beating him and very few if any, since. If you watch footage of even Dempsey or Louis, you see that they too are slower, or less skilled in many departments when comparing to the modern class of heavyweights, which I believe vegan in the 60s, peaked in the 70s and has since been on a downward slope.

In fact, heavyweight boxing in now seems to have regressed to the 1890s, guys who are definitely strong but only throw one punch at a time, windmill every now and then and have slow, awkward footwork.

However, if we are to rank guys and we take H2H out of it, then we can only rank them based on hos good they were in their respective eras. Johnson was the greatest heavyweight of the early 20th century, Louis in the middle of the decade and so on. The same goes for any division but if someone thinks that Langford would be able to beat the best that hie height and weight have to offer since, then it gets ridiculous.

The problem is, a lot of guys, reporters or fans, in the hope of sounding smart, want to talk about the history of boxing and in doing so, they want to say "hey, you don't know **** if you think Langford wasn't the greatest fighter ever". The only way they can make such statements is if they avoid any footage or any truth.

[Eff Pandas]

I think nearly every discussion about "whos the best all time" or comparing athletes from different eras in a sport that goes back as far as boxing does is completely ridiculous & a child-like discussion on the level of who wins, Batman vs Superman or Jason vs Freddy.

Personally I just like knowing about fighters of different eras, what they accomplished, how they trained, how they fought, how they lived & that sort of stuff & not **** measure them vs Mike McCallum & James Toney or whoever & silly **** like that. I've honestly never understood the overwhelming desire for boxing fans to do that.

[billeau2]

http://postimg.org/image/8jjvn3rnn/

http://postimg.org/image/r5f6sd0f7/

Opinions?

This piece had a thread some time ago.

When you study Biology at some point you are told to look through a microscope. You are told you will see "Cells" and other such things, most of which you have seen crystal clear pictures of in textbooks, etc. You look through the eyepiece and see what amounts to chaos. Only after you are taught what you are looking at, and how to look at it, do you begin to see cells in a microscope. This is not the same as being influenced about an opinion...its more basic than that. Without guidance you will literally have no idea what you are looking for...

In this situation described above, the fact that the person does not know what he/she is looking for, is not the fault of the cells....We know cells exist don't we? People often think they understand combat enough to look at techniques from a very different era and make a judgement. These people may lionize, or, as this article does, be sceptical... but in either case there is a total lack of understanding about what one is looking at.

The long and short of it, is that boxing from this period was such that most of the approach took place at "sword's length" guys did not square up like they started to with Dempsey and on. I commented at length in the last thread where this piece was discussed and don't want to repeat myself, but comparing boxers and commenting as the author suggests is a very basic understanding. If you don't know what people were up to, you won't know what to look for...things like in a grapple trapping a hand, or using a grapple to get into position (JJohnson was a master at this)... Or setting up a combination with a feint preceded by a step in (you will never even see guys feint now), or hitting in such a way that the hands are not broken, are all the type of things one cannot see at a cursory glance.

They talk about Fitz at one point, describe him as tall, rangy and throwing random punches about....Yet this is a man who was able to pinpoint punches to the solar plexes and KO Corbett with such a punch. When an accurate puncher like Andre Ward connects just above the glove with his hook to his opponent's jaw, such accuracy is the same measure of the man. The punch is just delivered under different fighting systems.

So while articles that call into question certain sacred cows are a good thing, unfortunately the reality is that very few, if any boxing historians truly understand the technical differences and approaches of fighters of that time. IMO the watershed event had to happen with the heavyweights, because the heavyweight champs were the vanguard...being the heavyweight champ of the world was always a special honor.

If one were to watch a training tape where Gene Tunney worked with Corbett one would have at their view a man who virtually took the tools of the trade from a renowned technical fighter from the "old style"...that being Corbett, and combined this with the new emerging details of the new style, perhaps best being represented by Dempsey...who was the Floyd Mayweather (in terms of popularity) of his day.

Dempsey used smaller segmented body movements (different parts of the body moving at different times)....for example, instead of complete footwork to make an attack, repositioning the whole body initially, such as a fencer would do, Dempsey would simply step in with a bobbing movement and rely on his shoulders and head movements to avoid and set up his attack. Instead of a lead punch Dempsey would hook, feint right away, bob and weave, all while being right in front of his man. You would seldom see a fighter before Dempsey, in the heavyweight division, set up right in front of the opponent.

The Tunney Corbett tape shows Corbett explaining his approach which was, in many respects, a consumation of the technical details of the old way....everything from shooting an uppercut from a great distance, which looks like a really bad uppercut until one realizes that in those days, because you were not directly in front of your man, you would step in and set the punch up with footwork, usually catching the guy moving back with the uppercut, often turning it into a piston like lead thrown from an underhanded like position. Corbett also shows how much sparring depended on footwork with most punches looking like windmill punches...why? because the skills being developed for the spar do not show to a camera, they involved a lot of repositioning, footwork...In order to look good for the camera Corbett is throwing these blows to interest the viewer. One can see a similar thing with Grebb, sparring with (I thnk it was Obrien) Obrien...the sparring is not very interesting until one looks at how fleet of foot Grebb is...never the less when him and his partner lock in it looks nothing like when fighters are in that position today...because it is not important to them! the gloves are also ridiculously large (sparring mufflers) etc.

Anyhow, if one watches Tunney subsequently in his first fight with Dempsey one will see the contrast of how what looked almost silly with Corbett is applied against a menacing Dempsey. And this is a great example of what I am trying to point out because if you know what you are watching gusee what? Tunney's sense of distance and timing is immaculate, his ability to counter because of this allows him to stand in with Dempsey, and one can see in Tunney perhaps the last heavyweight championship fight where the old ways are used against the new approach one is familiar with these days. Innovation is a great thing and as trainers, like blackburn, etc focused on punching, and some of the things we see with Dempsey involving fighting distance, etc boxing did change. Gloves got bigger for one, and this allowed guys to square more and not injure the hands so much.

hope this helps people realize that while well intentioned, this author ultimately does not truly understand what he is looking for when looking at the older fighters....its in the feet, not the hands, and its in the distance and timing where the training shows.

[juggernaut666]

http://postimg.org/image/8jjvn3rnn/

http://postimg.org/image/r5f6sd0f7/

Opinions?

This was posted awhile back by battling nelson ,every era in some shape or form improved by good margins from the Jack Johnson times this should be evident to anyone who really studies combat ....the more competition you have in any sport generally inreases the quaity .I dont particularly see GREAT skills really not up until the 80's era did i see better technical boxing but i guess thats because i look at different things and generally watch fights with no sound to leave out unwanted cheering and often incompetence by ring announcers. I understand mechanics change so i go by modern rules regulations ,i just dont se the norm of being skilled with past eras ,there were not many stand outs in Louis type era ,many unrefined guys from what i see ,defence mainly and despite what most think i agree with jacobs on lack of action .Its subjective to what you think is suitable skills im just not one of those that see a great balance overall from those eras. I think the author is not comparing the fighters as much as to the hype behind the eras. As Ali said and Tyson every generation improves over the previous bc in some way its almost always true.

[Ray Corso]

I don't know why anyone tries to debate the facts that are on file from films and video's.
This past era's dominate heavyweights Rid****, Lennox, Wlad, Vitali, Corry, Hasim etc........with the exception of Chris Byrd are far behind men like Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Sonny Liston, Ali, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield!!!
The later all work within a boxers stance and movement, they lead with a jab to add combination punching. Except for Ali they all work the body to head, and they all have conditioning and stamina to go 15 rds.
The 2000 and up heavys are all "one / two" and their form is sloppy with elbows flying out as they punch. They do NOT work in combination as a rule rather a finders jab then look to drop a right hand on their "standing still" opponents.

Bowe and Lennox did display some skills because they were tutored by American trainers (Bowe -George Washington (not juggys uncle ha) to Eddie Futch) ( Lennnox- Vic Murdock to Johnny Davenport) who had extensive backgrounds in Pro & Amateur boxing. If the Klitz bros had that advantage they may have developed into more complete boxers/fighters. As it was they're one dimentional and very stiff in the ring as demonstrated when Wlad finally had an opponents that moved around him.
He couldn't double & triple jab with a good push off back foot to track Fury down and drop right hands. These fighters resemble Max Baer who never learned boxing skills at a high level. Evander, Holmes, Ali, Ezzard Charles resemble Louis, Conn and Tunney!
They say styles make fights and thats true! It sure makes watching more interesting when a tall fellow can and knows how to box.

It takes a lot of skill and talent for an oversized (6'6"+) man to move and punch with fluidity and style I certainly admit that and these men have done well in their time BUT! They had the perfect opponents to compliment their compative skills.
Jabbing, reaching, grabbing and pushing isn't boxing, trying to block a jab with two hands pushed in front of you isn't parring.

Anyone on this forum could see size and weight, They can read records dating wins & loses. Note common opponents and check dates of the bouts. Not everyone here can evaluate actual boxing skills. The only adjustments I ever see from Bowe, Lennox and Klitz bros is their corners reminding them to "be first"! Which is sound advice, however you won't hear to much technical advice because they can't perform what they don't know!

ok, enough of that, go back to arguing whose the "worst" champ.

Still waiting for the "new" technical techniques to be explained to me, and the "new" training methods since the 1980's.
Maybe a video of Wlad working a 1/2 under/over then pivoting to catch a profile and dropping a right cross over the shoulder? Ya think? hahahaha....

Happy fishing boys, Ray

[billeau2]

This was posted awhile back by battling nelson ,every era in some shape or form improved by good margins from the Jack Johnson times this should be evident to anyone who really studies combat ....the more competition you have in any sport generally inreases the quaity .I dont particularly see GREAT skills really not up until the 80's era did i see better technical boxing but i guess thats because i look at different things and generally watch fights with no sound to leave out unwanted cheering and often incompetence by ring announcers. I understand mechanics change so i go by modern rules regulations ,i just dont se the norm of being skilled with past eras ,there were not many stand outs in Louis type era ,many unrefined guys from what i see ,defence mainly and despite what most think i agree with jacobs on lack of action .Its subjective to what you think is suitable skills im just not one of those that see a great balance overall from those eras. I think the author is not comparing the fighters as much as to the hype behind the eras. As Ali said and Tyson every generation improves over the previous bc in some way its almost always true.

Regarding the bolded section: Thats a valid point. I would say here that the point Juggy makes about the "hype" surrounding that which we have not seen and which has been manufactured for us...such that one is to think of the older fighters as legendary with no caveats, is problematic.

This hype also causes unapproachability (if there be such a word lol). At the end of the day there is great value to look past all hype and understand why things are done a certain way, otherwise things are accepted blindly.

[juggernaut666]

I don't know why anyone tries to debate the facts that are on file from films and video's.
This past era's dominate heavyweights Rid****, Lennox, Wlad, Vitali, Corry, Hasim etc........with the exception of Chris Byrd are far behind men like Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Sonny Liston, Ali, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield!!!
The later all work within a boxers stance and movement, they lead with a jab to add combination punching. Except for Ali they all work the body to head, and they all have conditioning and stamina to go 15 rds.
The 2000 and up heavys are all "one / two" and their form is sloppy with elbows flying out as they punch. They do NOT work in combination as a rule rather a finders jab then look to drop a right hand on their "standing still" opponents.

Bowe and Lennox did display some skills because they were tutored by American trainers (Bowe -George Washington (not juggys uncle ha) to Eddie Futch) ( Lennnox- Vic Murdock to Johnny Davenport) who had extensive backgrounds in Pro & Amateur boxing. If the Klitz bros had that advantage they may have developed into more complete boxers/fighters. As it was they're one dimentional and very stiff in the ring as demonstrated when Wlad finally had an opponents that moved around him.
He couldn't double & triple jab with a good push off back foot to track Fury down and drop right hands. These fighters resemble Max Baer who never learned boxing skills at a high level. Evander, Holmes, Ali, Ezzard Charles resemble Louis, Conn and Tunney!
They say styles make fights and thats true! It sure makes watching more interesting when a tall fellow can and knows how to box.

It takes a lot of skill and talent for an oversized (6'6"+) man to move and punch with fluidity and style I certainly admit that and these men have done well in their time BUT! They had the perfect opponents to compliment their compative skills.
Jabbing, reaching, grabbing and pushing isn't boxing, trying to block a jab with two hands pushed in front of you isn't parring.

Anyone on this forum could see size and weight, They can read records dating wins & loses. Note common opponents and check dates of the bouts. Not everyone here can evaluate actual boxing skills. The only adjustments I ever see from Bowe, Lennox and Klitz bros is their corners reminding them to "be first"! Which is sound advice, however you won't hear to much technical advice because they can't perform what they don't know!

ok, enough of that, go back to arguing whose the "worst" champ.

Still waiting for the "new" technical techniques to be explained to me, and the "new" training methods since the 1980's.
Maybe a video of Wlad working a 1/2 under/over then pivoting to catch a profile and dropping a right cross over the shoulder? Ya think? hahahaha....

Happy fishing boys, Ray

Its called sports science something you know little of and certainly not going to waste time on such a legendary junior olympic coach who once again doesnt really pose any sustainable abilty to compute what the eye sees into his brain and cant decpher good from bad technique yet claims its on film yet are still blind that you need that explained to you ? How ironic ..lol

You hold little value to me personally on here other than the here and there bickering with sonny who is equally resembling from dementia.In short you have nothing to offer me of advice ,maybe a novice will benefit but sorry your pathetic ridicule and pretending to know better falls short with me .I'll stick to guys like jacobs and the few who actually know how to study fights not pretend to know better with jargon.

P.S YOU were the one who called Lewis AVERAGE until i also had to explain why he wasnt ....yes ray go take your meds now !

[Ray Corso]

Heres lil' juggy trying to debate with someone who actually worked within the sport longer than he's been alive!

All you did was insult me, you gave no evidence of how sports science has affected the sport. You give no evidence of any new techniques developed. The reason you don't is there are none!

I hold no value to you? I don't care one cent about you! Your a proven liar on this forum and I have proven my relationship in the sport on an amateur national level as a national coach and a pro trainer on an international level.

Your the jackazz who said his "uncle no name" trained Bowe!
Your daddy (again no name) is a world wide judo expert & competitor!
You yourself knocked out a Klitz sparring partner!

Do you deny saying these things? Well do you azzhole?

Answer the questions you lil' punk!

juggynutz, son of elroid!

Ray

[juggernaut666]

Heres lil' juggy trying to debate with someone who actually worked within the sport longer than he's been alive!

All you did was insult me, you gave no evidence of how sports science has affected the sport. You give no evidence of any new techniques developed. The reason you don't is there are none!

I hold no value to you? I don't care one cent about you! Your a proven liar on this forum and I have proven my relationship in the sport on an amateur national level as a national coach and a pro trainer on an international level.

Your the jackazz who said his "uncle no name" trained Bowe!
Your daddy (again no name) is a world wide judo expert & competitor!
You yourself knocked out a Klitz sparring partner!

Do you deny saying these things? Well do you azzhole?

Answer the questions you lil' punk!

juggynutz, son of elroid!

Ray

Sorry old timer but your day one ridicule of me has fallen short I know MANY guys in the business such as Duva and many others who I used to know back in the day when they actually had something.You're a fool and a back in the day junior trainer..NOTHING to me....you really think you know more about combat in any area than me you fool? HAHa your a jerk the only reason why I let up on you is your scenile and better days are long gone...you need this forum to thrive on b/cv that's really all you got...so I let it go .So go ahead old timer have at it ....at the end of the day your a fool to me...

Though i'll say to others NEW guys to the sport looking for BEGINNING advice, Ray can help .The problem is he doesn't help himself which why hes stagnated in the ability to look at video and decipher what is good and bad in the newer eras which why he has kid like posts who didn't get his toy in the toy store he wanted and goes on random weirdo rants when he cant answer correctly ...but i'll let him have it....since again RAY you're better days are long gone, mine are just beginning...think about that!And as a matter of fact a certain individual who I wont name hopefully sees the scum you truly are now....you need to bring up family memebers which to my recolection is automatic BAN ...but I hope it doesnt happen b/c as I stated to 'him" the more you troll the morre I school you and expose you...you've Never had an actual sanctioned fight yet run your mouth on how others are not tough on here based on teaching KIDs something I anyone can actually do if they know the FUNDAMENTALS...though I think out of that word "MENTAL" is the word you relate to best...go figure?.


"how sports science has affected the sport. You give no evidence of any new techniques developed. The reason you don't is there are none!" Ray Corso.....sums that up its his quote which to ME translates to this.."IDIOSO" .Now go CRY to the MODS now and CRY foul as you do DAILY ,you know what happens to snitches right? They get stiches ,particularly ones who instigate......whos the PUNK again?.HAHA..ray the weasle...