Weightlifting

[potatoes]

I have yet to blame the general deterioration in boxing skills on weightlifting, however it is the preoccupation with strength training that has lead to a neglect of boxing skills. We all know most of the top guys in each division would be contenders in any era, but it is in the lower ranks where the lack of skill is so very apparent. In the old days a journeyman had sufficient skill to give the contenders a difficult fight. What do we see today? Fat lazy contenders just run right over journeyman boxers most of whom don't train properly.

[BigDozer260]

I will just say this... An endurance sports mean the last person to tire out is the loser. There is no time frame, whoever last the longest is the winner, boxing has 12 timed rounds. Marathon running isn't a endurance sport either, the time and distance is measured. 36 total minutes of activity 12 minutes of inactivity in a 12 round fight. I could care less about convicing you this is true, I don't care what anyone believes. You could believe **** is cornbread for all I care, but potatoes, a persons lack of skill is just that, lack of skills. There are a variety of reasons one doesn't focus on skills training, and their skill coach might also be the reason. Alot of trainers see big guys with big punches and focus on big punches, that can bite a fighters in the ass against a skilled fighter. Then you factor in that alot of fighters nowadays have little or no amateur background. These guys are in a rush to ko people and pile up the dollars, and that doesn't always work, wouldn't you agree? I read a story about Sam Peter not listening very well in training, doing his own thing his own way. None of the above has anything to do with weight training. Wouldn't anyone on here agree? The problem is the culture of boxing and large athletes, particularly heavies. Ko's puts asses in seats, and trainers and managers and promoters know this. Plus American culture of admiring men whos appearance is that of a super-human. The problem is lack of focus on skill refinement, noting else. You can blame every other reason in the world, but bottom line is that a big skilless fighter, or any size skilless fighter for that matter is a figther failed by his trainers. People absorb and replicate skills differently, this I know, but some people shouldn't box but they box anyway. They may love the sport, or the attention, or the money, and may actually have success against lesser opponents, but a fraud eventually will be exposed. To get a pro llicense all you need is a physical and money for the license fee. If turning pro and making money is that easy and you're big and strong why not do it. A friend of mine did he's 0-1 and retired, ktfo'd. Like I said believe what you want, that apllies to everyone, i'm nothing to you and you noting to me, but take a second to really look a a problem before you give it a quick diagnosis.

[BigDozer260]

For the most part, football is based on a little bit of technique mixed with getting bigger, stronger, faster - basically a power sport. Sprinting is the same way...the guys are built for short, short distances and that is totally unrelated to boxing which is an endurance sport.

[/QUOTE]
My friend, pop warner is about a little bit of skill. High school is about a little bit of skill. But dawg c'mon, college and the pro's is nothing but skill training, hours and greuling hours of skill training. Yo would know this if you ever trained college or pro players, or actually trained to play pro or college ball. I've done both, so talk about what you know about pimp.

[KingDosia]

I will just say this... An endurance sports mean the last person to tire out is the loser. There is no time frame, whoever last the longest is the winner, boxing has 12 timed rounds. Marathon running isn't a endurance sport either, the time and distance is measured. 36 total minutes of activity 12 minutes of inactivity in a 12 round fight. I could care less about convicing you this is true, I don't care what anyone believes. You could believe **** is cornbread for all I care, but potatoes, a persons lack of skill is just that, lack of skills. There are a variety of reasons one doesn't focus on skills training, and their skill coach might also be the reason. Alot of trainers see big guys with big punches and focus on big punches, that can bite a fighters in the ass against a skilled fighter. Then you factor in that alot of fighters nowadays have little or no amateur background. These guys are in a rush to ko people and pile up the dollars, and that doesn't always work, wouldn't you agree? I read a story about Sam Peter not listening very well in training, doing his own thing his own way. None of the above has anything to do with weight training. Wouldn't anyone on here agree? The problem is the culture of boxing and large athletes, particularly heavies. Ko's puts asses in seats, and trainers and managers and promoters know this. Plus American culture of admiring men whos appearance is that of a super-human. The problem is lack of focus on skill refinement, noting else. You can blame every other reason in the world, but bottom line is that a big skilless fighter, or any size skilless fighter for that matter is a figther failed by his trainers. People absorb and replicate skills differently, this I know, but some people shouldn't box but they box anyway. They may love the sport, or the attention, or the money, and may actually have success against lesser opponents, but a fraud eventually will be exposed. To get a pro llicense all you need is a physical and money for the license fee. If turning pro and making money is that easy and you're big and strong why not do it. A friend of mine did he's 0-1 and retired, ktfo'd. Like I said believe what you want, that apllies to everyone, i'm nothing to you and you noting to me, but take a second to really look a a problem before you give it a quick diagnosis.

To me the most ignorant of people are those that refuse to learn from anothers experience. I have to tag Potatoes and Smokin with this brand. You have heard from two fighters and a trainer, all well informed, yet chose to argue. Thus your ignorance shows it's nasty face. One thing you fail to realize is that there is not one way to train for boxing and be succesful, If there were there would be no need for trainers, conditioning coatches etc. Science wouldn't need to continue the study of the human body, We could all just follow the same routine, and let the one with the better genetics win right? How practical does that really sound? The fact of the matter is There are different styles, of training, nutrition, and of fighting. We have a blue print thanks to the continous study of the human body and how it works. Your ignorant comments are at best laughable to the scholars of this area. My only advice is rather than focusing a wide variety of variables "or trying to" on one aspect of what makes a boxer a boxer. Try to truly learn, both in study and experience what it takes to be a sucessfull boxer. It is described as the sweet science right? Science is constantly in progression. You should take what knowledge you can from every source you can try your own theories and act like an adult!!!!

[KingDosia]

I will just say this... An endurance sports mean the last person to tire out is the loser. There is no time frame, whoever last the longest is the winner, boxing has 12 timed rounds. Marathon running isn't a endurance sport either, the time and distance is measured. 36 total minutes of activity 12 minutes of inactivity in a 12 round fight. I could care less about convicing you this is true, I don't care what anyone believes. You could believe **** is cornbread for all I care, but potatoes, a persons lack of skill is just that, lack of skills. There are a variety of reasons one doesn't focus on skills training, and their skill coach might also be the reason. Alot of trainers see big guys with big punches and focus on big punches, that can bite a fighters in the ass against a skilled fighter. Then you factor in that alot of fighters nowadays have little or no amateur background. These guys are in a rush to ko people and pile up the dollars, and that doesn't always work, wouldn't you agree? I read a story about Sam Peter not listening very well in training, doing his own thing his own way. None of the above has anything to do with weight training. Wouldn't anyone on here agree? The problem is the culture of boxing and large athletes, particularly heavies. Ko's puts asses in seats, and trainers and managers and promoters know this. Plus American culture of admiring men whos appearance is that of a super-human. The problem is lack of focus on skill refinement, noting else. You can blame every other reason in the world, but bottom line is that a big skilless fighter, or any size skilless fighter for that matter is a figther failed by his trainers. People absorb and replicate skills differently, this I know, but some people shouldn't box but they box anyway. They may love the sport, or the attention, or the money, and may actually have success against lesser opponents, but a fraud eventually will be exposed. To get a pro llicense all you need is a physical and money for the license fee. If turning pro and making money is that easy and you're big and strong why not do it. A friend of mine did he's 0-1 and retired, ktfo'd. Like I said believe what you want, that apllies to everyone, i'm nothing to you and you noting to me, but take a second to really look a a problem before you give it a quick diagnosis.

Nice post, Haters can't stand realness.

[Kid Achilles]

If you've ever seen a Robinson fight, and you seriously think his technical qualities are up to par with today, then you know nothing about boxing. Fighters back then were CRUDE. I hear all these boxing "historians talking about how he could do all these things. Sure, he was ahead of his time, but come on, the man could barely throw a straight punch. He had great natural ability, but his technical skills weren't as developed, simply because boxing wasn't as advanced back then

The fact that fighters today don't fight as often as they used to is actually because of the opposite of what you seem to think. It's partly because the 12 round fights of today are so taxing on a fighters health that they have to heal up before fighting again, let alone get back into serious training.

There's a lot more to training skill, than sparring, which you'd know if you ever trained any fighters.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read on this forum, and it came from a poster who's opinion I actually had respect for.

No, today's fighters do not display more skill than their precursors. Just look at James Toney, who is no more skilled than Walcott, Charles, or Moore were yet he is head and shoulders above just about anyone north of middleweight in the sport today, in terms of overall technique. Walcott, Charles, and Moore peaked at different times but they fought in the same era, were competitive with one another, and all spent time as heavyweights. Three guys equal to Toney in terms of skill, fighting as heavyweights as he did, and all lived in the same era. Flash forward to today where no one can touch Toney's skills at heavyweight. Charles, Moore, and Walcott must be squirming in their graves wishing they were alive to fight the lumbering pot bellied pigs that slap at each other today.

Here's a FACT. Joe Louis had better technique and threw straighter punches and more compact hooks and uppercuts than Ali, Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, or Lewis. The heavyweights especially have regressed with time.

Boxers do not possess more skill or better technique than they did 30 or more years ago. As far as I can see, the opposite is true.

You can talk stronger, more explosive, or whatever, and I'll at least give you the time of day to see where you're coming from but when you call Robinson's era of middleweights and welterweights crude (when in fact it was full of extremely talented and skilled men of just about every style) and suggest that Robinson would not even be a top ten fighter if he fought today, I have trouble respecting your opinion.

In fact, saying Robinson could not even crack the top ten list at middleweight in 2007 may be the most ludicrous statement I've read in several years of posting on this forum (I feel like I say that once a week). I don't know how you can possibly back that statement up, but I'm looking forward to watching you try.

[PunchDrunk]

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read on this forum, and it came from a poster who's opinion I actually had respect for.

No, today's fighters do not display more skill than their precursors. Just look at James Toney, who is no more skilled than Walcott, Charles, or Moore were yet he is head and shoulders above just about anyone north of middleweight in the sport today, in terms of overall technique. Walcott, Charles, and Moore peaked at different times but they fought in the same era, were competitive with one another, and all spent time as heavyweights. Three guys equal to Toney in terms of skill, fighting as heavyweights as he did, and all lived in the same era. Flash forward to today where no one can touch Toney's skills at heavyweight. Charles, Moore, and Walcott must be squirming in their graves wishing they were alive to fight the lumbering pot bellied pigs that slap at each other today.

Here's a FACT. Joe Louis had better technique and threw straighter punches and more compact hooks and uppercuts than Ali, Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, or Lewis. The heavyweights especially have regressed with time.

Boxers do not possess more skill or better technique than they did 30 or more years ago. As far as I can see, the opposite is true.

You can talk stronger, more explosive, or whatever, and I'll at least give you the time of day to see where you're coming from but when you call Robinson's era of middleweights and welterweights crude (when in fact it was full of extremely talented and skilled men of just about every style) and suggest that Robinson would not even be a top ten fighter if he fought today, I have trouble respecting your opinion.

In fact, saying Robinson could not even crack the top ten list at middleweight in 2007 may be the most ludicrous statement I've read in several years of posting on this forum (I feel like I say that once a week). I don't know how you can possibly back that statement up, but I'm looking forward to watching you try.

I'll give you that Joe Louis was one of the best schooled fighters ever. You have to add to that story, that fights were a lot less intense in his era. The guys he fought were a LOT smaller, and he himself was a small heavyweight. For most of his career he was around or below 200 lbs., which would make him a cruiserweight today. He fought only a couple of fighters who would be heavyweights today. The best fighters he fought would all be cruiserweights today, including: Max Schmeling, Rocky Marciano (who'd be a SMALL cruiserweight), James Braddock, Billy Conn (light heavy), Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles.
If you actually look at those fights, not just the highlight reels, the pace was SLOW, which makes it a lot easier to keep your technique proper (which you'll know if you have any experience).

I do agree that the heavyweights of today are a sad bunch. This has nothing to do with weights, as a few people here try to claim. The main factor, I believe, is that boxing doesn't have to status it once had, so the truly gifted big men look to football and basketball for fame, fortune and glory. A talented guy who weighs 150lbs., has no business in the NFL or the NBA (for the most part), so there's a place for them in boxing (one of the true beauties of boxing, to me, is that there's a place for all kinds and sizes).

As for Robinson, I stand by what I said (though I never said he wouldn't crack the top10?). I don't know what kind of arguments you expect me to come up with? Especially since you don't have any real arguments for the opposite, except using words as "ludicrous" and "fact." Since Robinson isn't around to fight today, there ARE no facts, simply put. There is only subjective assesment of films of Robinson, and films of contemporary fighters. I've JUST watched a film of Robinson vs. Graziano. Robinson looks good. Compared to Graziano that is. Graziano is nowhere NEAR the skill level of a top10 fighter of today. Here's a few things I see that makes this fight below a modern top middleweight fight:

1. There isn't the same tactical battle for distance. Robinson can basically jump right in with his chin in the air throwing hooks from his waist. This is NOT because he is extraordinarily gifted, but because Graziano is not. You might see it differently, but don't call it fact.

2. Sort of the same thing. Graziano leads with his head, and is so slow a paraplegic could hit him with a jab.

3. Graziano's jab. Seriously. Look at this fight and tell me the Heavyweights of today are slow and plodding! This guy sets the standards for slow!

4. Although Graziano looks like a sleepwalker, and therefore can't put pressure on Robinson, Robinson continually moves to his own left, not his right.

In my opinion Graziano makes Robinson look good, by being terrible. There's nothing in this fight, speed, skill, power, tactics, that makes me think Robinson would come out on top against a Winky Wright. In fact, I think Winky would dominate him.
What makes Robinson an all time great, was that he was ahead of his time. By being ahead of his time, he is one of the only fighters of his era who's CLOSE to modern standards. Do you think the Graziano you see in this fight can compare to a modern boxer in skill?

This is my opinion, you can think it's ludicrous if you want, but please watch the guy fight. Look at the limitations of his opponent, because that is a key factor in what a boxer can get away with in the ring.

[Kid Achilles]

You don't think Graziano would be a top ten fighter when less talented guys like Mayorga and Gatti are there? I've seen Graziano in with Zale and he looks tougher, harder hitting and more determined than Gatti ever has and he's fighting a better opponent than Gatti ever beat. He out Gatti's Gatti and Graziano was not even close to the best or even toughest middleweight in the world when he became champion.

You make it sound like the modern fighters are so well schooled but I rarely see a guy even perform a simple fundamental maneuver such as parrying a jab and countering with a right over it. I mean some of the guys like Toney and Hopkins are exceptionally skilled but they are special cases and referred to as "throwbacks". To me that means they have similar skillsets to guys from 50 or so years ago. Toney and Hopkins are what they called "cuties" back then, guys who did a number of subtle things very well. Yeah there are some brilliant technical fighters today as there's always been but God, look at Samuel Peter, who is one of my favorite fighters today but the guy is as crude as hell. Primo Carnera would have boxed his ears off. There are plenty of crude guys around even today and guys who just plain have holes in their otherwise okay styles.

As for judging Graziano based on film, the guy was a menace to anyone he fought because for one, he hit about as hard with the right hand as anyone at that weight who ever lived, and two he was very unpredictable with it. He was not an orthodox boxer, he was a very determined and aggressive fighter with a hard punch. We still have them around today and are often seen upsetting their more scientific contemporaries.

Personally I don't think weights have made fighters worse, I think they are just too rushed. Getting a title shot within three years of turning pro is ridiculous if you ask me. Some guys have the talent to get the title quickly, but even for most good boxers it takes many many years (as many as 6-8 or more) to work out every kink in their pro style (different than the amateur one they had been using) and fulfill their potential. Jeff Lacy was rushed. I mean the guy had talent, but he was simply not ready for an opponent like Joe Calzaghe.

I have respect for fighters like James Toney and Hopkins, who worked their way up and perfected their styles, but I can't take a Jeff Lacy seriously. He just hasn't been at it for enough. I think Mike Tyson is responsible for this rush towards getting guys from the Olympics to the pros in a handful of years, and even he was rushed IMO. He was able to beat the guys they put in front of him, but he needed to be tested earlier. They should have put him in with a durable, determined opponent, like a Tex Cobb, who would fight back from being hurt and really test Tyson's heart and confidence.

As for fights being fought at a less intense pace, I just don't see it. I see too many slow fights in all weight divisions to draw any kind of conclusions on the subject. Some matchups yield fast paced, back and forth action and some matchups turn into chess matches. That's how it's always been. I think you are comparing today's barnburners to yesterdays chess matches and arriving at that conclusion. Really the intensity level of a fight is much more dependent on the fighting styles involved than the era, unless we are going, way, way back a hundred years or more.


I also disagree with your claim that 12 round matches are more intense as well. By that logic, 10 round fights should be significantly more fast paced and intense than today's title fights, and 8 rounders even more so. I mean, follow that line of logic to the end and you arrive at the point of view where 4 round fights are the most exciting and physically demanding of them all and it just isn't true.

A 15 round fight is harder than a 12 round fight, just as a 12 rounder is tougher than a 10 rounder. That's how I see it, from watching a number of fights from various eras. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one because I just don't see the most fast paced 15 round fights being fought at a slower pace than our most exciting 12 rounders. That's just me though, I am an imperfect human being so it's possible I'm wrong.

[PunchDrunk]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

When I go to a site, or pick up Ring Magazine, and READ about old fights, they sure sound amazing and in a different league than today. When I see those fights on film, it's a different reality altogether. I just watched Joe Louis vs. James Braddock (only about half of the 8 rounds though, it was edited...), and it was such a slow pace. A boring fight, really. Louis was reasonably well rounded, but even I overrated him this morning, because I didn't LOOK at one of his fights for a while.
If you have access to the Robinson-Graziano fight, take a look at it, and tell me Graziano looks like a good fighter in the modern era. Can he throw a jab? I don't see a single real jab thrown by him in that fight. You mention Lacy. Lacy-Calzaghe is actually a good fight to compare to Robinson-Graziano. Robinson is Calzaghe, Graziano is Lacy. The difference is Graziano looks even worse than Lacy, and Calzaghe looks faster, a smarter tactician AND better technically (if they think Calzaghe slaps, look at Robinson throwing a hook from his waist). Calzaghe-Lacy is also fought at a higher weight, goes on for 12 not 8 rounds, AND the pace is much higher. This makes Calzaghe's technical level, and ring mastery all the more impressive, compared to Robinson.

I just think that Robinson is the only guy from his era who could stand up to the top10 middleweights of today, and I don't think he'd beat a lot of them.