When did the modern boxer come about?

[billeau2]

Thanks for a serious response to my post.

You're right about the population growth from around the middle of the 19th century being far steeper in the US than in other countries. This is hardly surprising, since hundred of thousands of Europeans back then migrated to the US, in search of a better life. UK, Ireland and Italy (I believe... you would probably know much more about this than I do!) were at the forefront of this move, but many other countries were involved. Tiny as it is, even my own country, Denmark, made a small contribution… which, eventually, resulted in two Danish world champions: Battling Nelson and Kid Williams.

As we know, poverty is no small factor when it comes to decide on a career in boxing - especially at a time, when there were few other options to "get ahead". So that the US soon became the center of the boxing world, was only a natural development. Gradually, more and more good boxers became part of the North American talent pool - and if they didn't, they were left on the outside looking in.

Since WW2 several things have combined to gradually put an end to the total American domination: The advent of boxing on US TV (which has been discussed many times), easier travel and many more countries taking up pro boxing around the world. But whatever the reason, there's no getting away from the fact, that boxing today is a much more international sport than pre WW2.

Now, as to the actual ability of boxers... I don't get this idea (and this is not directed at you), that today's boxers can't hold a candle to the old-timers, because they have so few pro fights, and therefore lack experience… compared to the old-timers, who often had 100+ fight careers. Does anyone really think, that Mayweather would have been a better boxers, if he had added an additional 50 "stay busy" fights against nobodies to his record? Or Pacquiao? Or Lomachenko and Usyk?

As for how "good" (not really measurable, of course) the boxers are... well, I guess you see, what your want your eyes to see! Someone here claims that FOOTWORK (I haven't heard that one before!) isn't what it used to be, and that today "a fighter with good feet is a big deal".

Others will point to the lost art of body-punching, feinting, infighting-ability, lack of conditioning, lack of heart and will to win - and then there's of course the always popular notion that today's trainers don't know, what they are doing.

I don't see that at all. How can something be "lost", if it's there for all to see in 100 years of film history? Lack of heart?... just about every Saturday I see a show from the UK (or elsewhere) where even prelim boxers in 6-rounders fight like their lives depend on it.

Also, I don't see any slowing down of the pace, with less punches being thrown today. On the contrary, I see less infighting, with boxers often standing toe-to-toe, trading punches without holding or clinching... often at a ferocious pace. Sure, we can find videos of 12-round clinch fests (Wladimir!)… but I'm talking about the general picture.

All in all, as I've said before… while no one is surpassing Louis, Robinson and Pep, I think we've seen some really fine fighters these past few decades. But that's just my opinion!

Agree with all of this post to various degrees. I would say that as you do, its not how much fighters fight, it is rather, when they became fighters. That is just an observation as to a difference, that is more important than realized. People joke that Dempsey fought Hobos, but they often don't realize he did so as a kid, and that these were tough hobos! Lol.

No question that all sports became more international, including fightsports. This did reintroduce talent into the pool, that would have come from a big city with a lot of tough guys.

One of the differences that I see, which bothers me, is that guys fight in a style that was once amatuer/Olympic in nature. This style is restrictive and does not encourage the type of innovation that the generation of great trainers seemed to bring out of guys. That would be my one bone to pick.

But another thing I hear you saying, which I would agree with 100%...and by all means if I misunderstand this comment, let me know... Is that people exxagerate, they become enamored to a point where suddenly the older guys were superhumans. I agree that people do that, I can even be accused of that myself at times... That is wrong headed when it is not corrected because it blinds us to when we have a fighter who has incredible technical skills NOW, and there are plenty of them. I adore Fury for this reason. Also Lomo! And of course the Cuban guys who always seem to have at least basic good skills to work with in the ring.

But I do think your observation about the hyperbole and demographics is correct. I only wish guys would fight in more individual oriented ways, and started training earlier.

[Ben Bolt]

If fighters like Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey are seen as being antiquated in technique where is the line drawn for when the "modern boxer" emerged?

Would Ali who has won his first championship 54 years ago be considered modern?

One step at a time, and a modern boxer has developed.

But now and then, there are fighters taking a shortcut in modernizing an era, i.e. a huge step.
What Cassius Clay did to boxing, I find comparable to what **** Fosbury did to high jump and what Bill Koch did to cross-country skiing.
It changes the sport.

[billeau2]

One step at a time, and a modern boxer has developed.

But now and then, there are fighters taking a shortcut in modernizing an era, i.e. a huge step.
What Cassius Clay did to boxing, I find comparable to what **** Fosbury did to high jump and what Bill Koch did to cross-country skiing.
It changes the sport.

Adore Ali but what he did is not technique that some guy can pick up. Ted Williams hit for an average that ball players today with every athletic advantage cannot hit for... They put him in a reflex machine and the doctor was quoted as saying something to the effect of "when you or me see a white pill dashing by us, Mr Williams sees a softball. "

Modernizing confuses us because there are times when it is a game changer. Terri Bradshaw used to argue in the eighties that the older Pittsburgh Steelers, because they were a team, who stayed together, etc would beat the teams winning at that time. It sure sounded good... Free agency does not create the team dynamics that the champs had back in the day.

But even back then... bradshaw and his great team would have been put to shame by faster, stronger, smarter, better coached players... and today? Its a different game because of modern influences, money, economics and the type of guys playing.

So when we see fighters we expect a similar trajectory. Again, shifting gears... I could take Kenny Stabler, one of the best competitors....a mean, sinewy son of a batch who could find an open receiver in a puckered ahole convention! But put that Oakland team against any team coached in the west coast offense circa late eighties nineties and there would be no comparison.

Modernity created players who were so able, so smart and coachable that what was expected of them became a norm that was gigantic by comparison to a decent wide receiver in the 70's. On Bill Walsh's team the quarterback, had four recievers as an option on every play... Stabler had one or two. When Kenny was quarterbacking the holy grail was finding a sprinter who could hold on to the football... It never paned out. In the later times, the holy grail was finding a brain surgeon, who could run like a sprinter, was strong as a power lifter, and who could catch the ball and run after the catch for extra yards!

We just don't see that in prize fighting, and there will always be those who are outstanding, like Ali.

[OctoberRed]

The sport evolves all the time, every decade.

[QueensburyRules]

If fighters like Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey are seen as being antiquated in technique where is the line drawn for when the "modern boxer" emerged?

Would Ali who has won his first championship 54 years ago be considered modern?

Dempsey was the first to introduce the spectacle to boxing, and Mike Tyson and Duran emulated his style, so you gots some l'arnin' to do.

John Sullivan made Queenbury rules popular and Jim Corbett used footwork that Tunney and Ali emulated not to mention the other thousands beyond my examples.

[HOUDINI563]

Several points overlooked.

It’s easy to be both a contender and a champion in today’s boxing world. What do we have 4-5 champions in every division? How many weight divisions? 40-50 top ten challengers in every division? All this very effectively waters down the sport. There is no two ways about it.

Also we have lost the championship distance. You don’t need to be trained down to fight 15 rounds. 12 round championship distance is for *****’s.

[Bundana]

I think, too much is being made of the 12 vs 15 rounds argument.

Sure, from a historical point of view, I'd prefer if we went back to the old 15 rounds… but, to be honest, I don't believe it makes all that much of a difference.

I don't think boxers were better conditioned back in the day, to be able to go 15 rounds - they just paced themselves slightly differently. They obviously didn't expend whatever energy they had left in the 11th and 12th rounds - but waited a few more rounds before going all out.

And I don't buy the notion, that today's boxers are sissies, who wouldn't be able to go 15 rounds - if they had to!

[ShoulderRoll]

Today's boxers would have to get a lot tougher than they are to go 15 rounds, that's for sure.

Look at Korobov last week. The book on him is that his stamina fails down the stretch and sure enough that's what appeared to happen against Charlo.

Or how about Oscar de la Hoya who was notorious for fading the longer a fight went? No matter how many different training approaches he experimented with to counteract that.

I still maintain that the old timers were by and large a hardier bunch. And because they fought so often that gave them the extra practice needed to better master their craft.

[Bundana]

Today's boxers would have to get a lot tougher than they are to go 15 rounds, that's for sure.

Look at Korobov last week. The book on him is that his stamina fails down the stretch and sure enough that's what appeared to happen against Charlo.

Or how about Oscar de la Hoya who was notorious for fading the longer a fight went? No matter how many different training approaches he experimented with to counteract that.

I still maintain that the old timers were by and large a hardier bunch. And because they fought so often that gave them the extra practice needed to better master their craft.

I don't believe the old-timers had some genetic advantage over modern boxers, when it comes to the ability to go 15 rounds. So why wouldn't today's boxers be able to adapt to 15 rounds, if they could decades ago?

Sure, you can find examples of modern boxers who weren't known for their stamina (like Oscar). You can find examples of everything!

You can show a video clip of Fury uppercutting himself in the face... and claim this is an example of how technically inept boxers are today.

Or you can claim Vitali faked the injury against Bird, and was just a coward who wanted an easy way out... proving that modern fighters are sissies with no heart. It all depends on your agenda!

But I really see no difference between the eras, when it comes to stamina, guts, will to win, etc.... and I don't see, why there would be.

[ShoulderRoll]

I don't believe the old-timers had some genetic advantage over modern boxers, when it comes to the ability to go 15 rounds. So why wouldn't today's boxers be able to adapt to 15 rounds, if they could decades ago?

Sure, you can find examples of modern boxers who weren't known for their stamina (like Oscar). You can find examples of everything!

You can show a video clip of Fury uppercutting himself in the face... and claim this is an example of how technically inept boxers are today.

Or you can claim Vitali faked the injury against Bird, and was just a coward who wanted an easy way out... proving that modern fighters are sissies with no heart. It all depends on your agenda!

But I really see no difference between the eras, when it comes to stamina, guts, will to win, etc.... and I don't see, why there would be.

I don't claim any genetic advantage for the old timers.

Just that they were a lot tougher because they had to be. That there were a lot more of them competing against each other to rise up in the ranks back then. And that more frequent practice made for better developed boxers.

The conditions simply don't exist currently to replicate the quality of fighting men that came out of that forge. In my opinion.