oldschool fighters Era and psychology

[them_apples]

I'm on the stance that evolution doesn't make its mark in the span of 60 years so I tend to look at everything as situational.

As a whole I think boxing has dipped and the level has dropped. There are reasons for this. I think the pros and cons aren't weighed properly or with logic.

Oldschool fighters fought much more frequently, now aside from. Practice does anyone actually think about the massive psychological advantage this would give a fighter? We throw around the term inactive, and if a fighter is inactive for a year he often gets written off. Jumping in the ring after a long layoff takes a psychological toll. A fighter of today would. Be considered inactive compared to a fighter in the 30s and 40s. When you see the effort put forth by even mid level contenders of the Golden Era, I tend to think this effort was plausible because of how desensitised fighters were due to the frequency of how often they fought.

If a fighter today fights 2 times a year, and suddenly inks a deal with Floyd Mayweather. He has 0 chance of winning solely due to the fact that his nerves can't deal with the moment.

However, fighting every month would help harder and mentally condition a fighter, as would the prospect of getting a rematch (super common) if the first time around your nerves got the best of you fighting for the title. Then you gained experience, and eventually everyone in the top 10 was a serious, fearless and confident fighter.

Now if you watch closely, every fighter is constantly managing risk / reward. Most fighters are never fighting anyone they can't beat. If they lose it means their management failed them. This is why we have so many undefeated records. It's right in front of us yet. Nobody realizes it.

Years ago losing wasn't as big of a deal, being a good fighter was. And if the best fight the best somebody has to lose. This is pure logic. If everyone is undefeated that means nobody is fighting each other.

If you look at Evander Holyfield, although I consider him a contemporary fighter he actually has an oldschool resume. He fought everyone in his day, multiple times. He fought them in his prime and past his prime. He also has quite a Large number of losses. This is solely due to the fact that he fought everyone and gave them. Rematches and rubbermatches.

[Bundana]

So today's boxers, on a 2-fights-per-year schedule, are at a disadvantage compared to old-school fighters... because they aren't being "desensitized" enough? That's an argument, I haven't heard before!

[them_apples]

So today's boxers, on a 2-fights-per-year schedule, are at a disadvantage compared to old-school fighters... because they aren't being "desensitized" enough? That's an argument, I haven't heard before!

My apologies I type from my phone so my punctuation is bad.

But yeah, the hype of a fight takes a lot out of fighters and makes them act safety first. They aren't "desensitized" to what their job entails.

The argument is usually about how oldschool fighters get in the ring more and are therefore more practiced, I think it's more so the psychological side more than anything.

[Bundana]

My apologies I type from my phone so my punctuation is bad.

But yeah, the hype of a fight takes a lot out of fighters and makes them act safety first. They aren't "desensitized" to what their job entails.

The argument is usually about how oldschool fighters get in the ring more and are therefore more practiced, I think it's more so the psychological side more than anything.

So today's boxers take a more safety first approach in their fights - because they are not, psychologically, hardened enough? Do you have any tangible evidence, that this is indeed the case?

[them_apples]

So today's boxers take a more safety first approach in their fights - because they are not, psychologically, hardened enough? Do you have any tangible evidence, that this is indeed the case?

Yeah, that's what my entire post is about.

Look at the record book.

Tangible evidence? That's impossible we are talking 60 years ago

[Bundana]

Yeah, that's what my entire post is about.

Look at the record book.

Tangible evidence? That's impossible we are talking 60 years ago

Your post seems to be full of claims, that can't really be proved/verified. You know, such as boxers back in the day were mentally tougher, and that Top-10 fighters were more serious, more fearless and more confident. We have no way of knowing, if this is really true.

If we're talking about the best not meeting the best today - you're right, of course. Sure, we all wish they would just get it on, so we can watch the best possible matches. That this isn't always the case of course sucks.

However, is it really worse today than in previous eras? Bowe-Lewis was never made - even though it would have been the biggest fight that could have happened at the time.

Sanchez and Pedroza were "parallel" champions for several years, but never met. Palomino/Cuevas were likewise parallel title holders - as were Galindez/Conteh. All these were superfights that never came about.

Going back to the 40s and 50s, when there was only one champ per division, we saw some of the most dangerous challengers being frozen out for years - before they were finally (if they were lucky!) granted a title shot.

Archie Moore was ranked #1 contender by The Ring 10(!) years before he got his shot - and we all know how LaMotta had to throw a fight, before he was given a chance at the middleweight crown. Liston was easily the best heavyweight in the world for at least 4 years, before finally shaming Patterson into risking his title against him.

Going even further back in time, Dempsey ducked his outstanding challenger Harry Wills for the entire 7 years of his reign. Yes, I know… all kinds of excuses can be made for this fight never being made. But the fact is, that it never was.

Champions trying to avoid their most dangerous challengers isn't a new phenomenon - it has always been like that.

[DeeMoney]

I'm on the stance that evolution doesn't make its mark in the span of 60 years so I tend to look at everything as situational.

As a whole I think boxing has dipped and the level has dropped. There are reasons for this. I think the pros and cons aren't weighed properly or with logic.

I know this wasnt the pertinent part of your post, but I think its something that can be addressed. I dont think anyone would argue that evolution, as it is generally referred to in the Darwinian or even Lamarckian way would have any impact over 500 years, let alone 60.

But one only needs to look at recent examples of sets of populations growing bigger an healthier in the span of a few decades to see that simply improving living conditions can improve overall health and athletic performance in just a generation. People are much taller in modern nations than they were during the Industrial Revolution.

Moreover improvements in modern science and athletic training have improved athletes in all measurable attributes (speed, strength, endurance, etc)

This is not to write about the work of modern sports psychologist, whose work more directly addresses the ideas brought on in the bulk of your post.

[billeau2]

I know this wasnt the pertinent part of your post, but I think its something that can be addressed. I dont think anyone would argue that evolution, as it is generally referred to in the Darwinian or even Lamarckian way would have any impact over 500 years, let alone 60.

But one only needs to look at recent examples of sets of populations growing bigger an healthier in the span of a few decades to see that simply improving living conditions can improve overall health and athletic performance in just a generation. People are much taller in modern nations than they were during the Industrial Revolution.

Moreover improvements in modern science and athletic training have improved athletes in all measurable attributes (speed, strength, endurance, etc)

This is not to write about the work of modern sports psychologist, whose work more directly addresses the ideas brought on in the bulk of your post.

You would be surpised at how many people totally misunderstand the general theory of evolution as we know it, including natural selection. Many individuals think evolution occurs in a generation or two... I know its crazy right?

When we talk about the progress, or lack of progress of an athlete, of a sport, we have to go back to the difference between a correlation and a fact. Many things correlate: They become a fact, when we know there is a reason, a cause and effect relationship between a variable, and a trend of one sort, or another.

It gets interesting when we look at some facts about sports and athletetes progress, because many times they do not have to do with more general notions of progress at all! Take for example football. Most people are clueless that in the early eighties in Florida, Arthur Jones and a group of extremely talented sports people, with a very progressive ideology regarding sports nutrition and exerscize were instrumental in creating the game we have now.

Florida college football was cutting edge, the gators, the inventors of Gatorade. Nautilus weight training was designed so a circuit weight training could be done that totally exhausted all the major muscles groups in 15 minutes. this was done with specific design of the machines, where both parts of the motion were utililized, not just the lift up, and with a different training philosophy, where athletes were taught to do high intensity, low rep and low rest work. This design and function allowed football players in a practice to work on plays, position, and scrimmage, and... in only a 15 minute session to exhaust all the muscle groups.

The above is a fact. We can conclude that in addition to steriods, these developments helped make football players, smarter, better at the game, and better athletically.

When we look at boxing and fighters, there is a major paradox at work: On the one hand fighters traditionally try to come in as light and well conditioned as they can for a fight. Yet today many fighters carry extra weight into the ring and many people feel like this excludes smaller heavyweights from the division. this paradox in and of itself has nothing to do with the health,nutrition and trend of people in developing nations. It is actually a function of training goals.

I am actually going to start a thread on this topic it is relevant.

[QueensburyRules]

Your post seems to be full of claims, that can't really be proved/verified. You know, such as boxers back in the day were mentally tougher, and that Top-10 fighters were more serious, more fearless and more confident. We have no way of knowing, if this is really true.

If we're talking about the best not meeting the best today - you're right, of course. Sure, we all wish they would just get it on, so we can watch the best possible matches. That this isn't always the case of course sucks.

However, is it really worse today than in previous eras? Bowe-Lewis was never made - even though it would have been the biggest fight that could have happened at the time.

Sanchez and Pedroza were "parallel" champions for several years, but never met. Palomino/Cuevas were likewise parallel title holders - as were Galindez/Conteh. All these were superfights that never came about.

Going back to the 40s and 50s, when there was only one champ per division, we saw some of the most dangerous challengers being frozen out for years - before they were finally (if they were lucky!) granted a title shot.

Archie Moore was ranked #1 contender by The Ring 10(!) years before he got his shot - and we all know how LaMotta had to throw a fight, before he was given a chance at the middleweight crown. Liston was easily the best heavyweight in the world for at least 4 years, before finally shaming Patterson into risking his title against him.

Going even further back in time, Dempsey ducked his outstanding challenger Harry Wills for the entire 7 years of his reign. Yes, I know… all kinds of excuses can be made for this fight never being made. But the fact is, that it never was.

Champions trying to avoid their most dangerous challengers isn't a new phenomenon - it has always been like that.

- -Today is mostly occasional charges of the light brigade.

Dempsey gave up 3 yrs of his career along with his promoter and trainer/Mgr trying to fight Harry.

In the end, Harry forfeited his chance for a title shot.

I don't blame Harry for being at the end of his career, but you want to blame Jack?

Whatever, dude!

[them_apples]

Well we can start with this.

In the 40s you had 126, 135, 147, 160 etc with 1 title per weight class

Now we have 126, 130, 135, 140, 146, 154, 160. And 4 titles per weight class.

A former world champion in the 50s was 1 in 625 fighters roughly, today its about 1 in 70.

You also had no ppv, and no screen time to sell yourself based on a personality. It basically took hard work and connections only.

Often in the top 10 the fighters were all consistently fighting for the title, winning or losing. Take Ezzard Charles for example, he was fighting guys in the top 10 numerous times over. This is about as tangible as you can get in figuring out who's actually good and who is a fraud. Not to mention the experience you would gain from this. This would never happen today. Every fighter, outside of the superstars is really quite fraudulent.

Take Canelo for example, he's got 2 fights with ggg with no real clear winner. He's got a dozen wins over names that moved up in weight and were at a huge disadvantage. Competitive fights like Lara never got rematches or rubber matches. I get it, the games different and it doesn't make sense money wise. But this is another reason why fighters were better back then. The organization was getting paid back then, now it's the fighters.