Modern fights are almost universally superior, but "seeing something" in archaic boxing matches is a very popular gimmick people use to sound like "sweet science experts".
This isn't medieval swordsmanship, it isn't some lost art. The "Golden Ages" were more equivalent to toughman competitions than they are to modern boxing -- fighters of extremely questionable athletic ability from a handful of US states and 1 or 2 foreign countries having sloppy, fan-friendly wars.
This happened to MMA. It was more "fun" to watch early on because there were so many whacky styles and crazy KOs. Now it's becoming like modern boxing where everyone is very well-rounded and fights are stalemates until someone finds a small opening. Most average people, especially old dudes who have watched boxing for 40 years but never actually tried it, will prefer the slop you saw in the 30s, 70s, etc over the rehearsed, robotic styles you see today.
We make fun of guys with physiques like Arreola nowadays but there was a time when a guy 5 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter with a similar muscle/fat ratio was considered a real beefcake.
The money has never been higher, the coverage has never been higher, the talent pool has never been so deep and global.
The problem with modern boxing is that the business aspect has also become extremely precise and practiced. Fighters perfectly time their "payout" and minimize their exposure so it's harder for a hall of famer to get 5+ other hall of famers on his resume.
I'm around guys who had pro stints or TRIED to go pro all the time and the hardest part of a modern boxing career is getting with that big promoter. It's like getting your script picked up by a major movie studio. A lot of them put more energy and money into chasing contracts than they put into actually boxing. A lot of people see the ammies as the true measure of who is the best for this reason, and a pro career as playing craps.
Historical resumes look better, but modern fighters are superior.
This isn't medieval swordsmanship, it isn't some lost art. The "Golden Ages" were more equivalent to toughman competitions than they are to modern boxing -- fighters of extremely questionable athletic ability from a handful of US states and 1 or 2 foreign countries having sloppy, fan-friendly wars.
This happened to MMA. It was more "fun" to watch early on because there were so many whacky styles and crazy KOs. Now it's becoming like modern boxing where everyone is very well-rounded and fights are stalemates until someone finds a small opening. Most average people, especially old dudes who have watched boxing for 40 years but never actually tried it, will prefer the slop you saw in the 30s, 70s, etc over the rehearsed, robotic styles you see today.
We make fun of guys with physiques like Arreola nowadays but there was a time when a guy 5 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter with a similar muscle/fat ratio was considered a real beefcake.
The money has never been higher, the coverage has never been higher, the talent pool has never been so deep and global.
The problem with modern boxing is that the business aspect has also become extremely precise and practiced. Fighters perfectly time their "payout" and minimize their exposure so it's harder for a hall of famer to get 5+ other hall of famers on his resume.
I'm around guys who had pro stints or TRIED to go pro all the time and the hardest part of a modern boxing career is getting with that big promoter. It's like getting your script picked up by a major movie studio. A lot of them put more energy and money into chasing contracts than they put into actually boxing. A lot of people see the ammies as the true measure of who is the best for this reason, and a pro career as playing craps.
Historical resumes look better, but modern fighters are superior.
Comment