Tweet
joe louis. nobodys even close to joe louis' right hand.
-
-
Trains? Medicine?
I understand your point on the fighter's record that you were trying to make, and I'll get back to that, but once again I having trouble seeing the comparisions of humans to things born out of technology...You're not saying that we humans are machines or something are you?
No, I would think we're not, or at least hope we're not.
Nah, this is just boxing we're talking about...a form of fistfighting. Boxing has been around as a documented sport for thousands of years, whereas and odds are, defending one's self with one's fist likely began the beginning of the human race itself or shortly after, considering it's probably the most natural and primal way that we humans defend themselves.
Men learned how to throw a punch or two (boxing at it's basic) a long, long, LONG ass time ago, I guess is what I'm saying.
But...technology?
I'll tell you where I do see an improvement technology-wise in boxing, and that's in the way they filmed the fights. Heck, it wasn't until the 1930's when boxing was finally being consistently filmed at regular speed...Largely judging the fight films from before that time and comparing them to today, is just about impossible to do because of the speed of the film, all the missing frames, moisture damage, and whatever else that detracts from your viewing. But the 30's film and beyond are generally pretty good besides some moisture damage...But at least the film is at speed, doesn't have the missing frames, and I think what we see from those films can fairly be comparable to what we see nowadays, provided the overall production or presentation of what you see (bright lights, big HBO or Showtime logos, and hey...colour.).
But, I'll try this in reverse...
25, 30 years that's a pretty long time, isn't it...technically speaking, I guess?
I mean, I remember back when I was my son's age now, and sitting in front of the television playing Pong...No ****. And meanwhile, he's sitting here playing Madden '07...
Whoa, videogames have certainly advanced a million fold in the amount of time, that's for sure!
But has boxing?
Can you honestly tell me that the best fighters of today are an advancement (in ability to fight) from the best fighters of 25 to 30 years ago, like Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Sanchez, Hearns, Arguello, etc., etc.?
Honestly?
Or take another 25 to 30 years and that group is supposed to be an advancement over the likes of Robinson, Pep, Charles, Gavilan, Moore, Ike Williams, Cerdan, Saddler, Pacuel Perez, Harold Johnson, etc., etc?
And add that apx. same amount of time, and that group is supposed to be advancement over the likes of Louis, Canzoneri, Ross, Armstrong, McLarnin, Benny Lynch, Billy Conn, etc., etc.?
I've seen fights from all them guys, and I honestly do not see this so called advancement that's being alluded to...besides the colour presentation seen on the more modern fights, of course. When comparing the eras and their overall ability to fight, I just don't see the improvements from era to era.
Heck, comparing this era directly to the earliest one I alluded...I was just watching the Primo Carnera/George Godfrey fight again yesterday, and for a fighter who's been ridiculed throughout history for this supposed lack of ability to fight...I'm betting that even a guy like Carnera would have been successful had he'd been around with today's supposed "advanced" group of heavyweights (well, they are "bigger" as a norm, I guess, although average height hasn't changed much since Carnera's time).
Anyways, I need a rest for a bit, but I'll get back to your point on records in a little bit. For one, it'll allow me to expand on a point I made in one of my earlier posts in the thread.Comment
-
Take Barney Ross for example...
He may not have been the very best of his era, but he was right up there, for sure. Compare that to a fighter from today, who's also right up there, as well...
Does Barney Ross appear to be less advanced in his ability to fight?
I don't know about you, but I see a very modern fighter who does all the things fighters today do...jab, excellant footwork, defensive reflexes, combinations, an ability to fight inside & out, looking for angles, etc., as well as the feints & parries that you don't see as much of nowadays.
I add all the sum of the parts together (Ross' excellant chin, toughness, heart, and proven 15 round stamina included), and to me the fighters today are not an advancement over a Barney Ross level fighter from the 1930's...Whether it be offensive (variety of punches, combos, feinting, etc.) or defensive boxing (footwork, reflexes, parrying, jab, etc.), there's nothing new that has been added to the fighting aspects of the sport that wasn't around in Barney Ross' time, or even long before that...
Heck, even Roy Jones' style wasn't new, as I've seen fighters use similiar such styles in fights from long ago...for one, Jimmy McLarnin, comes too mind, as he wasn't all that different in styles from Roy (left hand low type stance with right hand ****ed, depend on defensive reflexes, counter with with hard combinations).Comment
-
everything evolves my friend...everythingComment
-
I'm betting a freshly picked apple tastes the exact same as it did thousands of years ago (as would any natural food, I would think), and I'm also betting that this mountain outside my window here hasn't evolved...Quite the opposite actually.
But whatever, those have nothing to do with boxing, as do neither your or the other examples of technolgy seen in this thread.
Keeping it strictly to boxing and boxing only...How has the sport evolved from the 1930's til today (like I said, it's not at all fair to judge earlier films with great accuarcy)?
If you say they're better conditioned for fighting today (the fight films certainly don't show the results of these advances in supplements, diet or whatever else), where is the proof of that to be the case?
Where's the video proof that boxing has come up with something new in the fighting aspects of the sport, or that a group of best fighters from an era are more "advanced" fighters than their earlier counterparts?
Where is this stuff?
Give me soemthing to look at.Comment
-
Now that I've looked at it a second time, Joey your post about comparing boxing to a train is...anyways.
Back in the first half of the 20th century, boxing was, along with baseball, one of the two most popular, as well as one of the two most participated in sports from the time. You can look that up for yourself via some research, but a quick way to see that there was a much greater quanity of fighters back then than there are today, is by looking at the amount of fight cards from each era, or simply considering the amount of fights on average the better fighters had...It's pretty simple to see.
Now if you have greater numbers odds are the parity amount is also going to be greater...Meaning, simple law of averages are going to state that there were more championship & contendership type fighters back then than there are nowadays. More fighters at the highest level back then, and again, that's pretty easy to see.
So to explain one reason why fighters have more losses back then look to this simple equation;
more fighters = greater parity at each level = more equal competition = more losses for the fighters
Make sense?
It should, because I think I explained it about as easily as I could.
Might as well throw in the fact that it generally took fighters a lot longer to reach the top echelon, as well, because there were more fighters to get past in the rankings, and fighters generally had to prove themselves on multiple occasions against other contenders of their time. History also shows a much more frequent willingness to fight the best from back then when compared, today, as...Well, take Sammy Angott as a quick example, who fought Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong and Willie Pep all in the span of a year...That may have been the three greatest fighters in history right there, and if one wishes to add in the fact that Angott also faced HOF greats like Ike Williams, Bob Montgomery, and Beau Jack around that time, that quickly becomes a two year span...You do not see that quality/quantity of work over nearly that span from today's fighters and there's just no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Also consider this equation for those guys who sometimes fought once a week or two, even when they reached the upper echelon of their sport;
more fights = less time between fights = less time for healing = greater chance of entering the ring still recovering from a previous fight = greater chance of losing
But if a fighter back then did have the odd loss or two along the way, it wasn't the end of the world like you say, because the most important thing asked by the promoters, managers, newspaper men, sports writers in general, was "Who did he beat?", "Who has he fought?" "Ok, who else?"...Rinse and repeat again and again. It was much more important back then to learn your craft by fighting every possible style (contemporary quotes from managers back then show this), and by the time they got to the elite level, managers tended to have their fighters expect anything and everything...No suprises.
Unlike today, back in the first half of the 20th century, those fighters didn't have NEARLY the media exposure and especially, the outlets for that exposure like we do today. Newspapers were a fighter and his manager's primarily source for getting known, and easily at that because besides some of the bigger fights that were shown in the theatres, there was just no way for a fighter to be seen unless one attended a live event. Fights were just starting to be broadcast live on the radio in the 20's, so even that wasn't much help in getting the fighters out there, and hey, not everyone had a radio back then either (statement made in comparision to the modern day television, which have been in every single household that I've ever been in). Therefore marketing a fighter to a wide audience wasn't as prevailant or as important back then, unlike today when fighters are hiring a marketing team, PR team, and whatever else that helps them...
****, I'm tired of typing, I really am. Figure out the rest and how it deals with todays' fighters, their overabundance of media outlets, and how it's more important to have that pretty record in today's age of marketing driven sports.Comment
-
Evolution is not neccesarily an improvement, evolution is a change to adapt to altered circumstances. Has boxing changed? Sure. It's now a fringe sport with less people interested in it, less people participating. Overall a smaller talent pool than 60 years ago when there were several boxing clubs and gyms in every city. Today's fighters fight less often and for fewer rounds than in past eras.
You say everything evolves and that's true but let's be realistic, a Tyrannosaurus would demolish a grizzly bear, an elephant, and a lion all in the span of an hour. Are you going to tell me that the more "evolved" animals of today would beat the giants of a few million year ago just because they are newer? I'm not trying to be a smartass, just point out the flaws in the "newer is better" logic.
Yeah boxing has evolved to change with the times. It's safer and less dangerous than it was, with bigger gloves and more merciful refs. Does that mean the fighters are better? Not at all.Comment
-
I can't believe nobody mention about roy jones straight right hand. Jones straight right hand in his prime is amazing it's like whenever he throws his straight right it never miss.Comment
-
if somebody could take all the good things from all the fighters and history and make themselves a fighter... yes he would be superior to any of the previous champs but you cant do that there is no perfect boxer. from what you are saying it seems yo believe todays boxers are slightly diluted forms of this but they are not! They still make mistakes,they still fall for feints, they still get hit, they still get knocked out!
i can see where your coming from but i certainly dont agreeComment
Comment