I thought it was just the heavyweights that have regressed

[2fast2strong]

With a few exceptions this entire generation of fighters have regressed in skill level it would seem.

Watching heavyweights from the 70s - 2000s the skill level has definitely declined at an alarming rate.

Now it would seem that all weight classes have regressed also.

I guess that’s what happens when you can get a shot at a title before having 20 professional fights.

And the fact that less athletes are choosing to box.

What do you think is the reason for the decline in skill level?

[Marchegiano]

With a few exceptions this entire generation of fighters have regressed in skill level it would seem.

Watching heavyweights from the 70s - 2000s the skill level has definitely declined at an alarming rate.

Now it would seem that all weight classes have regressed also.

I guess that’s what happens when you can get a shot at a title before having 20 professional fights.

And the fact that less athletes are choosing to box.

What do you think is the reason for the decline in skill level?

Boxing comes in cycles. It might be a bit of a shock to learn boxing theory and techniques are not so much proven by the ring as much as the wallet, but, from a historical perspective it is the case and I see no reason to believe this situation is any different.

I'll give you an example, in vagues:

In the early days of ancient greek boxing it was, as best we can tell, very similar to how you'd assume. No much in the way of defense except guarding, most of it was blow swapping until a man fell.

Boxing was initially training for sword and shield tactics. Things like Perry were not the focus so much as bumping with the shield to create an opening then stabbing with the sword to finish the opponent swiftly. So, you could use your shield so to speak and that be okay, but a pivot, not so much.

This atmosphere of brutality is mostly driven by fans' lack of appreciation for anything but. For me to claim the cause would be bold, probably as simple and complex as society. Likewise, I can not explain why it ended but I do know it did. Before the Greeks fell to the Romans defense did find its way into Greek tactics and for the first time moving out of the way of a punch wasn't just sissy **** but rather intellectual.

You have a run of great Greeks, great either in the Marciano/Wilder sense, were there isn't much tact but rather force, or great in the sense of a Floyd or Gans, were tact is the main element and force is secondary.

Then the Romans take over and really add a whole lot to the bloodlust of boxing. They fought in weaponized wraps, spikes and blades and such. From that horribly vicious atmosphere gave us a real exaltation of defense. Melankomas comes from the first century AD. He fought during the Roman era and is most famous for having never been struck cleanly. It doesn't matter if you believe Mel was never hit you have to accept the Roman exaltation of defense from his story.

Boxing gets made illegal by the 300s. Between Mel and King Varazdat of Armenia ( last ancient champion ) you get what one would expect from a society that loves blood and defense. Great offensive fighters fighting in the same era as great defensive fighters.

For the Greeks, they could claim this for a generation here or there. For the Romans it was boxing.

In the 1700s, during the Spanish Inquisition and when it was super cool for English Aristos to go to Greece to dig up old **** and talk about it, the enlightenment era, is when boxing gets its revival.

No different from democracy, boxing was just an ancient idea. It had to be retooled for the new society involved. James Figg gets the credit. Figg, by his peers, was known as a Slaughterer. Which is exactly what you'd guess, a Puncher in today's vocab.

By the 1780s the English crown is up for grabs. Being ***ish in Europe is still a hazard. A young *** named Daniel The *** Mendoza studies fencing defense and applies it to boxing. Perry and pivot, riposte, and fighting defense first all came from Daniel. In fact The *** invented ticketing, using the media to rile the audience, using race hate to rile the audience, and to Daniel fighting defensively was little else but a tactic to re-enforce Anti-Semitic stereotypes. Daniel was never fairly beaten, a conspiracy was carried out to relieve him of his title. His defense was sound. He was a LW,MW, and HW champion.

Because Daniel was ***ish he didn't get many white christian student to pass his art down to. He did however buddy up with the black Americans who like Daniel had suffered from conspiracy against them.

English boxing is more or less just stand there and punch like early Greek boxing. There isn't much science to the majority of the fighters however there is enough who see the value in Daniel's tactics to use a few from time to time. Guys like Hen Pearce were good boxers and movers but Hen should not be thought of as the archetype for his time but rather a man ahead of the game.

So, in England you have mostly punchers when America starts boxing. Most the American fighters are Irish. The Irish get most of their training from the English and so fight more or less just like the English. To them, that is what boxing is.

At the same time, early American black dudes were not allowed to participate on the same level. Often I see it presented as if no black vs white fights happened during the colorline. That is not true at all. No blacks were allowed to win high profile fights, most of them were not allowed to be apart of high profile but even if they were winning was a definite impossibility.

So, early in US boxing history, like 1840s-1910s, you have an environment where black guys needed to be good enough to put on a show for the white audience but not so good to be a legit threat against a white man.

What comes from this is the idea that blacks should fight defensively. From the black perspective they had been trained by a defense wizard, Daniel The ***, and that training was handed down from gen to gen. They are not allowed to win big fights even if they're lucky enough to get the fight. The answer was simple to them. Employ the training their culture has exalted for generations to keep yourself safe while looking good and making the other guy look like a god.

There are many greats to name in that era but George Godfrey is the man to look at for some real ****.

By the turn of the 1900s Corbett is being touted as some kind of genius for mimicking Black/***ish tactics poorly. The classic story is defense begins with him....yeah, sure, with him. That's why Floyd called himself Money. Not 'cause The *** called himself The *** during The Spanish Inquisition....because Corbett pulled his head directly back, sure.

lol, it should be clear by this story, defense, comes and goes not by its effectiveness but rather the will of the audience.

When I say the black men could not win I do mean the audience would storm the ring and make sure of it. Even by Jack Johnson, JJ was not allowed his KO. They called the match off instead. Remnants of a time when they'd've just beaten him senseless then restarted the match and held Burns' hand in victory.

SO, lol, regression? I dunno, maybe, but, had I watched Daniel in 1780 then I probably would have seen 1840s America as a huge regression, however, it isn't England or Ireland that brings defense back. That is Black America who did that.

So, like I say, maybe, or maybe it's just prompt for the next generation to do things differently and by their difference appear new and god-like.

[elfag]

The skill on average has declined but there are still stand out fighters:

Loma
Canelo
Fury
Crawford

[Cutthroat]

It's called nostalgia.

Ali used to get floored by cruisers and it happened multiple times. That doesn't happen in this era, cruisers can barely even move up let alone become champions.

Foreman has one of the WORST defenses of all time, I mean Wilder is LIGHT YEARS ahead of him in defensive skill.

LL got cold clocked by Rahman & stopped by McCall. Etc.


Pacquiao is a legend and has had his body preserved through modern technology, nutrition etc. We've seen multiple 40 year olds in fantastic shape, back in the day dudes used to get all fat and out of shape like Foreman in his comeback. Being old these days is nowhere near the same thing as it used to be.

[Nash out]

Heavyweights now are better than ever. It's nostalgia for old fighters in all weight divisions that makes many overrate them.

[Mushashi]

Have to agree. Less spectacular fighters all round, less strength in depth across the divisions. And nobody fights each other which hinders progress.