Tweet
Busting The Modern Myth! Part 1
By: Monte D. Cox
What makes people believe everything new is better?
Go to a store, everything’s “new and improved”, “now with added,” and blah, blah, blah… Some products have improved taste and texture. Mostly, it’s the same ol’, same ol’.
Filtered cigarettes were supposed to reduce health risks. More smoke and mirrors, but they’ve been the biggest sellers since they were introduced.
Boxing’s just as fallible. Jake Wegner, a boxing historian and researcher, wrote in the IBRO Journal # 82 in June 2004 about the difference between a boxing fan and a boxing historian: ‘A boxing fan is content with just watching fights; a boxing historian needs much more. He needs to get access to the fighters and get inside accounts. Historians ask questions.
‘A fan will read that Willie Pep once won the third round of his fight with Jackie Graves without throwing a punch and believe the myth. A historian will read through the reels of newspaper microfilm from the city where the fight took place, interview spectators when possible and compare newspaper accounts.
‘This is important because history becomes heresy if the facts are not reported and spoken of in an accurate manner.
‘Would it make a difference if you knew that the newspapers of the time never reported a story about Pep winning a round in such a manner and that the fable did not emerge until decades later? Or would it matter that the actual newspaper accounts state that the third round was the most rabid of the night, saying, “A clicker couldn’t count the blows.” Would you still believe the tale? You would if you were a person eager to spread legend and predisposed to accepting stories because they agree with your particular ideas. You wouldn’t if you are a historian. You would want to know the truth and once presented with the facts would accept them as such.
The myth most often foisted today is: Fighters are “bigger, faster, stronger and better” than ever. Do they have superior fundamentals? Do they throw more punches? Are they “new and improved” and better than the legends?
The new breed spouts off about the sport’s “evolution” But the old-time greats were just as skilled in the lower weight classes as the moderns.
A swarmer then is a swarmer today, and they were much better at in-fighting. The slick boxers of that era had an even bigger bag of tricks than the TV darlings. They were better at feinting, trapping, and glove blocking.
What makes a complete fighter? Speed, power, precision punching, combinations, footwork, toughness, durability, endurance, and boxing skill. In the last 60 years of “evolution,” how many fighters have been better overall than “Sugar” Ray Robinson?
There are many myths perpetuated on boxing boards about the great fighters of the past.
“No fighters before 1980 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1970 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1960 were any good.”
“No fighters before WW2 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1930 were any good.”
“They didn’t throw sustained combination punches before 1920.”
“All fighters from the early 20th century were crude, with no semblance of skill.”
“The old-time fights were very slow-paced.”
“Because of superior nutrition and training, today’s fighters are better than those of the past.”
Why not add: The world is flat – all are myths!
Boxing training hasn’t changed much in over 100 years. Jogging, jumping rope, medicine balls, bag work, sparring, and even rowing machines have been around since the late 19th century. While there have been advances in nutrition and supplements, this hasn’t helped today's crop fight as many rounds or as often as those of the past.
One often sees fighters – especially heavyweights now -- tire before the 12th round.
Training hasn’t improved. If anything there are less qualified trainers than ever before. Joe Frazier commented in KO Magazine, March 1999, ‘These guys aren’t trained by real champions, by great ex-fighters.”
The best trainers in history were fighters who knew all the ins-and-outs of the game. Rocky Marciano's trainer, Charley Goldman, claimed to have had over 300 pro fights. Jack Blackburn, Joe Louis’ trainer, was one of the great fighters of the turn of the century and had over 160 pro fights. He fought the likes of Joe Gans, Sam Langford, and Harry Greb.
Ray Arcel, who learned from some of the greats, like Benny Leonard and Whitey Bimstein, noted shortly before his death, ‘Boxing is not really boxing today. It’s theater. Some kids might look good. But they don’t learn their trade. If you take a piece of gold out of the ground, you know its gold. But you have to clean it. You have to polish it. But there aren’t too many guys capable (today) of polishing a fighter.”
The only significant change in the game is fighters box fewer rounds. Styles have remained consistent
By the early 20th century, there were four basic styles: the out-boxers, like Jim Driscoll, Abe Attell, Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, and Benny Leonard; the well-balanced boxer-punchers, like Joe Gans and Sam Langford; swarmers, like Battling Nelson, and crude sluggers like Stanley Ketchel.
Early 20th century boxers were much better infighters than the current breed. This is due, in part, to Muhammad Ali, who rarely went to the body, and amateur rules that don’t give sufficient weight to body blows.
By: Monte D. Cox
What makes people believe everything new is better?
Go to a store, everything’s “new and improved”, “now with added,” and blah, blah, blah… Some products have improved taste and texture. Mostly, it’s the same ol’, same ol’.
Filtered cigarettes were supposed to reduce health risks. More smoke and mirrors, but they’ve been the biggest sellers since they were introduced.
Boxing’s just as fallible. Jake Wegner, a boxing historian and researcher, wrote in the IBRO Journal # 82 in June 2004 about the difference between a boxing fan and a boxing historian: ‘A boxing fan is content with just watching fights; a boxing historian needs much more. He needs to get access to the fighters and get inside accounts. Historians ask questions.
‘A fan will read that Willie Pep once won the third round of his fight with Jackie Graves without throwing a punch and believe the myth. A historian will read through the reels of newspaper microfilm from the city where the fight took place, interview spectators when possible and compare newspaper accounts.
‘This is important because history becomes heresy if the facts are not reported and spoken of in an accurate manner.
‘Would it make a difference if you knew that the newspapers of the time never reported a story about Pep winning a round in such a manner and that the fable did not emerge until decades later? Or would it matter that the actual newspaper accounts state that the third round was the most rabid of the night, saying, “A clicker couldn’t count the blows.” Would you still believe the tale? You would if you were a person eager to spread legend and predisposed to accepting stories because they agree with your particular ideas. You wouldn’t if you are a historian. You would want to know the truth and once presented with the facts would accept them as such.
The myth most often foisted today is: Fighters are “bigger, faster, stronger and better” than ever. Do they have superior fundamentals? Do they throw more punches? Are they “new and improved” and better than the legends?
The new breed spouts off about the sport’s “evolution” But the old-time greats were just as skilled in the lower weight classes as the moderns.
A swarmer then is a swarmer today, and they were much better at in-fighting. The slick boxers of that era had an even bigger bag of tricks than the TV darlings. They were better at feinting, trapping, and glove blocking.
What makes a complete fighter? Speed, power, precision punching, combinations, footwork, toughness, durability, endurance, and boxing skill. In the last 60 years of “evolution,” how many fighters have been better overall than “Sugar” Ray Robinson?
There are many myths perpetuated on boxing boards about the great fighters of the past.
“No fighters before 1980 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1970 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1960 were any good.”
“No fighters before WW2 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1930 were any good.”
“They didn’t throw sustained combination punches before 1920.”
“All fighters from the early 20th century were crude, with no semblance of skill.”
“The old-time fights were very slow-paced.”
“Because of superior nutrition and training, today’s fighters are better than those of the past.”
Why not add: The world is flat – all are myths!
Boxing training hasn’t changed much in over 100 years. Jogging, jumping rope, medicine balls, bag work, sparring, and even rowing machines have been around since the late 19th century. While there have been advances in nutrition and supplements, this hasn’t helped today's crop fight as many rounds or as often as those of the past.
One often sees fighters – especially heavyweights now -- tire before the 12th round.
Training hasn’t improved. If anything there are less qualified trainers than ever before. Joe Frazier commented in KO Magazine, March 1999, ‘These guys aren’t trained by real champions, by great ex-fighters.”
The best trainers in history were fighters who knew all the ins-and-outs of the game. Rocky Marciano's trainer, Charley Goldman, claimed to have had over 300 pro fights. Jack Blackburn, Joe Louis’ trainer, was one of the great fighters of the turn of the century and had over 160 pro fights. He fought the likes of Joe Gans, Sam Langford, and Harry Greb.
Ray Arcel, who learned from some of the greats, like Benny Leonard and Whitey Bimstein, noted shortly before his death, ‘Boxing is not really boxing today. It’s theater. Some kids might look good. But they don’t learn their trade. If you take a piece of gold out of the ground, you know its gold. But you have to clean it. You have to polish it. But there aren’t too many guys capable (today) of polishing a fighter.”
The only significant change in the game is fighters box fewer rounds. Styles have remained consistent
By the early 20th century, there were four basic styles: the out-boxers, like Jim Driscoll, Abe Attell, Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, and Benny Leonard; the well-balanced boxer-punchers, like Joe Gans and Sam Langford; swarmers, like Battling Nelson, and crude sluggers like Stanley Ketchel.
Early 20th century boxers were much better infighters than the current breed. This is due, in part, to Muhammad Ali, who rarely went to the body, and amateur rules that don’t give sufficient weight to body blows.
Comment