Contemporary vs. "Old Time" Fighters

[El Gavilan]

Usually this topic spurs spirited debate, so let's start. From my perspective, the boxing game has changed almost immeasurably over the years. After multiple ebbs and flows, I think the game peaked in the early 1980s, struggled for several years, saw a mild renaissance just a few years ago, and is now struggling to survive as a legitimate sport. Whereas the mob in the past controlled the sport, they really didn't control just how often a fighter fought. Fighters were more active in the past. Today, promoters and managers look to cash in with much less activity under a fighter's belt, and that has led to a proliferation of inactivity amongst both excellent and bad figthers alike.

Having said that, in terms of the craft and execution of the sport, how do contemporary fighters stand up against the best of the old-timers? In my view, the very best of today would have been very competitive with the fighters of yesteryear, but the overall depth of the sport is much less now than what it was. Additionally, I think a lot of fighters are better today at managing their careers for monetary gain than in the past, but the fighters of the past probably have a bit of an edge when it comes to craft and skill because they were so much more active. Sparring and gym work help hone and fine tune things, but activity in the real ring is what separates good fighters from great fighters. They would be able to draw on a reservoir of real ring experience in tough situations. Fighters like Greb ran up a seemingly unconscionable amount of ring activity of around 2,000 rounds for a career, whereas a lot of people seem to think 250-300 rounds is where a contemporary fighter should be at the end of their career today. A fighter like Fritzie Zivic lost a lot of decisions and fights, but also beat the best (Armstrong, Burley and LaMotta) because he was so active and could apply experience he wouldn't have had today. Increased activity makes for more and better intriguing match-ups and a host of rematches and trilogies with more applied skill. Sugar Ray Robinson had one of the great all-time runs before running into LaMotta, but instead of today's death knoll after an initial loss, they fought 5 more times with Robinson getting the better of the Bronx Bull. Commercial cowardice was not the order of the day, and Robinson learned and improved. Same thing applies for Gene Tunney after his initial loss to Greb. Archie Moore got his butt kicked by Ezzard Charles and Charley Burley, but used that experience to victimize younger, less experienced, and often bigger (Embrel Davidson and Nino Valdes) opposition in the future.

One more item: Some pundits believe that "modern" training techniques crafted by strength and conditioning coaches and other folks have created a stronger fighter, and thus, a better fighter. In my view, boxing is about leverage, smarts, stamina, guts, and technical proficiency. Boxing isn't about strength all that much. If that were the case, Foreman would've defeated Ali, and Juan Roldan, one of the strongest middleweights in history, wouldn't have taken the count against Thomas Hearns. I think many of today's fighters are indeed stronger than some greats of yesteryear, but that doesn't matter all that much when the quicker and more skilled guy is slamming shots to the body and head before you can react.

Your thoughts?

[ December 11, 2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: El Gavilan ]

[Rebel]

Originally posted by El Gavilan:

One more item: Some pundits believe that "modern" training techniques crafted by strength and conditioning coaches and other folks have created a stronger fighter, and thus, a better fighter. In my view, boxing is about leverage, smarts, stamina, guts, and technical proficiency. Boxing isn't about strength all that much. If that were the case, Foreman would've defeated Ali, and Juan Roldan, one of the strongest middleweights in history, wouldn't have taken the count against Thomas Hearns. I think many of today's fighters are indeed stronger than some greats of yesteryear, but that doesn't matter all that much when the quicker and more skilled guy is slamming shots to the body and head before you can react.

Your thoughts?

Good post.

One thing that I truly respect about the old-timers is their toughness. In the past I never quite gave them as much respect for it until I began reading more and more about them. In my personal opinion, the fighters of the past were byfar much tougher than today's fighters. Many literally fought for dollars and quite often. Today, fighters are compensated much better and once they have a little success, they get pampered. These days you have to twist a high profile fighter's arm to step into the ring a few times a year. Even the most active up and comers only fight 6-8 times a year when they start off and fall into the "star fighter" fight schedule once they attain moderate success.

Another problem with today's fighters is depth which you mentioned. Athletes have many more choices and jump into sports that are much less dangerous than boxing. This hurts the overall quality of opposition that is produced today.

The fighters of yesteryear truly defined the word "fighter." This is the reason I simply cannot rank Roy Jones Jr. and many other great Modern fighters over tough as nail greats who fought everyone who was anyone on a regular (understatement) basis while often times at a weight disadvantage. Sam Langford and Harry Greb come to mind. Now those were fighters.

Having said all of that, I believe that in mythical one-on-one matchups, most of today's greats could compete with the greats of years past. But keep in mind that that does not mean they're as great. Put an Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, and Roy Jones Jr. through the same conditions that some of those fighters had to persevere through and we wouldn't remember them the way we do today.

Good topic.

[ December 11, 2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Hut*Hut]

The more I watch of the old timers the more I appreciate them. There is a tendancy in less knolegable boxing fans to be blinded by the speed and technicolour glamour of the modern guys, and I was completly guilty of this until recently. The last couple of years have progresivly educated me.

I still do belive there have been a few developments in boxing technique since the 30's and 40's but they are offsett by the toughness and ring experience of the old guys.

I really wish modern fighters would fight more often - boxing would be in much better nick and the fighters would benifit also.

[El Gavilan]

Originally posted by Hut*Hut:
The more I watch of the old timers the more I appreciate them. There is a tendancy in less knolegable boxing fans to be blinded by the speed and technicolour glamour of the modern guys, and I was completly guilty of this until recently. The last couple of years have progresivly educated me.

I still do belive there have been a few developments in boxing technique since the 30's and 40's but they are offsett by the toughness and ring experience of the old guys.

I really wish modern fighters would fight more often - boxing would be in much better nick and the fighters would benifit also.

You bring out an interesting point. I have always thought about isolating an era where boxing peaked in terms of style and technique, and you might be right. My reference to the 1980s above is kind of a combination of excellent media coverage, a superb group of champions, and great match-ups. Somewhere between the early 1940s and up to the 1950s seems to be the point where technical proficiency didn't evolve appreciably.

I think another interesting aspect of this sport is that it is extremely difficult to name a champion from the 1990s - present who can legitimately---or even arguably-- be named the greatest PFP fighter in his division's history. I leave out 168 & 190 because they were really in their infancy and took time to develop in the late 1980s - present. Overall, I think fighter's from the 1980s and backward have a more legitimate claim.

[ December 11, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: El Gavilan ]

[Hut*Hut]

Gav, the 80s is by far my favourite era for boxing as well...So many great fighters, theres basically too many to list. The fact that the tapes are good quality and stuff doesn't hurt either, but I honestly think the fighters were more skillfull in the 80s. Guys like DLH and Barrera are excellent fighters, but in skill terms they aren't comparable to their 80s equivelent.

The most acoumplished guys to my mind in the last few years have all been old fighter (Lopez, Toney. Hopkins, Jones) with the exception of Maywether.

As far as fighters claiming to be the best in their divisions history, boxers are often judged most harshly during their own era. I wasn't around at the time, but I doubt many were calling Hagler the greatest Middleweight ever in 1987.
But I think the main reason is that fighters just dont get enough done, simple as that. A 45 fight career really doesn't alow enough much to get the neccasary work done to be all time No1 in a division.

[ December 11, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Hut*Hut ]

[Remus]

ok, there are two ways of looking at this.

the time machine way:
in which case you transport a fighter AS IS into the ring with other fighters. in this case i am of the opinion that most fighters pre 1940's would get soundly beaten by more modern fighters.

the adjusted way, "if they were fighting in the same era.":

this is alot more difficult. what you take into account the eras the guys fought in and tae their skill levels in context of that era.

if you matched up ketchel with hopkins, you'd have to adjust ketchel for the modern techniques, modern training etc. the fact is that we know more about boxing nowadays and guys are probably just as talented but are better all round fighters cos their training is much mich better. this is the same in every sport. not one sport is different in this regard.

of course you get exceptions to the rule though.

i'm the opposite of hut, the more i see of old timers the LESS i think of them. and I'M an old timer. lol

[El Gavilan]

Originally posted by Remus:
ok, there are two ways of looking at this.

the time machine way:
in which case you transport a fighter AS IS into the ring with other fighters. in this case i am of the opinion that most fighters pre 1940's would get soundly beaten by more modern fighters.

the adjusted way, "if they were fighting in the same era.":

this is alot more difficult. what you take into account the eras the guys fought in and tae their skill levels in context of that era.

if you matched up ketchel with hopkins, you'd have to adjust ketchel for the modern techniques, modern training etc. the fact is that we know more about boxing nowadays and guys are probably just as talented but are better all round fighters cos their training is much mich better. this is the same in every sport. not one sport is different in this regard.

of course you get exceptions to the rule though.

i'm the opposite of hut, the more i see of old timers the LESS i think of them. and I'M an old timer. lol

Always like listening to that opposite view, but one problem: Hopkins trains "old."

[Hut*Hut]

How does Hopkins train in comparison to other modern guys?

[El Gavilan]

Originally posted by Hut*Hut:
How does Hopkins train in comparison to other modern guys?

No weight training to my knowledge.Very consistent in his training. Weight is never a problem compared to so many guys who have to lose a lot of weight these days.

Shadow Boxing
Mitts
Sparring
Speed Bag
Crunches
Road work
Neck Extensions

Diet:

Sushi
Oatmeal
Cranberry Juice
Water
Baked Fish
Baked Chicken
Shots of Wheat Grass
Fruits
Vegetables

Bouie apparently doesn't allow him any heavy meals after 6pm.

[TIP]

One thing that seldom gets mentioned or isn't taken serious is that most old time fighters had tons of experience while they still were young and in their physical prime. Therefore being better able to carry out and adjust ring strategies while at their physical best. IMO a 26 yr old Hagler with 53 fights or a 28 yr old Monzon with 80 fights when they won the 160 lb title are going to knock the snot out of a 30 yr old Hopkins with 29 fights when he wins the title. I don't know how many folks out here are in the 35-40 yr old range but if any, tell me were your athletic talent and skills better between 20-30 or between 30-40? So if you're answering truthfully it would only make sense that the 36 yr old (age he beat Tito) more experienced Hopkins with 42 fights would still get the snot kicked out of him by the 8-10 year younger and still more experienced Hagler and Monzon. TIP

[Remus]

Originally posted by El Gavilan:

Always like listening to that opposite view, but one problem: Hopkins trains "old."

like hell he trains old. he may use OLD fitness techniques and old methods for the basics but hopkins would be one of the smartest fighters today in the ring. the guy knows the rule book, (and how far to bend them), better than any other fighter alive right now.

the new hopkins, (since jones), uses tactics and variation that didn't exist in 1910.

[El Gavilan]

Originally posted by Remus:

like hell he trains old. he may use OLD fitness techniques and old methods for the basics but hopkins would be one of the smartest fighters today in the ring. the guy knows the rule book, (and how far to bend them), better than any other fighter alive right now.

the new hopkins, (since jones), uses tactics and variation that didn't exist in 1910.

Hopkins' training isn't all that different than when Bouie Fisher was learning his trade. We're not talking about 1900-1920.

The crux of what we're referring to is the proliferation of strength and conditioning coaches in the last 15-20 years.

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Rebel:

Good post.

One thing that I truly respect about the old-timers is their toughness. In the past I never quite gave them as much respect for it until I began reading more and more about them. In my personal opinion, the fighters of the past were byfar much tougher than today's fighters. Many literally fought for dollars and quite often. Today, fighters are compensated much better and once they have a little success, they get pampered. These days you have to twist a high profile fighter's arm to step into the ring a few times a year. Even the most active up and comers only fight 6-8 times a year when they start off and fall into the "star fighter" fight schedule once they attain moderate success.

Another problem with today's fighters is depth which you mentioned. Athletes have many more choices and jump into sports that are much less dangerous than boxing. This hurts the overall quality of opposition that is produced today.

The fighters of yesteryear truly defined the word "fighter." This is the reason I simply cannot rank Roy Jones Jr. and many other great Modern fighters over tough as nail greats who fought everyone who was anyone on a regular (understatement) basis while often times at a weight disadvantage. Sam Langford and Harry Greb come to mind. Now those were fighters.

Having said all of that, I believe that in mythical one-on-one matchups, most of today's greats could compete with the greats of years past. But keep in mind that that does not mean they're as great. Put an Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, and Roy Jones Jr. through the same conditions that some of those fighters had to persevere through and we wouldn't remember them the way we do today.

Good topic.

This is one of your best posts ever.

Excellent post (I agree 100%) and it shows that you have ?matured? your view on the sport of boxing from its historical perspective.