Were fighters of the past really "unskilled" and "overrated"

Capablanca would not lose to an IM. Engine analysis, adjusted for era, has the guy rated at 2720 - making him a strong GM even today. I've read that engines actually determined he's one of the most accurate world champions of all time.

He would have problems beating the top 20 guys in the world, but he would smoke a 2400 IM.

The rest of the post is accurate, sorry, just taken a shine to researching Capa recently

 

The real question is how many of the champs of yesteryear could quickly adapt to todays requirements and how much of their do and die spirit might be lost as a result or as a compromise.

Some of them might improve immensemy especially with new diets, physiotherapy and weight training.

 

As much as I wanted to disagree with this it appears accurate and I got timelines crossed.

I was thinking opening theory expanded alot after him (and it has) but not as drastic as I thought.

Now players like Morphy and Steinitz it still applies to, but Casablanca not so much.

 

I cant help but to think that there is this nostalgia factor that influences how we percieve the boxers of yesterday. Its not exclusive to boxing. Folklore and legends have been around since the beginning of time. The stories get more and more exaggerated over time. Guys like Joe Louis, Ali, Duran , Tyson, Moore ect are almost mythical at this point. Its beyond reality at this point.

 

Yeah, with Morphy, he would probably struggle with most modern GMs - the strong ones at least (over 2600).

Capablanca is considered the first player to be legitimately 2700 level. His opening theory wasn't A-level, but his middle and endgame play are to this day considered among the best ever.

 

Contrast this to amateur wrestling. Yes, the rules have constantly changed since I wrestled in the 80s, but the techniques and skills are way better today. It's not even close.

However, I don't see that progression in boxing. I think you pick the right time, too. 70s or 80s fights hold up today and vice versa.

 

I find this take very difficult to believe.

Even the most simple of sports, such as running, throwing (javelin, discuss etc.), jumping, lifting etc. have developed all the time. In most of these sports the best results have been done in the 80s or later.

How could it be, then, that a more complex sport that includes several techniques and tactics, wouldn't develop at all in 100 or 80 years? How could boxing be such unique a sport?

 

What skills have developed in boxing since the 80s?

 

Jazzlefficism

 

Athletes as a whole have gotten more athletic (through evolution and roids), though you'll always guys like Robby, Leonard, Duran, Ali who were timeless athletic talents.

But skillwise?

Yeah, I would be really interested to know what skills Ugo can find that evolved in the sport in recent decades.

Anything he lists can easily be refuted, and an old time fighter identified.

 

I wasn't claiming that.

I claim that boxing hasn't been figured out already in the 40s, much less the 20s, as you implied in the first post. It is quite possible that the level of the sport peaked in 1980s.

Just like in running, jumping and lifting, you can always do the little things better than before. Move bit sharper, punch bit straighter, simplify the techniques etc.

In all sports, one change causes a chain effect. If for example we agree that the punching power has increased since the 40s (because of training, PEDs or whatever), it means that suitable techniques and tactics change as well

 

Boxing is among the oldest sports on human history. People were trying to figure out the proper way to punch back in Ancient Greece.

The progression of boxing was cyclical, not linear. Techniques fell in and out of fashion; rulesets changed and they had different needs. I say 'was', as I can't see it ever going back to the way it was before the Walker law with how different the world is now.

I think that question which Xplosive asked is the real proof when it comes to sport's 'evolution'. Ask anybody what techniques are used today that Joe Louis or Willie Pep didn't know and you'll get no answer. 80 years ago, you had Ezzard Charles and Sugar Ray Robinson. 40 years ago you had Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard.

I'm not seeing much room for improvement there; and I'm definitely not seeing it in Crawford and Canelo.

 

I just want him to state actual examples of which techniques/skills have improved/changed.

 

Ugo adds a lot of value to the forum, and I'm glad he's back, I truly am, but we all know his M.O.

He once commented on a Gavilan video, not to appreciate Gavilan's ability, but to try and diminish Gavilan compared to modern fighters. He tried that with Kid Gavilan, one of the most skilled and gifted fighters in history.

He's always tried to tear down the old timers.

 

I realize boxing is an old sport. So are running, jumping and lifting. And if the art of fighting has developed for thousands of years since Ancient Greece, then I find it puzzling that most people agree that the techniques of 1910s are outdated.

Three thousand years of evolution of fighting, after which in 1910 people can't fight at all, yet in 1940 they have learned everything there is to learn. To me, that sounds bizarre

 

One example, which I hope demonstrates my take here.


Let's take the art of shoulder blocking. If my eyes tell me correctly, the masters of 1950s did it much more and better than the fighters now.

Now, shoulder block is a difficult skill. But does it add any advantage compared to slipping? If it does, is the advantage big enough so that it is useful to learn the skill?

Let's say a shoulder block helps you maintain your punching position better, which makes it useful. What if you face a bigger puncher, whose punch numbs your arm, if you take it to your shoulder? Is it still a useful skill? Or should you replace it and instead try slipping the punch?

This is what I mean. I don't believe more techniques is necessarily better. This is why I don't find the question of "which skills the 90s had that the 40s don't" as useful. If (since) the fighters of 1990s were physically better, it changes everything.

 

See, this is the point I've made a few times. The techniques used in the 1900s WEREN'T outdated; they were just to very different rules.

If you think a guy like Jack Johnson couldn't fight to his own rule set, then I don't know what to tell you. Move him 100 years forward and he wouldn't look great; but how about you move a guy like Tyson Fury back? He'd be frailer; he'd pick up dozens of losses because he'd have to fight whether he had any sort of mental issues and his awkward style with smaller gloves and more emphasis on grappling and he'd look just as 'bad'. The only thing he'd have is his height and reach; but without the modern training methods they use today to get bigger, he'd likely have a frame very similar to Jess Willard.

By the time of the 40s, the rules had changed massively. Fighters/coaches had adapted by the mid 30s; so what? 15 years after the Walker Law? And what rules have changed since? Next to none aside from the amount of rounds. And I might add, very little has changed technique wise since then too.

I would also add that another factor in things is that because the fighters before say, the 60s fought much more; more people were boxing, more often. The talent pool was much larger in Western countries, and so while that meant that more high end talent got involved, it meant a lot of really untalented people also fought.

In fact, I'd say the reason that the average fighter may look more refined now is simply down to the fact that fighters by and large no longer get a month's notice before a fight, nor do they have to turn pro super young. They have entire amateur careers where they can learn and focus on their skill, then they hone it in for six weeks before every fight.

 

I think this is pretty much in agreement with my own post.

 

Before continuing, tell me this. Do you view other sports the same way? Meaning that runners, jumpers etc were as good in 1910 as they are now and the only difference are the surroundings?

And if not, what separates boxing from these other sports that are just as old?

 

I know absolutely nothing about any non combat sport besides bodybuilding and powerlifting.

Although I will say, the Ted Talk about Jesse Owen only being one stride behind Bolt in today's conditions does aid my point.

 

We have the ''pleasure' of watching Vitaly, Fury, Joshua and Wilder on big screen with hd resolution and quite frankly, they still look horrible . Imagine how bad they'd look on shitty black and white tape.

 

In this thread there is a misunderstanding of using the shoulders. You are not block punches with your shoulder, you roll them and deflect them. And it isn't all that difficult; it is just timing and, once you understand what you are doing, it is pretty easy to do well.
It does something different than slipping a punch because you are selling an illusion of vulnerability; you con the opponent into turning fully on his punch. And then you deflect it which causes turn be fully extended as you turn your weight back into your counter. That is how James Toney dropped guys with right hand punches that traveled 6 inches.

 

Great post.

 

Or you could just have "intimidating shoulders" like Oscar. I know this because George Foreman told me that

 

A copy and paste of an old post discussing why I feel boxers haven't improved in recent years as compared to other sports:



1) Individual vs team sports. Systems cannot be implemented as is the case in team sports which is a big reason of the improvement we've seen in the laters.

2) And this is the main reason imo: Boxing was already super popular ar the turn of the 20th century, meaning the leap and bound improvements that happen in a sport's infancy (when quality athletes and trainers get into it) had already passed by when tv got ''good''. Look at the improvement between the early 1900s guys vs mid 1900's. The difference is staggering. This, imo, for boxing, was the big jump in quality other sports experienced much later. After a while, elite athletes and coaches figure out what works and what doesn't. The ''improvement'' afterward are only incremental if so. Just like NHL today seemed to have plateaued and is not much different than NHL of the early 2000


Edit: Then there's also the issue of equipment. MLB pitchers nowaday are able to achieve crazy spin and slap shots in hockey are faster than ever. But that's mainly because they are using some kind of gluey substance to achieve this and on the NHL, hockey sticks are much more efficient than they used too.

PED's is also a factor compared to previous generations, and a big reason of the ''so called'' improvements imo.

 

Basketball is the only sport I can think of where there's been truly an astronomical jump in skill level since the 80s/90s.

 

Don't forget Sugar Daddy Valuev.

 

Thanks

Exactly everyone knows with shoulders like de la hoya a welter can punch like a HW. No need for blocking or rolling the punches. Just look menacing.

 

I sometime wonder if the extinction of the cross armed defense is due to fashion, or because boxer are faster and stronger than before

 

The reason why this old debate doesnt interest me, is because, as sad as it is to admit, even us boxing freaks are pretty bad at evaluating talent. Sure, its easy to realise that pbf is much better than some schmuck journeyman, but when it comes to elite fighters against each others, were pretty much no better than a coin toss. Even when they have common opponents

Considering that, im highly suspicious of anybody claiming than he can see that era A is much better than era B or vice versa