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

[Mr Objecitivity]

I can point out top fighters fought other top fighters less often because their we're four major orgs watering down the competition. I can also point out how bad skills had and still are deteriorating in the heavyweight division.

My point...Wlad didn't lose less rounds because of his great jab, he lost less rounds for the reasons I've pointed out.

Except Wladimir Klitschko has cleaned out the heavyweight division during his prime (from 2005 - 2012). He fought every mandatory. He fought highest ranked opponents repeatedly. So that's a myth in Wladimir Klitschko's perspective.

As for skills being bad, this is merely an unsubstantiated claim, unless proven. Can you demonstrate how the top boxers of Wladimir Klitschko's era were any less skilled than the top boxers of other eras?

You may argue that the biggest sized heavyweights in the modern era were less skilled than the top boxers of past eras. However, we run into a few problems with that:

1) Comparing the top boxers of one era to the lower boxer of another era is a false equivalent logical fallacy.

2) The top boxers of past eras were much smaller in size, to the point where they were closer to the size of modern cruiserweights, rather than the biggest modern heavyweights. So even if they were more skilled than the biggest sized heavyweights today, then the same can be stated about modern cruiserweights too. That they are also more skilled than the biggest heavyweights today. However, do any modern cruiserweights stand a chance against against Kubrat Pulev, Jarrell Miller or Alexander Dimitrenko?


To me, it's ridiculous to claim that modern athletes are going to be inferior to athletes of past eras. World records are being broken by athletes in nearly every athletic sport in the modern era. So to me, it's not too far fetched to believe that boxers today are also faster, more powerful, more agile, more responsive and simply superior athletes overall than boxers of past era, assuming the comparison is between athletes of similar size.

For example, a 6 foot 5, 240+ man during the 70's or 60's were usually sick, uncoordinated, unathletic, slow and etc. None of them were anywhere near as athletic as the Klitshcko brothers. It's only today we have athletes that big who are also extremely athletic.

Modern cruiserweights to me appear as superior athletes compared to the heavyweights of the 60's and 70's. They also appear to have better technique as well.

Take Oleksandr Usyk, he can do everything Muhammad was able to do, plus more. His technique is far superior. His footwork variation is also superior. This is just an example of the best cruiserweight today being superior to the best heavyweight of the 60's / 70's.

If anything, the past eras before Mike Tyson's era were all significantly weaker as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr Objecitivity]

There are plenty of great active american fighters. As a russian having grown up and living in Canada, I admit to be biased towards eastern euro fighters, but I appreciate great talent from any country when I see it.

That being said, Ward’s jab & clinch tactics that he used throughout his career is pathetic and disgusting to watch.

Wlad was rarely a clincher before 2012. Excessive clinching is illegal and Wlad was rarely, if at all an excessive clincher before 2012. There may have been one or two exceptions. For the most part though, he destroyed majority of his opponents using clean and legal boxing.

I'm not excusing him, but Wlad was past his prime from 2013 and onward.

[JAB5239]

Except Wladimir Klitschko has cleaned out the heavyweight division during his prime (from 2005 - 2012). He fought every mandatory. He fought highest ranked opponents repeatedly. So that's a myth in Wladimir Klitschko's perspective.

As for skills being bad, this is merely an unsubstantiated claim, unless proven. Can you demonstrate how the top boxers of Wladimir Klitschko's era were any less skilled than the top boxers of other eras?

You may argue that the biggest sized heavyweights in the modern era were less skilled than the top boxers of past eras. However, we run into a few problems with that:

1) Comparing the top boxers of one era to the lower boxer of another era is a false equivalent logical fallacy.

2) The top boxers of past eras were much smaller in size, to the point where they were closer to the size of modern cruiserweights, rather than the biggest modern heavyweights. So even if they were more skilled than the biggest sized heavyweights today, then the same can be stated about modern cruiserweights too. That they are also more skilled than the biggest heavyweights today. However, do any modern cruiserweights stand a chance against against Kubrat Pulev, Jarrell Miller or Alexander Dimitrenko?


To me, it's ridiculous to claim that modern athletes are going to be inferior to athletes of past eras. World records are being broken by athletes in nearly every athletic sport in the modern era. So to me, it's not too far fetched to believe that boxers today are also faster, more powerful, more agile, more responsive and simply superior athletes overall than boxers of past era, assuming the comparison is between athletes of similar size.

For example, a 6 foot 5, 240+ man during the 70's or 60's were usually sick, uncoordinated, unathletic, slow and etc. None of them were anywhere near as athletic as the Klitshcko brothers. It's only today we have athletes that big who are also extremely athletic.

Modern cruiserweights to me appear as superior athletes compared to the heavyweights of the 60's and 70's. They also appear to have better technique as well.

Take Oleksandr Usyk, he can do everything Muhammad was able to do, plus more. His technique is far superior. His footwork variation is also superior. This is just an example of the best cruiserweight today being superior to the best heavyweight of the 60's / 70's.

If anything, the past eras before Mike Tyson's era were all significantly weaker as far as I'm concerned.

Lol, ok I was going to give you a detailed and logical breakdown until you said Usyk is better than Ali. Now I know you're simply a troll.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Lol, ok I was going to give you a detailed and logical breakdown until you said Usyk is better than Ali. Now I know you're simply a troll.

Please do so! Claiming I'm a troll isn't evidence and is merely a lazy response.

Just because I don't believe in the hype of Muhammad Ali (his boxing abilities) doesn't make me a troll. I differentiate between his in ring abilities and his influence outside the ring.

I'd like to know in what way Muhammad Ali had better boxing abilities than Oleksandr Usyk. As in, what boxing attributes / abilities / skills did he have which Oleksandr Usyk also doesn't?

I am genuinely serious here. I've watched Muhammad Ali's complete bouts. Nearly every one of them. So my views on Ali are purely based on seeing him, rather than what fanatics or fanboys claim about him. Again, I'm referring to purely his boxing abilities and nothing else.

From what I've seen, there's nothing I was able to discover that he does better than Oleksandr Usyk. Absolutely nothing! Not footwkork. Not defense. Not head movement. Not combination punching. Not even the jab.

[RedZmaja]

To me, it's ridiculous to claim that modern athletes are going to be inferior to athletes of past eras. World records are being broken by athletes in nearly every athletic sport in the modern era. So to me, it's not too far fetched to believe that boxers today are also faster, more powerful, more agile, more responsive and simply superior athletes overall than boxers of past era, assuming the comparison is between athletes of similar size.

For example, a 6 foot 5, 240+ man during the 70's or 60's were usually sick, uncoordinated, unathletic, slow and etc. None of them were anywhere near as athletic as the Klitshcko brothers. It's only today we have athletes that big who are also extremely athletic.

Modern cruiserweights to me appear as superior athletes compared to the heavyweights of the 60's and 70's. They also appear to have better technique as well.

Take Oleksandr Usyk, he can do everything Muhammad was able to do, plus more. His technique is far superior. His footwork variation is also superior. This is just an example of the best cruiserweight today being superior to the best heavyweight of the 60's / 70's.

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 anything, the past eras before Mike Tyson's era were all significantly weaker as far as I'm concerned.

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.

[Vlad_]

Wlad was rarely a clincher before 2012. Excessive clinching is illegal and Wlad was rarely, if at all an excessive clincher before 2012. There may have been one or two exceptions. For the most part though, he destroyed majority of his opponents using clean and legal boxing.

I'm not excusing him, but Wlad was past his prime from 2013 and onward.

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

[Vlad_]

I hope with a comment like that you arent a Wlad Klit fan?

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.

[JAB5239]

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.

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.

[Verbalk]

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

[DrHouse579]

I'm from Eastern Europe and tend to support the fighters from this region but I agree with you. I think that Eastern European boxing has to catch up when it comes to pro style and Eastern European school of boxing needs to teach more variety.

I think Eastern Europe (if you include all the ex-Soviet areas) has the best talent pool in boxing right now. That's a huge population of people with proven great athleticism in all kinds of sports and at the same time there's a lot of poverty and unemployment which makes people want to consider a career in pro boxing.

I somewhat agree with this. The overall talent pool for sports in other countries like in the US is probably at the top, but I feel like a lot of kids in Eastern European countries either have soccer or boxing as a "way out." Boxing is a brutal sport, and it takes a certain kind of environment to breed the toughness, mental fortitude, and heart required in the sport. Only American football and probably rugby require these kinds of "special" athletes. Listening to interviews and doc's of GGG, Kovalev, Usyk, and others, they had a very rough upbringing (much worse than some of the US blacks who are coddled at a young age now if they show a sliver of athletic talent).

The talent is definitely there but the thing that Eastern Europe is lacking is a tradition of pro boxing and there just aren't that many good trainers for pro style. Their principles are basically always the same, they push orthodoxy over creativity.

That's why most top boxers from Eastern Europe have great power or great chins (or both) because if you learn all the fighters the same orthodox "1-2" style then the fighters with the best power and the best chin are going to come on top in the local amateur and pro ranks while some otherwise talented boxers might struggle because they don't have the tools to deal with monster punchers like Kovalev or Beterbiev.

The thing is, pro boxing only exists in Eastern Europe for less than 30 years, so it's only natural that the optimal level of knowledge and experience isn't there yet.

Lomachenko is a great exception and I think in the future we will see more creative fighters like that coming from Eastern Europe.

This is an excellent point. I have a similar theory with regard to some of the tough-as-nails boxers that come over from Asia. There is no real "Asian" school for boxing due to it's limited history there, so I feel a lot of the top Asians from Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, etc, rely on power and chin to get to the top. Just off the top of my head, Sor Rungvisai and Kamegai come to mind. Whereas in the US, UK, and probably in the Soviet Bloc, guys with A+ chins and power but no skills would probably get eaten alive on skill alone.

I am also a big Loma fan, but I have to emphasize that he is a 1 in a million fighter. The creativity part, I can agree with, but I highly doubt we will see someone like him coming from ANYWHERE in a very long time, aside from a few copy-cats down the line. I rate him THAT highly.