Actual connect rate today vs yesteryear

[them_apples]

I get it this is certainly not a factual thread, but what is factual are videos on youtube with exchanges slowed down to prove my point. Half the time I would feel the like I wasn't seeing anything land but then the commentating and compubox would say otherwise. Next thing you know the cards are wide in favor of one guy, the headlines read "domination" and You feel robbed.

From an era vs era standpoint I can't prove numbers because nobody is going to slow mo review all the fraudulent compubox fights. And someone did mention gloves today are bigger, which def could play a role.

[Bundana]

I get it this is certainly not a factual thread, but what is factual are videos on youtube with exchanges slowed down to prove my point. Half the time I would feel the like I wasn't seeing anything land but then the commentating and compubox would say otherwise. Next thing you know the cards are wide in favor of one guy, the headlines read "domination" and You feel robbed.

From an era vs era standpoint I can't prove numbers because nobody is going to slow mo review all the fraudulent compubox fights. And someone did mention gloves today are bigger, which def could play a role.

As you say, it's very much about opinions, when there are no facts on the table.

If it's your experience, that compubox and commentating often create a false picture of what really is going on... then I certainly won't argue against that. Seems like a fair and unbiased opinion.

Also, since this thread is about whether we have a lower connect-rate today, compared to earlier times, today's bigger gloves certainly must be a valid argument in favour of that.

What I do have a problem with, is your contention that Newer fighters have adopted this frantic "scared" style of fighting.

Again, nothing can be proven one way or the other… but I would like to offer an alternative opinion.

If we go back to boxing's "Golden Years", the 1920's and 30's, boxing was very different from what it is today.

Back then there were loads of boxers who fought on a bi-weekly (or even more often) basis. Simply because that was what it took to put food on the table back then. No lucrative TV deals, or multi-million dollar purses, that would enable you to fight only once or twice a year, like today.

As a result, we find lots of old-timers with an astonishing number of career fights! 100-200 pro bouts was nothing out of the ordinary. And of course there were those with even more fights than that.

It has often been argued, that tough times create tough men. And while this may be true, I strongly doubt this translated into harder fighting… and as a consequence a higher connect-rate.

On the contrary, boxers must have had a common interest in getting through fights, without taking too much punishment. No need to try and tear each other apart, when you had another fight scheduled for next week.

I strongly suspect, that at least some of the fights back then were staged in order to give the fans a good show - without seriously trying to hurt each other. It must have been all about doing just what was necessary to please the fans.

Most of the time the boxers succeeded in doing just that - but sometimes the acting was so poor, that both men were thrown out for "not trying". This actually happened quite often, and was recorded as a "NC" - which in fact was a double disqualification.

I just looked at Jack Britton's record yesterday, and noticed an early NC result... apparently because the ref threw him out for not giving his best. But then again, Britton had a 10-rounder scheduled for the very next day… so could you really blame him for taking it easy?

Later in his career I notice another NC result - with the ref throwing both boxers out for not trying.

And these were fights where the combatants acted so poorly, that everybody could see, it was a sham. Imagine all the fights there must have been, where the fighters put in just enough effort, to prevent being thrown out... and were successful in making it look real.

This is why i doubt, that today's boxers (on average) put in less of an effort, and have adopted a "scared" style of fighting.

[DeeMoney]

In addition to the aforementioned 'lack of evidence' and 'sample size' points being made. I will also add there probably would be a lot of success bias- in that we (and this includes the media) are more likely to keep/remember older action fights where punches were landed, as opposed to where fights where punches were being blocked.

[The Old LefHook]

In addition to the aforementioned 'lack of evidence' and 'sample size' points being made. I will also add there probably would be a lot of success bias- in that we (and this includes the media) are more likely to keep/remember older action fights where punches were landed, as opposed to where fights where punches were being blocked.

Good point.

[The Old LefHook]

Them Apples is probably onto something. These phony connect rates are likely the next wave of unreality from boxing. They have already made it real tough just to watch a fight on TV. That is why I gave up on them. They will not drag me into any more of their phony fights. When you do pay for a fight it is worthless garbage put on years too late. No more. Not again. I am through with phony boxing. They drove me out. Good. I am not the least interested in their new revenue streams.

[them_apples]

As you say, it's very much about opinions, when there are no facts on the table.

If it's your experience, that compubox and commentating often create a false picture of what really is going on... then I certainly won't argue against that. Seems like a fair and unbiased opinion.

Also, since this thread is about whether we have a lower connect-rate today, compared to earlier times, today's bigger gloves certainly must be a valid argument in favour of that.

What I do have a problem with, is your contention that Newer fighters have adopted this frantic "scared" style of fighting.

Again, nothing can be proven one way or the other… but I would like to offer an alternative opinion.

If we go back to boxing's "Golden Years", the 1920's and 30's, boxing was very different from what it is today.

Back then there were loads of boxers who fought on a bi-weekly (or even more often) basis. Simply because that was what it took to put food on the table back then. No lucrative TV deals, or multi-million dollar purses, that would enable you to fight only once or twice a year, like today.

As a result, we find lots of old-timers with an astonishing number of career fights! 100-200 pro bouts was nothing out of the ordinary. And of course there were those with even more fights than that.

It has often been argued, that tough times create tough men. And while this may be true, I strongly doubt this translated into harder fighting… and as a consequence a higher connect-rate.

On the contrary, boxers must have had a common interest in getting through fights, without taking too much punishment. No need to try and tear each other apart, when you had another fight scheduled for next week.

I strongly suspect, that at least some of the fights back then were staged in order to give the fans a good show - without seriously trying to hurt each other. It must have been all about doing just what was necessary to please the fans.

Most of the time the boxers succeeded in doing just that - but sometimes the acting was so poor, that both men were thrown out for "not trying". This actually happened quite often, and was recorded as a "NC" - which in fact was a double disqualification.

I just looked at Jack Britton's record yesterday, and noticed an early NC result... apparently because the ref threw him out for not giving his best. But then again, Britton had a 10-rounder scheduled for the very next day… so could you really blame him for taking it easy?

Later in his career I notice another NC result - with the ref throwing both boxers out for not trying.

And these were fights where the combatants acted so poorly, that everybody could see, it was a sham. Imagine all the fights there must have been, where the fighters put in just enough effort, to prevent being thrown out... and were successful in making it look real.

This is why i doubt, that today's boxers (on average) put in less of an effort, and have adopted a "scared" style of fighting.

Although everything you stated is true, I think you put too much of a negative spin on it. While fighters certainly took tune-ups and avoided punishment at times, you also have to realize out of those 200+ fights they also, on the higher levels fought on the big stage a lot more frequently. High level champions hit the big stage even as much as 10 times a year and fought those in the top 10 every month of the year. The amount of physchological gain a fighter would get from this would be astronomical. The "scared fighting style" I think starts with this. Most guys today aren't ready for the big stage because the chances are slim to none. Imagine fighting 2 times a year and then you get called to fight on ppv, sold out MGM Grand for the first time in your life? You won't win.

On top of this though, let's not forget about amateur boxing. In the 90s it started changing to make it a more measurable athletic sport as opposed to "fighting". Everyone's mother thought raw fighting didn't belong in the Olympics. White tape 4 inch flurries and gloves up defending became the new norm. Rushing in and landing as much as you can in a limited amount of time became the norm. Strategy was all but eliminated, when in reality 1 good shot to an exposed chin with 8 ounce gloves can end a fight or even just turn the tide. These pros of today have 100+ amateur fights shaped around an amateur style. When they turn pro they never shake it entirely.

[QueensburyRules]

- -19 yr old Big George with about 20 AMA bouts went to the 7000' altitude of Mexico City to knock around them fully mature professional Soviets and Cubans like bowling pins.

Ain't ever gonna see the likes of that again.

[Bundana]

Although everything you stated is true, I think you put too much of a negative spin on it. While fighters certainly took tune-ups and avoided punishment at times, you also have to realize out of those 200+ fights they also, on the higher levels fought on the big stage a lot more frequently. High level champions hit the big stage even as much as 10 times a year and fought those in the top 10 every month of the year. The amount of physchological gain a fighter would get from this would be astronomical. The "scared fighting style" I think starts with this. Most guys today aren't ready for the big stage because the chances are slim to none. Imagine fighting 2 times a year and then you get called to fight on ppv, sold out MGM Grand for the first time in your life? You won't win.

On top of this though, let's not forget about amateur boxing. In the 90s it started changing to make it a more measurable athletic sport as opposed to "fighting". Everyone's mother thought raw fighting didn't belong in the Olympics. White tape 4 inch flurries and gloves up defending became the new norm. Rushing in and landing as much as you can in a limited amount of time became the norm. Strategy was all but eliminated, when in reality 1 good shot to an exposed chin with 8 ounce gloves can end a fight or even just turn the tide. These pros of today have 100+ amateur fights shaped around an amateur style. When they turn pro they never shake it entirely.

I'm not trying to put a spin (negative or positive) on anything. Though you probably think so, I have no horse in this race (old vs new). I'm simply interested in boxing history, and like to find out what is what.

Yes, the old-timers had far, far more (on average) pro fights than today. But does this mean, that they were much more familiar with performing on the big stage, with the whole world watching? Not necessarily!

Today we of course bemoan the fact, that our overpaid champions make only 2 - or at most 3 - defences a year. But that was pretty much the going rate back "in the day" as well. Sure, there were exceptions to this (Armstrong and Louis come to mind)... but, generally speaking, champions didn't defend their crowns much more often than they do today (though I'm sure, a lot of people think so).

The big difference between then and now, is of course the many "keep busy" or "put food on the table" fights, we find in the records of the old-timers. Even reigning champions took part in lots of such fights.

If we take a look at, for example, SRR... he won the welterweight title in 1946, and made:
2 defences in 1947
1 in 1948
1 in 1949
1 in 1950
… before stepping up to take the middleweight crown from LaMotta in 1951.

Now that is not a very busy schedule - but he of course had a ****load of fights in between those few defences.

In 1950, for example, he had 19 bouts in addition to his sole defence. How much "big scene" experience did he gain from those bouts. Very little, would be my guess.

Think about it: The more fights you have against (in many cases) nobodies, with no title at stake… the less interesting they will be. Both to the press and the fans. It's not like the boxing world will be awaiting the results of such fights with baited breath.

So many of these fights probably took place without a lot of people really caring much about them. In fact, only recently did a historian from Florida come across a Robinson fight that had never been reported before: Against Johnny Dudley on Feb. 18, 1950 in Orlando, Florida.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=218031

This fight was not in any record books or listed in his own autobiography "Sugar Ray"... and yet it actually took place, and has now been added to his BoxRec record. And we're talking about not only a reigning world champion, but the best P4P boxer at the time (or any time, for that matter)... who was able to have a fight that went completely under the radar! Hard to even imagine, that something like that could take place today!

So... with no TV and worldwide attention, I don't really think the old-timers were more used to the limelight than today's top boxers.

Also… what are those bad amateur habits today's boxers can't get rid of, when they turn pro? Some of the absolutely best boxers of recent years have spent most of their boxing life in the amateurs - learning their craft in hundreds of amateur bouts.

Guys like Rigondeaux, Lomachenko, Usyk, Golovkin have all had ridiculously long amateur careers at the highest level, with 300+ bouts. Yet they have all turned into exceptionally good pros after just a dozen (or less) paid bouts. Rigo and Loma are arguably some of the finest boxers ever!

[QueensburyRules]

- -Rigo one of the finest amas, but woefully short as a pro and been drying and dying on the vine as Loma made painfully clear.

[Rusty Tromboni]

lmao well realistically what do you think

How many actual punches connected in these 2 fights for example:

Canelo vs Jacobs
Pacquiao vs Mayweather
food for thought as well...watch Mayweather vs Maidana 2 in HD and tell me in all honesty how many times Mayweather "actually connected".

Canelo vs Lara please watch in HD and tell me how many times Canelo actually lands on Lara, not on his damn arms.

I should make a point that Lomachenko seems to actually connect a lot. Obviously why he's destroying everyone. Spence as well as said earlier.

Shawn porter, another guy that lands about 5 punches per fight.

If anything proves this, watch Floyd's jab.

Seriously, it looks great. Does it every connect, though?




Really, when has that jab connected?