Who do the soviet bloc boxers usually have better jabs than American boxers?

[Tom Cruise]

Are you really going to compare Wlad’s and Ward’s clinching styles? Wlad did clinch but not in an illegal manner, and a good amount less than Ward.

Just, no. Ward at least tried to fight out of the clinch. Wlad was an octopus.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Yup I got no problems with Wlad. I was speaking about Ward.

Oh sorry! No problem! I misread the part where you wrote about Ward's jab and clinch tactics, thinking you wrote Wlad instead of Ward. I ain't got no disagreements with that.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Just, no. Ward at least tried to fight out of the clinch. Wlad was an octopus.

Wlad has destroyed multiple elite opposition with nothing but clean boxing. Ward is yet to beat a single elite opponent without controversy of cheating and using illegal tactics.

[Mr Objecitivity]

You're right. Boxing is one of the rare sports where romanticism clouds people's judgement. In most other sports, people just accept the fact that modern athletes are better but in boxing you have people who legitimately think Jack Johnson would be competitive today even though he comes from a time when men's 100m sprint world record was like 10.6 seconds.

Even if for the sake of the argument we assume that modern boxers aren't as skilled as the boxers of previous eras (which is highly debatable), modern boxers would have a big edge when it comes to athleticism and could overwhelm a lot of more skilled boxers of the past with it if you'd put them against each other head to head.

Of course, that doesn't mean that modern boxers are necessarily better legacy wise, the old boxers deserve their credit. People just need to accept that things are very different today and a lot of things evolved in sports.

Especially when you look at the HW division these modern super-HWs are hard to compare to anyone in the past because we never had this type of boxers before. You never had anyone of Klitschko's size who was as athletic and agile as him in the previous eras. Smaller people do things a bit differently technique-wise, that's why guys like Loma often appear more technical and skilled than the bigger guys. It's hard to do certain things when you're as big as Klitschko.



If we judge by the Olympic records human athleticism was evolving fast until the 80s, then the development was slowed down a bit and the improvements from the 80s until now have been marginal.

The reality is, the onus is up to the ones claiming that previous era boxers would beat modern heavyweights, or that they were better boxers than modern super heavyweights like the Klitschko brothers, to prove that they have the feats to beat such modern boxers. They must prove that the techniques, tactics and moves would be applicable in the modern era of heavyweight boxing against modern heavyweights. They must prove that they have the technique, tactics and moves to neutralize and beat modern heavyweights and so forth so on. This is because athletes in virtually every athletic sport in the modern era have been breaking past world records. In other words, athletes today are better overall. Boxing is no exception to this rule!

Nostalgia is a huge disease within boxing communities. It prevents individuals from having rational and objective thoughts. It also prevents them from being able to perform objective analysis / evaluation.

I have little to no problems with anyone arguing that athletes may have reached a plateau in terms of further athletic enhancement. However, the idea that the athletic performances of athletes / boxers during the 60's / 70's is the limit and no further enhancement has been made is totally false. I classify the 90's until today the modern era / generation.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Exactly what in boxing has changed to make a fighter better today than previous era's? They fight less rounds, throw less punches on average, have way more weight classes and divisions... specifically speaking at heavyweight they throw less punches and go to the body less. I can post film after film to prove my point. I already know you will come back to weight. You are not going to argue skills with me because you can't.

Some of your points are either irrelevant or non-sequitur. Heavyweights in the modern era fight less rounds because they are able to usually knock their opponents out quicker. Therefore, there isn't much need for too many more rounds unlike in the past era where most heavyweights were featherfists and subsequently needed to fight for more rounds due to the inability to win by knockout quicker. Therefore, more rounds =/= better. If anything, the fact that past heavyweights needed more rounds actually is evidence of them being inferior to modern heavyweights.

As for throwing less punches, so what? They throw less punches, maybe because the fewer punches they do throw and land are more damaging and effective than higher number of punches past heavyweights used to throw and land? The fact that modern heavyweights usually have higher + faster knockout records, whilst landing less punches actually proves that modern heavyweights are superior. Not that they're inferior to past heavyweights.

As for skills, I'd like to know how past boxers from any weight division were more skilled than modern boxers. Please present your film study! You're more than welcomed!

[Mr Objecitivity]

Even Pulev's got a real good jab on him. Good post

So do Alexander Dimitrenko, Alexander Ustinov, Dariusz Michaelczewski and so forth so on! The list continues!

[EvanFields]

Hmmm not too sure about the premise of this question

[RedZmaja]

However, the idea that the athletic performances of athletes / boxers during the 60's / 70's is the limit and no further enhancement has been made is totally false. I classify the 90's until today the modern era / generation.

Me too. Obviously the old boxers were legends and there's a lot that can be learned from them, but the sport moved on.

I think this nostalgia in boxing community really hurts the sport as it prevents people from appreciating what we have right now.

I also think that part of the reason for this romanticism of the past champions is because internet didn't exist back then and those old greats didn't have that many haters and detractors posting negative opinions about them everyday. These days pretty much any elite boxer gets underrated by the legion of online haters, people on the internet are generally very negative and rarely give any credit to anyone. Any ATG from the 90s until today has a ton of haters who constantly post negative things... Floyd, Klitschko's, RJJ, Pacquiao, Marquez, Ward, Hopkins... You name them. They all have much more haters in the so-called hardcore boxing community than the guys from the 60s and 70s.

[Raggamuffin]

For example, boxers like Wladimir Klitschko, Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin, Kostya Tszyu and etc. They all have superior jabs than pretty much any American boxer. Wladimir Klitschko's jab alone is better than the jab of any American boxer in history.

Yet, somehow American boxers are supposedly superior 'skilled' boxers or 'technicians'? Isn't the jab one of the most important foundation to being a 'skilled' boxer or a 'technician'?

You must be out of your ****en mind, lmao.

[Mr Objecitivity]

You must be out of your ****en mind, lmao.

In what way? What do you mean? Have you got anything specific to state in response to this thread?