How often does Vitali take hard shots though? All the while throwing & landing at a very high output level. See this is classic theoretical thinking of the type Im always lambasting atomic for in political economy. You start with the presumption of a theory and ignore/shape reality to fit what you've decided already upon. It's boxing Marxism. Vitali's style is clearly technically correct for his very unique physical attributes, just like Ali's was.
You say Wlad is superior to Vitali because of superior technique yet Wlad has been flattened by guys Vitali has beaten with ease. It doesn't make sense
You could say he has more conventional technique but you can't call it superior if it doesn't get better results
Nah. Having a good chin isn't technique or related to technique or something which facilitates technique. It's a stylistic advantage in that it allows him to take more chances and gives him more strategic options but it isn't a technique if the word is even slightly meaningful as distinct from a talent. Fair comment on the height, perhaps....but you're talking about a type of technique that isn't transferable to anyone else who isn't 6'8 with his speed, accuracy and co-ordination.....so.....um....I'm too confused to even finish the post :: We're back into one of these insanely precise semantic debates that only ever seems to come into my life in boxing discussions. I finished a degree without ever thinking this hard :giggle:
So to clarify, if you believe that --- generally --- Boxers of the past were better (for whatever number of reasons), you are a black-&-white groupie --- but if you have the same core belief about modern fighters, that's not being a Hi-Def TV groupie? What is the difference? If you generally believe the sport has gotten better & its competitors likewise, or the reverse, seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me...
I think the difference is that since in any other sport there is not even dispute of who was better, the athletes of the 30s or the athletes of 80s, since results show it clearly, then the old-timer fan has to be able to show why boxing would be the sole exception in the world.
1) Talent pool. No other sport has seen the decrease in talent pool boxing has, except perhaps for baseball. And in a skill dependent sport like boxing (and one in which skills generally have to be taught and can be very subtle) I believe that has a synergistic effect of impacting on skill development since there isn't the same furnace of competition in sparring etc driving innovation etc and not the same depth of knowledge in the decreased pool of trainers. 2) PRACTICE. If Guy A fights 7 times a year he ends up better than if he fights twice a year. His career will be shorter, but he will be better. 3) Boxing is unique among sports for the total lack of progress in training methodology. Other sports got better because they introduced correct weight training which got them stronger and hence more explosive, faster. Diet also improved big time in most other sports I know. Footballers used to have a chippy and 6 cans of tennents after training ::. The Klits & Haye aside, weight training hasn't really infiltrated boxing and boxing diet was ALWAYS good. Boxers always understood the need to eat meat and veg above all else. And that's reflected in the physiques. Gridiron, Rugby and football players look RADICALLY different than they did in the 60s when they take their shirt off. They look like athletes now. Does Floyd Mayweather have a better physique than a prime Ray Robinson or Emile Griffith? Does Joe Calzaghe or Chad Dawson have a better physique than a young, prime Ezzard Charles or Harold Johnson? Of course not because they train & eat exactly the same way. ---- I think there have been some advancements in boxing strategy (not skill). They've mainly been driven by a decreased demand/expectation that the two guys fighting have a responsibility to produce an action fight. So guys have been freed up to use range and negativity more. But overall I genuinely think the skill level has decreased; rapidly since the early 90s. Hence old farts like Hopkins & Toney who were taught by old timers (and by-passed the worst influences of the putrid amateur system) having success well into their antiquity.
based on what exactly? all of those big wins he had? Schmeling was a studious fighter and an absolutely monstrous right hand counterpuncher... his win over Joe Louis erases Andrew Golota's entire career
