Will people ever STOP OVERRATING old primitive era boxers with little skill?

[Ascended]

https://********/6Yvvi_vzb-o
Joe's era stiff slow missing mutiple advances in movement

Ali's not stiff or slow and has advances

[elfag]

Dempsey literally wrote the book on boxing you ignorant clown:


This book is a bible for combat sports athletes of all sorts to this very day.

His power punching, come forward, bob and weave style was the prototype for Mike Tyson.

He may be physically outmatched by today's fighters but Jack Dempsey's technique and tactics are the foundation of modern boxing.

Jack dempsey fought farm hands, factory workers, black smiths, all these random guys. How many guys that he beat actuallly boxed full time like he did?


They should subtract out ever non full time boxer from these guys records.


There wasnt the money in it back then to support full time training for these guys.

These guys trained a few times a week after working 10 hour days on the assembly line.

It would be like if Usyk beat on a bunch of white collar boxers and everyone proclaimed him amazing for it

[Good ol' Douglas]

in 100 years people will be like wait ggg was a top fighter? he had no skill. oh wait they do that now!

No, because sporting evolution is not linear.

Why do you think scientific advancements do not occur as quickly in the 21st century as they did pre-Enlightenment?

There is a "ceiling" to maximum development and the rate in which new breakthroughs are reached.

Dempsey literally wrote the book on boxing you ignorant clown:


This book is a bible for combat sports athletes of all sorts to this very day.

His power punching, come forward, bob and weave style was the prototype for Mike Tyson.

He may be physically outmatched by today's fighters but Jack Dempsey's technique and tactics are the foundation of modern boxing.

A bible nobody reads because it is completely outdated?

Modern students studying calculus are not reading Leibniz's theoretical work on the subject.

Dempsey's fight IQ alone.... People think that athletes are dumb jocks with no brains. The truly great have both physical and MENTAL talents...

Dempsey was not exposed to the variety of styles and techniques that exist today. Back then, using the shoulder to roll the back hand was considered revolutionary.

So his "fight IQ" has to be contextualised in his limited era.

1. Old school boxers fought as much as 25 times per year.
2. Fighting more often exposed them to every conceivable style which made these guys much more clever and versatile. It was unheard of win a title after only 20 fights... a cagey vet with experience would expose you.
3. There were thousands of boxers to fight from the 20s to 50s (6000 in the USA alone at one point) and only one champ per division, which made competition fierce.
4. Almost every division was stacked, especially from the 30s on when black fighters were allowed to compete for the world titles. That undisputed greats like SRR and Willie Pep took Ls (however few) speaks volumes.

The book goes on about the lack of great trainers and the falling out of favor of certain fighting styles...

1. That would be commercially unviable today and completely undesirable. Imagine modern fighters taking heaps of uncompetitive bouts one after another? The sport would actually die. Also, old school boxers did not have competitors breaking down their style with HD, multiangle footage. So they could go around small towns can crushing while growing their name and collecting gate receipts without issue.

2. The global gene pool is bigger than ever and modern techniques are far more advanced. I guarantee they were not exposed to more styles. Quantity =/= quality =/= variety. If you disagree, where were the Furys, Usyks, Ortizs, etc. back then?

3. The best potential European fighters died at war as young soldiers hence lowering the competition available during the 40s and 50s. Again, a larger quantity does not ensure higher quality. I would back modern nutrition, training, medicine, etc. over raw numbers. Also, the data fails to account for multiple variables such as the popularity and duration of amateur boxing across eras, how many turned pro and for how long before quitting across eras, whether the barrier to entry has remained similar and if not, has that culled the weak?, etc.

4. Define "stacked". Cubans and Soviets were not competing back then. Considering their dominance at the amateur level, this is a far more significant point. But I guess it is not as satisfying as being able to play the "wayyycism" card AKA the myth of Jack Johnson. SRR and Pep were mostly fighting bums as I already have explained. Especially the latter because the competition is always lesser in the lighter weight classes.

Certain fighting styles have been rendered obsolete.

You remind me of the casuals on YT not understanding the decline of the cross-arm guard or peek-a-boo stance. They both have a lot of flaws that can be exploited and require specific attributes to be used effectively.

If you play video games, think of it as a similar process to when a "meta" forms.

[Cypocryphy]

No, because sporting evolution is not linear.

Why do you think scientific advancements do not occur as quickly in the 21st century as they did pre-Enlightenment?

There is a "ceiling" to maximum development and the rate in which new breakthroughs are reached.



A bible nobody reads because it is completely outdated?

Modern students studying calculus are not reading Leibniz's theoretical work on the subject.



Dempsey was not exposed to the variety of styles and techniques that exist today. Back then, using the shoulder to roll the back hand was considered revolutionary.

So his "fight IQ" has to be contextualised in his limited era.



1. That would be commercially unviable today and completely undesirable. Imagine modern fighters taking heaps of uncompetitive bouts one after another? The sport would actually die. Also, old school boxers did not have competitors breaking down their style with HD, multiangle footage. So they could go around small towns can crushing while growing their name and collecting gate receipts without issue.

2. The global gene pool is bigger than ever and modern techniques are far more advanced. I guarantee they were not exposed to more styles. Quantity =/= quality =/= variety. If you disagree, where were the Furys, Usyks, Ortizs, etc. back then?

3. The best potential European fighters died at war as young soldiers hence lowering the competition available during the 40s and 50s. Again, a larger quantity does not ensure higher quality. I would back modern nutrition, training, medicine, etc. over raw numbers. Also, the data fails to account for multiple variables such as the popularity and duration of amateur boxing across eras, how many turned pro and for how long before quitting across eras, whether the barrier to entry has remained similar and if not, has that culled the weak?, etc.

4. Define "stacked". Cubans and Soviets were not competing back then. Considering their dominance at the amateur level, this is a far more significant point. But I guess it is not as satisfying as being able to play the "wayyycism" card AKA the myth of Jack Johnson. SRR and Pep were mostly fighting bums as I already have explained. Especially the latter because the competition is always lesser in the lighter weight classes.

Certain fighting styles have been rendered obsolete.

You remind me of the casuals on YT not understanding the decline of the cross-arm guard or peek-a-boo stance. They both have a lot of flaws that can be exploited and require specific attributes to be used effectively.

If you play video games, think of it as a similar process to when a "meta" forms.

You make a lot of sense except that I do take some expiation to some of the things you said, which is the criticism of Dempsey and his book. Dempsey's book was for beginners, and in that light, it is a highly useful book. It is an introduction to fundamentals. Fundamentals, as they say, are fundamental, so they never change.

To say that the cross-arm guard or peek-a-boo stance are obsolete because they have flaws sounds like someone who has a superficial understanding of the sport. I have news for you—all styles have flaws that can be exploited.

Competition by time period is relative. It is the competitive that makes you better. Think of this in the sense of Darwinism, and you will understand that steel tempers steel. The better your competitors, then better you will become. It's relative.

It's too late to get into this, but I suggest you revise your thesis here.

I do have one question: what is "meta" in relation to video games?

[Roadblock]

What would Beterbiev do to Bob Fitzsimmons lol people need to realize boxing has evolved, technique and training is always improving every decade, and nothing stands still in mans search for ultimate performance.

[Good ol' Douglas]

You make a lot of sense except that I do take some expiation to some of the things you said, which is the criticism of Dempsey and his book. Dempsey's book was for beginners, and in that light, it is a highly useful book. It is an introduction to fundamentals. Fundamentals, as they say, are fundamental, so they never change.

To say that the cross-arm guard or peek-a-boo stance are obsolete because they have flaws sounds like someone who has a superficial understanding of the sport. I have news for you—all styles have flaws that can be exploited.

Competition by time period is relative. It is the competitive that makes you better. Think of this in the sense of Darwinism, and you will understand that steel tempers steel. The better your competitors, then better you will become. It's relative.

It's too late to get into this, but I suggest you revise your thesis here.

I do have one question: what is "meta" in relation to video games?

The meta refers to the most commonly used characters or items in a game.

It forms because these are the most dominant items in the game and matchup well against the types of obstacles you have to confront. How the meta adjusts in video games is obviously different from in professional sports.

In the context of boxing, it is clear that the flaws of the cross-arm guard are more numerous and limiting than that of the long guard. Hence why the former has fallen outside of the meta unlike the latter.

The peek-a-boo stance requires a short, highly athletic individual with good power and cardio to use effectively. It has a barrier to entry that limits its adoption, particularly in the era of super-heavyweights where size disparities have dramatically increased.

Boxing "fundamentals" have changed over time. You cannot seriously watch Dempsey and think that he adheres to the principles of modern boxing?

The meaning of "competition" entirely depends on context. You have the relative competition within eras and absolute competition across eras.

The 70s may have been more relatively competitive than the 2000s, however, in absolute terms it was not. W. Klitschko would have decimated Frazier, Norton, Ali and Foreman.

[Ascended]

No, because sporting evolution is not linear.

Why do you think scientific advancements do not occur as quickly in the 21st century as they did pre-Enlightenment?

There is a "ceiling" to maximum development and the rate in which new breakthroughs are reached.



A bible nobody reads because it is completely outdated?

Modern students studying calculus are not reading Leibniz's theoretical work on the subject.



Dempsey was not exposed to the variety of styles and techniques that exist today. Back then, using the shoulder to roll the back hand was considered revolutionary.

So his "fight IQ" has to be contextualised in his limited era.



1. That would be commercially unviable today and completely undesirable. Imagine modern fighters taking heaps of uncompetitive bouts one after another? The sport would actually die. Also, old school boxers did not have competitors breaking down their style with HD, multiangle footage. So they could go around small towns can crushing while growing their name and collecting gate receipts without issue.

2. The global gene pool is bigger than ever and modern techniques are far more advanced. I guarantee they were not exposed to more styles. Quantity =/= quality =/= variety. If you disagree, where were the Furys, Usyks, Ortizs, etc. back then?

3. The best potential European fighters died at war as young soldiers hence lowering the competition available during the 40s and 50s. Again, a larger quantity does not ensure higher quality. I would back modern nutrition, training, medicine, etc. over raw numbers. Also, the data fails to account for multiple variables such as the popularity and duration of amateur boxing across eras, how many turned pro and for how long before quitting across eras, whether the barrier to entry has remained similar and if not, has that culled the weak?, etc.

4. Define "stacked". Cubans and Soviets were not competing back then. Considering their dominance at the amateur level, this is a far more significant point. But I guess it is not as satisfying as being able to play the "wayyycism" card AKA the myth of Jack Johnson. SRR and Pep were mostly fighting bums as I already have explained. Especially the latter because the competition is always lesser in the lighter weight classes.

Certain fighting styles have been rendered obsolete.

You remind me of the casuals on YT not understanding the decline of the cross-arm guard or peek-a-boo stance. They both have a lot of flaws that can be exploited and require specific attributes to be used effectively.

If you play video games, think of it as a similar process to when a "meta" forms.

He knows Jack didn't fight all styles how could he when it was so limited that dude is a idiot for
llying

its not just styles that whole jack era and joes are trash compared like none of those dudes would make pro 70s-90s I have said this over and over only a iodpt would think its a lie when its video proving im right

[Ascended]

You make a lot of sense except that I do take some expiation to some of the things you said, which is the criticism of Dempsey and his book. Dempsey's book was for beginners, and in that light, it is a highly useful book. It is an introduction to fundamentals. Fundamentals, as they say, are fundamental, so they never change.

To say that the cross-arm guard or peek-a-boo stance are obsolete because they have flaws sounds like someone who has a superficial understanding of the sport. I have news for you—all styles have flaws that can be exploited.

Competition by time period is relative. It is the competitive that makes you better. Think of this in the sense of Darwinism, and you will understand that steel tempers steel. The better your competitors, then better you will become. It's relative.

It's too late to get into this, but I suggest you revise your thesis here.

I do have one question: what is "meta" in relation to video games?

He meant the old way Jack and that era used the cross and peek style those styles are trash compared to the one george and Frazier and Tom used its easy to see this watch the 70s and compare its easy to see

[Ascended]

The meta refers to the most commonly used characters or items in a game.

It forms because these are the most dominant items in the game and matchup well against the types of obstacles you have to confront. How the meta adjusts in video games is obviously different from in professional sports.

In the context of boxing, it is clear that the flaws of the cross-arm guard are more numerous and limiting than that of the long guard. Hence why the former has fallen outside of the meta unlike the latter.

The peek-a-boo stance requires a short, highly athletic individual with good power and cardio to use effectively. It has a barrier to entry that limits its adoption, particularly in the era of super-heavyweights where size disparities have dramatically increased.

Boxing "fundamentals" have changed over time. You cannot seriously watch Dempsey and think that he adheres to the principles of modern boxing?

The meaning of "competition" entirely depends on context. You have the relative competition within eras and absolute competition across eras.

The 70s may have been more relatively competitive than the 2000s, however, in absolute terms it was not. W. Klitschko would have decimated Frazier, Norton, Ali and Foreman.

Facts but thats not true 70s are way overrated its way more skilled boxers in 90s compared and 80s had better skilled fighters to and not just high level mid level people did to

Last week idiots were saying how george could beat byrd how is that when most know a young Ali would outbox george easy

Byrd is the most fancy and flashy mid level hw boxer ever who was harder to hit then the young ali so that doesn't make sense at all
like by saying byrd would lose means young ali would lose to like these people are so messed up in the head and refuse to watch matches or either have bad vision

[Ascended]

What would Beterbiev do to Bob Fitzsimmons lol people need to realize boxing has evolved, technique and training is always improving every decade, and nothing stands still in mans search for ultimate performance.

Beter is nice great use of angles and countering as what would happen well a handful of
punches would drop that dope and the whole era 1st round they could line them up and the result is the same

On the other forum idiot trolls say how rocky could beat Beterbiev even though he never fought anybody like him when beter fought and beat way better skilled and movers like alot of people on these forums don't watch matches that or like I always say are blind to or only watch the old eras which is idiotic