darbo 4,776 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 The greatest defensive boxer of all time maybe a little over the top but i used to enjoy toney and like to look over his old fights from time to time. The man certainly ballooned in weight in the latter stages of his career. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inan 841 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) The greatest defensive boxer of all time maybe a little over the top but i used to enjoy toney and like to look over his old fights from time to time. The man certainly ballooned in weight in the latter stages of his career. This guy was pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8aerkHG_7A Some of Pep etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ct2jCu7y9Y Edited July 28, 2014 by inan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darbo 4,776 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 The greatest defensive boxer of all time maybe a little over the top but i used to enjoy toney and like to look over his old fights from time to time. The man certainly ballooned in weight in the latter stages of his career. This guy was pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8aerkHG_7A Some of Pep etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ct2jCu7y9Y i like watching the old fighters and reading books on them seen a few fair old videos on fighters but i think thats the first ive seen of pep . ive read of him before a defensive masterclass. i remember watching a brutal exchange from ike williams over beau jack how the man stayed on his feet i dont know real tough old fighters. Thanks for the link. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inan 841 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 The greatest defensive boxer of all time maybe a little over the top but i used to enjoy toney and like to look over his old fights from time to time. The man certainly ballooned in weight in the latter stages of his career. This guy was pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8aerkHG_7A Some of Pep etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ct2jCu7y9Y i like watching the old fighters and reading books on them seen a few fair old videos on fighters but i think thats the first ive seen of pep . ive read of him before a defensive masterclass. i remember watching a brutal exchange from ike williams over beau jack how the man stayed on his feet i dont know real tough old fighters. Thanks for the link. You are very welcome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,280 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr. We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general). They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily. Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc? So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast. Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough. Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's. Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters? Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him? I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago. Like i said training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit..............but virtually everything else has.....im not talking about an entourage/hangers on im talking about a training camp comprised of people with specific jobs to do........im not disagreeing fighters are any more skillful today than yesterday what im saying is sport science has played a massive part.....as an example the pace Ali could set for 90 seconds of a round Calzaghe could set for the full 3 minutes......the speed of todays fighters is faster than yesterdays......the raw strength and recuperation,the physical tools a fighter go,s into a ring with has evolved i dont see how that could be denied.....how that is utilised within individual fighters doesnt make them better fighters.....again its something that when doing these generation comparisons you just have to be sensible and take into account. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waz 4,266 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Gnasher, that photo you put up a few years ago of you and RW and a few other lads just been on telly Channel 4 short film on the Repton club, good short film. If you aint seen it you might get it on channel 4 plus one or catch up telly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inan 841 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr. We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general). They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily. Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc? So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast. Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough. Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's. Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters? Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him? I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago. Like i said training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit..............but virtually everything else has.....im not talking about an entourage/hangers on im talking about a training camp comprised of people with specific jobs to do........im not disagreeing fighters are any more skillful today than yesterday what im saying is sport science has played a massive part.....as an example the pace Ali could set for 90 seconds of a round Calzaghe could set for the full 3 minutes......the speed of todays fighters is faster than yesterdays......the raw strength and recuperation,the physical tools a fighter go,s into a ring with has evolved i dont see how that could be denied.....how that is utilised within individual fighters doesnt make them better fighters.....again its something that when doing these generation comparisons you just have to be sensible and take into account. The basic principles of training boxers have not changed but the ability to do so has.In the 20,30,s 40,s it was not uncommon for a fighter to have over a 100 fights this meant that they thoroughly learned their trade. What was the skill level of that guy Hopkins just beat in a title fight? I would say tyro journeyman. Arreola just fought for a vacant heavyweight title, he is journeyman level for skill.His idea of defence is to put his gloves in front of his face.The game is lost.Calzaghe was dropped by two old men ,where was his defence? He had a history of hand problems because he often did not turn his wrists over. Prime Ali was moving all the time Calzaghe wasn't , his wheels cannot be compared to Ali's and neither can his competition. How many 15round fights did Calzaghe have? Edited July 28, 2014 by inan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,280 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Gnasher, that photo you put up a few years ago of you and RW and a few other lads just been on telly Channel 4 short film on the Repton club, good short film. If you aint seen it you might get it on channel 4 plus one or catch up telly. Oh ok nice one theres a few on the walls in there so could be one of many...i,ll keep an eye out cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,280 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr. We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general). They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily. Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc? So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast. Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough. Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's. Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters? Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him? I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago. Like i said training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit..............but virtually everything else has.....im not talking about an entourage/hangers on im talking about a training camp comprised of people with specific jobs to do........im not disagreeing fighters are any more skillful today than yesterday what im saying is sport science has played a massive part.....as an example the pace Ali could set for 90 seconds of a round Calzaghe could set for the full 3 minutes......the speed of todays fighters is faster than yesterdays......the raw strength and recuperation,the physical tools a fighter go,s into a ring with has evolved i dont see how that could be denied.....how that is utilised within individual fighters doesnt make them better fighters.....again its something that when doing these generation comparisons you just have to be sensible and take into account. The basic principles of training boxers have not changed but the ability to do so has.In the 20,30,s 40,s it was not uncommon for a fighter to have over a 100 fights this meant that they thoroughly learned their trade. What was the skill level of that guy Hopkins just beat in a title fight? I would say tyro journeyman. Arreola just fought for a vacant heavyweight title, he is journeyman level for skill.His idea of defence is to put his gloves in front of his face.The game is lost.Calzaghe was dropped by two old men ,where was his defence? He had a history of hand problems because he often did not turn his wrists over. Prime Ali was moving all the time Calzaghe wasn't , his wheels cannot be compared to Ali's and neither can his competition. How many 15round fights did Calzaghe have? Im not a Calzaghe fan in any way mate im merely making the point that his workrate would not have been possible 40/50/60 years ago......and thats the only point im making regarding Calzaghe.......if you dont think fighters are fitter in general today than they was in years gone by then sorry i think thats a little unrealistic time stands still for no man or sport and just as footballers are quicker and fitter so are fighters.................its like comparing Formula 1 drivers are they in quicker cars today yes of course they are.....are they better drivers today no not necessarily. As regards the point you make about journeyman opponents this is something ive been saying for years.....in my day and years gone by a journeyman pro made his living in the gym....today he makes his living in the ring.......we didnt have any 30 day ban if you got knocked out like they do today you just didnt get paid if you didnt turn up the next day......fighters records are padded out today with fights that years ago were fought in the gym and what for a journeyman was a days wages from your opponent is today a fight wage from a promoter !....................Ultimately what this means is the gap between rugged journeyman and top prospect grows wider and wider as the focus is on the pro record rather than the pro game itself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inan 841 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr. We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general). They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily. Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc? So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast. Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough. Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's. Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters? Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him? I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago. Like i said training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit..............but virtually everything else has.....im not talking about an entourage/hangers on im talking about a training camp comprised of people with specific jobs to do........im not disagreeing fighters are any more skillful today than yesterday what im saying is sport science has played a massive part.....as an example the pace Ali could set for 90 seconds of a round Calzaghe could set for the full 3 minutes......the speed of todays fighters is faster than yesterdays......the raw strength and recuperation,the physical tools a fighter go,s into a ring with has evolved i dont see how that could be denied.....how that is utilised within individual fighters doesnt make them better fighters.....again its something that when doing these generation comparisons you just have to be sensible and take into account. The basic principles of training boxers have not changed but the ability to do so has.In the 20,30,s 40,s it was not uncommon for a fighter to have over a 100 fights this meant that they thoroughly learned their trade. What was the skill level of that guy Hopkins just beat in a title fight? I would say tyro journeyman. Arreola just fought for a vacant heavyweight title, he is journeyman level for skill.His idea of defence is to put his gloves in front of his face.The game is lost.Calzaghe was dropped by two old men ,where was his defence? He had a history of hand problems because he often did not turn his wrists over. Prime Ali was moving all the time Calzaghe wasn't , his wheels cannot be compared to Ali's and neither can his competition. How many 15round fights did Calzaghe have? Im not a Calzaghe fan in any way mate im merely making the point that his workrate would not have been possible 40/50/60 years ago......and thats the only point im making regarding Calzaghe.......if you dont think fighters are fitter in general today than they was in years gone by then sorry i think thats a little unrealistic time stands still for no man or sport and just as footballers are quicker and fitter so are fighters.................its like comparing Formula 1 drivers are they in quicker cars today yes of course they are.....are they better drivers today no not necessarily. As regards the point you make about journeyman opponents this is something ive been saying for years.....in my day and years gone by a journeyman pro made his living in the gym....today he makes his living in the ring.......we didnt have any 30 day ban if you got knocked out like they do today you just didnt get paid if you didnt turn up the next day......fighters records are padded out today with fights that years ago were fought in the gym and what for a journeyman was a days wages from your opponent is today a fight wage from a promoter !....................Ultimately what this means is the gap between rugged journeyman and top prospect grows wider and wider as the focus is on the pro record rather than the pro game itself. The focus for a prospect today is staying undefeated,and they are matched accordingly .Eubank Saturday night was a glaring example,he would have learnt more in a tough sparring session than he did against that hapless opponent. I'm not saying that there haven't been advances in nutrition,I 'm saying categorically that the skill levels of the majority of boxers are inferior to those of the eras I named. You name one man [Calzaghe,]and his work rate as an example of improvement in conditioning .Calzaghe never fought the championship distance of 15 rds.If you think his workrate was not achievable,40,50,60 years ago I suggest you view some Henry Armstrong, Beau Jack,Jake Lamotta,Tony Zale fights those and scores more matched him for stamina and punch stats ,and over 15 rds, not 12. A look at the Battling Nelson v Ad Wolgast fight gives an indication of the incredible stamina and conditioning those old timers possessed and they fought over a century ago! Name two current heavyweights that could fight an intense competitive bout for 49 rds as Joe Jeannette and Sam McVey did ,McVey was down 7 times and Jeannette multiple times,the fight lasted 2 hours and 24minutes and was only halted when McVey announced he could no longer see. McVey had fought just 8 days earlier and that was in 1909. If todays fighters are fitter,faster,stronger as has been stated how is it there isnt a heavyweight today capable of emulating that feat? Which fat slob of a heavy could fight for 2 and a half hours today? The shining exception for workrate and punch stats over the last 30 years was the Ike IBeabuchi v David Tua fight and precisely because it was so unique every trade paper and magazine remarked on it. It would not have been remarkable 40 years ago You have challengers for world titles today whose boxing ability is limited in the extreme. .Wlad's last opponent was pathetic, an unskilled club fighter. The flag ship of boxing has always been the heavyweight division if boxing has improved in skills, how is it that the division is so poor? A recent champion at two weights Felix Trinidad, demonstrated aganst Winky Wright that he did not not have the faintest idea how to slip a jab , he was an absolute sucker for it. Defence is a lost art as far as the majority of boxers go, the accent is all on offence. How can the game be better when this is the case? Domestic champions of the old days who really knew their trade ,guys like Len Harvey won British titles all the way up to heavyweight and drew big crowds at open air venues, he would not get TV dates today because his style would not be classed as" fan friendly". You see young lads full of piss and vinegar, fake tans, flash shorts and a local following, charging out like gang busters, bowling over non- descript opposition,unitl they have ramped up enough wins to qualify for a domestic title shot,then they meet a cagey guy who can slip their telegraphed big shots and stick a jab in their mush for 12 rds,a campaigner who knows how to pace himself ,and their bubble gets quickly burst. A couple of years later they are in the" walk out bout" with their profiles more flattened ,their noses askew and their fan base latched on to the next big thing. Pushed too soon without afforded time to learn their trade they are expendable commodities, there will always be another coming up ,another Mark Rowe,Nick Wilshire type, game kids with crowd pleasing styles. As you know boxing is a very unforgiving master.even at the top it is the young feeding on the old.The king is dead long live the king! I am not denigrating any fighter whatever their skill level, I respect any man who has the courage to step into a ring be he champion or club fighter. I'm just saying the skills in boxing have significantly declined and there isn't a major boxing writer who would disagree with that statement. Anyway enough of my ranting. Edited July 29, 2014 by inan 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,280 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 You make some great points and interesting reading im nowhere near the historian you seem to be so i,ll take your word for it regarding some of them names.......i think in a roundabout way we are in agreement........i think ......by rights top fighters today should be better than top fighters of yesterday....but they are not we know that,that doesnt mean they wouldnt beat them in a fight hence when we compare eras there really is no point saying well Klicthko would of beaten Frazier so Klitchko is the best its a silly attitude to take when there are so many factors to take into account. In terms of punch stats and what not im not a fan of stats they can be made to tell almost any story you like.........what you say about the 15 round distance is something ive been saying for a while now i truly believe we are at an age where 12 rounds is no longer enough.......the fitness that can be attained by fighters today to a degree rules out guts/stickability call it what you will.....as a fighting quality.....fighters are doing the distance too easily in my opinion,again Calzaghe being a good example of a fighter whos greatest quality was his engine.......my point is 40/50/60 years ago Calzaghe would probably not have been able to reach those same heights as the knowledge and understanding was not there in comparison. The skills you talk of i wouldnt disagree what im saying is the hard 3 minutes Calzaghe can put in on limited skills is probably more effective than the 90 seconds Ali could put in on a much higher skill set of course...............volume versus quality,the need to be gifted with immaculate skills in your arsenal is being overidden by todays evolution in work rate. As regards the building of unbeaten records i totally agree,when you look at someone like Johnny Greaves you think how can this be....i like Johnny he,s out of my manor but to have 100 losses whatever it is and 3 wins tells you he should of been a plasterer !...he wouldnt of made it through the doors back years ago but the game seems to accept anyone these days whereas years ago you needed a certain amount of talent to pave your way in the game.....you say about boxing being an unforgiving master its a lot more forgiving today simply because of the importance of sponsorship,promotional/tv deals etc.......today a fighter can be a failure and still carve out a living,a top prospect can totally fail and still create huge wealth eg Audley............i remember when average pros and journeyman were leaving the game happy they still had their health to go and drive a taxi ( some not so lucky ).......today they leave the game dissapointed if they have to go back to a 9 to 5 ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inan 841 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) You make some great points and interesting reading im nowhere near the historian you seem to be so i,ll take your word for it regarding some of them names.......i think in a roundabout way we are in agreement........i think ......by rights top fighters today should be better than top fighters of yesterday....but they are not we know that,that doesnt mean they wouldnt beat them in a fight hence when we compare eras there really is no point saying well Klicthko would of beaten Frazier so Klitchko is the best its a silly attitude to take when there are so many factors to take into account. In terms of punch stats and what not im not a fan of stats they can be made to tell almost any story you like.........what you say about the 15 round distance is something ive been saying for a while now i truly believe we are at an age where 12 rounds is no longer enough.......the fitness that can be attained by fighters today to a degree rules out guts/stickability call it what you will.....as a fighting quality.....fighters are doing the distance too easily in my opinion,again Calzaghe being a good example of a fighter whos greatest quality was his engine.......my point is 40/50/60 years ago Calzaghe would probably not have been able to reach those same heights as the knowledge and understanding was not there in comparison. The skills you talk of i wouldnt disagree what im saying is the hard 3 minutes Calzaghe can put in on limited skills is probably more effective than the 90 seconds Ali could put in on a much higher skill set of course...............volume versus quality,the need to be gifted with immaculate skills in your arsenal is being overidden by todays evolution in work rate. As regards the building of unbeaten records i totally agree,when you look at someone like Johnny Greaves you think how can this be....i like Johnny he,s out of my manor but to have 100 losses whatever it is and 3 wins tells you he should of been a plasterer !...he wouldnt of made it through the doors back years ago but the game seems to accept anyone these days whereas years ago you needed a certain amount of talent to pave your way in the game.....you say about boxing being an unforgiving master its a lot more forgiving today simply because of the importance of sponsorship,promotional/tv deals etc.......today a fighter can be a failure and still carve out a living,a top prospect can totally fail and still create huge wealth eg Audley............i remember when average pros and journeyman were leaving the game happy they still had their health to go and drive a taxi ( some not so lucky ).......today they leave the game dissapointed if they have to go back to a 9 to 5 ! I think we are in broad agreement about todays skillset versus the old timers,where we differ is on the fitness of the different eras. I say the old school guys could fight as intense as Calzaghe and some of the films I own bear this out. If today's fighters are so much better conditioned, how come so many of the heavier boys are carrying surplus fat?The fighters of 50 years ago would run 8-10 miles daily ,they conditioned themselves to go 15rds at a fast pace not with peds ,but through hard constant training. It's called the championship distsnce for a reason. Im not a fan of punch stats either. Below is a guy who won the lhvy title in 1961 he had very little experience in the amateurs but became the consumate pro. A promoter was asked why he did not feature the cautious ,defensive counter punching Johnson on his cards ,he replied,"Harold Johnson represents perfection ,there is no room for perfection in boxing". He looks pretty ripped to me. Below is an interesting link http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/15933-the-old-master-analyzing-the-subtle-sophistication-of-joe-gans Edited July 29, 2014 by inan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 26,588 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Gnasher, that photo you put up a few years ago of you and RW and a few other lads just been on telly Channel 4 short film on the Repton club, good short film. If you aint seen it you might get it on channel 4 plus one or catch up telly. That pic was also on telly a few month back when RW was on one of the chat show programs,,,the host was that tit ,,Michael McIntyre ,,, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rob284 1,682 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr. We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general). They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily. Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc? So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast. Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough. Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's. Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters? Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him? I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago. bullshit. Most fights were fights not bouts. The skills have progressed and the styles have to. For example many imitate mayweathers and toneys defence. Also heavyweights are a lot bigger than before lewis. Furthermore, you would not get away with leaning on the ropes for 9 rounds like ali did and for that reason I dont see ali as a hall of famer, just a gobshite. Marciano vs klitschko. Klitschko too big. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inan 841 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr. We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general). They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily. Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc? So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast. Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough. Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's. Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters? Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him? I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago. bullshit. Most fights were fights not bouts. The skills have progressed and the styles have to. For example many imitate mayweathers and toneys defence. Also heavyweights are a lot bigger than before lewis. Furthermore, you would not get away with leaning on the ropes for 9 rounds like ali did and for that reason I dont see ali as a hall of famer, just a gobshite. Marciano vs klitschko. Klitschko too big. Do you think the shoulder roll has just been invented? It's been around for many decades . Let me ask you a question ,who do you think is likely to be more proficient at his craft, a guy who has had 100 fights against all styles, or a guy who has had 20 bouts against handpicked opponents? Heavyweights are a lot bigger yes ,are they a lot fitter ? Are they more skilled? Which heavyweight today do you think is a master at feinting his opponent out of position? Which ones are clever at slipping punches? How many of them can throw combinations,or hook off the jab? Which heavyweights are skilled in defense? Which ones have good head movement? Do you think Ali leant on the ropes for several rounds when he was prime? If you do , you need to watch some of his early fights. Where you place Ali is your business,I'll just point out that he is either the consensus number one or two heavyweight champion of all time ,according to the writers and historians that have seen him and his predecessors .You are out on your own in your opinion. You started your post with an insult so I don't expect to be spending much time debating with you.I'll just reiterate my original question. NAME ONE SKILL AREA IN BOXING THAT HAS IMPROVED SINCE THE 40'S If you are right and I am wrong this should be a simple task for you. If you can't name one, we need go no further and I won't waste any more time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.