New School Fighters vs. Old School Fighters

[Poet682006]

Actually if you want judge from 1970-till now, definitely new school. I should of voted for new school.

Actually, it seems that more and more lately "Old-School" is defined as pre-1990.....at least among some of the posters I've read. For some others 1980 seems to be the bench mark. Judging by that I'd say that "Old-School" is defined by a lot posters under age 40 as any thing that happened before they were old enough to be aware of it.

Poet

[BmoreBrawler]

old school fighters were generally better but I think prime Tyson could have beat Ali, I really do. He is the exception to the rule though, Ali beats Lennox Lewis/Vlad/Vitali/Bowe/Holyfield etc

[boxasmash]

things are different now, fighters only fight 2-3 times a year on average at the top of the sport.

[bklynboy]

This can be the start of a long discussion. In general earlier fighters had the advantage of fight experience (they fought more); the fight game was much tougher than it is today and they generally stayed in better shape. I don’t think training and conditioning is superior today (especially at heavyweight). Probably the key difference is the use of film. Today’s fighters dissect their opponents and train for weeks, if not months, on how to neutralize and exploit the tactics and weaknesses of their opponents. This is something that could never be done.

Put today’s fighters back in the 20s and 30s; expect them to fight every 6 to 8 weeks and have no film to study their opponents and see what happens. Bring Henry Armstrong and Harry Greb (1910s and 1920s) to the present; give them a modern trainer used to working off film, give them months to train for each fight and see how they do.

[TRUEBELIEVER 66]

The old school guy's of the 50's 60's and 70's make today's fighters look like wimps, old school guy's fought 15 rounders, sometimes 4 times a year (most of the guy's today fight once or twice a year) they didn't cherrypick and fought sometimes with half their grill falling off, they didn't stop fight's back in those day's, like they do now, guy's today have steriods, andro, creatine and use nutritional experts and can't even make it 12 rounds, without gassing out, old school guy's trained on steak and eggs, and were all around tougher men..

[GJC]

Probably the key difference is the use of film. Today’s fighters dissect their opponents and train for weeks, if not months, on how to neutralize and exploit the tactics and weaknesses of their opponents. This is something that could never be done.

Put today’s fighters back in the 20s and 30s; expect them to fight every 6 to 8 weeks and have no film to study their opponents and see what happens. Bring Henry Armstrong and Harry Greb (1910s and 1920s) to the present; give them a modern trainer used to working off film, give them months to train for each fight and see how they do.

Film is a very good point and often overlooked. Good fighters are good problem solvers the more information they have in advance the less suprises.
There were great old school fighters who with modern advantages would still have a huge impact now. Likewise there are great modern day fighters who would have a huge impact in olden times but would struggle with the conditions of that time.

[GJC]

I think prime Tyson could have beat Ali, I really do.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion but I really really really don't think he would.

[wmute]

old school fighters were generally better but I think prime Tyson could have beat Ali, I really do. He is the exception to the rule though, Ali beats Lennox Lewis/Vlad/Vitali/Bowe/Holyfield etc

that says a lot

[bklynboy]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion but I really really really don't think he would.

Now this is an interesting match-up. If we think of an early Tyson (with his jabs, and his bob and weave style) as a Frazier type fighter then I think we could say that Tyson would give Ali trouble.

But how mentally tough was the Cus D'Amato era Tyson? Come round 6,8,10,12 if the fight's outcome was still on the line would he have been able to dig down deep and do his best fighting? Or would he have self-destructed? And self-destructed doesn't necessarily mean biting Ali's ear it could simply be throwing nothing but wide hooks and being countered to death.

[Poet682006]

Now this is an interesting match-up. If we think of an early Tyson (with his jabs, and his bob and weave style) as a Frazier type fighter then I think we could say that Tyson would give Ali trouble.

But how mentally tough was the Cus D'Amato era Tyson? Come round 6,8,10,12 if the fight's outcome was still on the line would he have been able to dig down deep and do his best fighting? Or would he have self-destructed? And self-destructed doesn't necessarily mean biting Ali's ear it could simply be throwing nothing but wide hooks and being countered to death.

Frazier's consistant body-attack gave Ali more problems than anything else. Tyson was never a consistant body puncher: He might start up a body attack but he could never resist the clarion call to go back to head-hunting and looking for the quick KO. Even under Rooney/D'Amato Mike never had the discipline or mental toughness to stay with the body punches. Frazier, on the otherhand, would attack the body for 15 straight rounds if that's what it took.

Poet