The oldschool of boxing is overrated

[cupocity303]

Joe Frazier would beat the hell outta anyone today..

No, he really would not.

[Holywarrior]

So how are they overrated again? I don't think I've heard one good point.

[BattlingNelson]

BITD there were more fighters who fought more often. Its a case of classic competition. When the competition is greater, you have to be better to excel.

If you have 100 fighters who battle it out to determine the top 10 and compare those 10 to a top 10 determined by 1,000 fighters I think it is quite clear which crop is the best.

[cupocity303]

In this footage of WW Robinson you will find many of his great tools/skills.. punch variation, jabs to the stomach, pivoting, counters, controlled aggression..

This is before Sugar Ray won the Welterweight title too.



By a minute mark you will see great glimpse of skill in Robinson. Floyd would be outmanned in the clinch against Robinson.

Sugar Ray is safe since he is dead and he has a far superior record to Floyd. This cannot be changed. However, I see nothing there that would present Floyd with any new problems that Floyd hasn't seen already. His defense is not great and Floyd's is. He was landing on a bunch of stiffs in that video. Floyd's counter punching would land on SRR just as well as they did on anybody in his 44 fights.

[cupocity303]

You can point it to trainers, and the knowledge of trainers. You could say there are more boxing "coaches" than boxing "trainers". Trainers as in regard to what we may now refer to as "old timers" of the sport; or the "Bert Sugar's"; many trainers can possibly teach you the very basics. But knowledge that may have gone missing is forever lost that may have been created when boxing was at its PEAK in America(of course where the best prizefighters were).

Boxing isn't academics. A lot of that Teacher Vs Coach stuff is just Boxing's equivalent to Elitist snobbery. Some people wanna make it more deeper than it really is. This type of criticism gets used in Music a lot (the quality of music in the past Vs Present) which may be justified. Certainly there is no way to compare it beyond personal taste and record sales as the musicians can't duke it out. But there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that the vast majority of modern fighters kick the crap out of fighters from days past.

Consider this... If today's boxer where in the 20's - 5'11 would they be as successful with the lack of training that is today?....... or would the great fighters of the past with their natural talent move to this day of age and have the new/great training techniques become greats...

I believe you put many of the fighters in the past with the same training as the past greats; these fighter would be the mediocre fighters you claim are nothing spectacular. The greats of the past if put in this age and given the great training we have now they would dominant with no question. Robinson would clean up welterweight to light-heavy. .. Marciano could move from light heavy to heavyweight as well as Dempsey. Archie Moore would have KO'D Kovalov and Stevenson.

This is circular reasoning. We are debating fighters from the past as they were VS fighters from the present as they are. Expecting a present day fighter to subvert themselves by going on a 1950-1960's style diet and training regimen is unfair. It's purposely asking them to weaken themselves down to their competitors level. You cannot do that.

On the other hand you presumptuously expect the fighter of the past to be great if he only had access to modern day tools, which is another logical fallacy. They are as they are. You don't blame Wlad for being 6'6 and you don't make fallacious claims that if only fighter X from 1950 had access to better nutrition and grew out 6'6 as well, he would kick wlad's ass.

[cupocity303]

So let me get this straight....you're suggesting that a long time champion with nearly 50 fights over a decade, around ten of those championship fights against other champions, at a physical peak of around 30 years old is not in his prime?

Riiiiiiiight.

You have inflated the numbers for exaggeration. His last loss was in 2004 which is what, 10 years ago? If he is 37 right now, then that would have made him 27 in his last loss against Brewster. That's still relatively young for a Heavyweight and he was still not as muscle-bound and stylistically improved as he is today.

He also had 42 wins when he lost to Brewster, which is not quite 50. Ultimately him losing to Brewster and Sanders (two big punchers with winning records in their own right) means nothing as he has demonstrated his abilities by beating fighters far more skilled than those two in the next decade. All it is is poking fun at 2 losses. It's an Argument-for-perfection- Fallacy (I coined that term) in that Wlad should be 64-0 right now and not 61-3, as if 61-3 isn't impressive enough. Losing to Sanders/Brewster is not to much different from Pacquiao's pre-Marquez knockout losses in that he got his comeuppance but the final product of Pacquiao would never have lost to those guys.

[Xpert]

You have inflated the numbers for exaggeration. His last loss was in 2004 which is what, 10 years ago? If he is 37 right now, then that would have made him 27 in his last loss against Brewster. That's still relatively young for a Heavyweight and he was still not as muscle-bound and stylistically improved as he is today.

He also had 42 wins when he lost to Brewster, which is not quite 50. Ultimately him losing to Brewster and Sanders (two big punchers with winning records in their own right) means nothing as he has demonstrated his abilities by beating fighters far more skilled than those two in the next decade. All it is is poking fun at 2 losses. It's an Argument-for-perfection- Fallacy (I coined that term) in that Wlad should be 64-0 right now and not 61-3, as if 61-3 isn't impressive enough. Losing to Sanders/Brewster is not to much different from Pacquiao's pre-Marquez knockout losses in that he got his comeuppance but the final product of Pacquiao would never have lost to those guys.

Exactly, green rep to you. Wladimir improved his defense, but Frazier could never improve his jaw or size.

[DAN916]

)

[KJB]

Holyfield was a great fighter, not sure why you are using him as a measuring stick.

Golden Era heavyweights were amazing, though.

[KJB]

Boxing isn't academics. A lot of that Teacher Vs Coach stuff is just Boxing's equivalent to Elitist snobbery. Some people wanna make it more deeper than it really is. This type of criticism gets used in Music a lot (the quality of music in the past Vs Present) which may be justified. Certainly there is no way to compare it beyond personal taste and record sales as the musicians can't duke it out. But there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that the vast majority of modern fighters kick the crap out of fighters from days past.

No, I don't think so. The average "top fighter" in the 50s had a more varied skill set with different looks. These days A LOT of fighters are taught to fight the same way. There is definitely a lot of old school knowledge that isn't commonly passed around these days. That isn't to say it doesn't exist, but the norm is to teach people to keep their hands up and throw A, B, and C combinations. There used to be more to it than that on a regular.