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

Volleyball is an example of similar changes I think have happened in boxing. The techniques, spikes, blocks etc are similar in principle. However, the players are so much stronger now and the ball moves faster so that it is practically a different game tactically

 

What about people who believe boxing has stopped evolving and improving. And that sport trainers have learned everything there is to learn because and I'm quoting "boxing is very basic. Two people punching each other".

Even the most basic olympic sports like curling and javelin throwing techniques have improved over the years but not boxing. It stopped improving in the 70's and 80's. Huh?

I wonder if the first boxing fans from 5000 years ago those primitive little bastards thought the same thing. That their boxing could not get any better or anything new to be learned . Imo a very short sighted view to say the least.

 

The biggest thing that has changed in boxing is the drug use / understanding of physical fitness.

Hard to imagine a guy like Monzon getting beat by a Jermell Charlo, just the eye test is needed.

Fighters from 100 years ago?? That's hard to say.

 

It's impossible to know how Greb would do today. We know so little. I suspect that he wasn't quite as crude as what we see in that little clip, but probably wasn't evolved enough to be an elite fighter today as is.

But if we're talking guys like Robby, Charles, Ike Williams, Gavilan... they would be just fine.

Louis would be fine also. I've said numerous times in the past that Louis' frame would have safely carried 215-220 with today's weight training. Joe was a big man.

 

I agree with this.

What this causes imo is that the punches now are bit faster and sharper so that it makes a difference. Not with every single fighter, but generally speaking.

The added physicality imo is the reason that I can't see any top heavyweight after 70s going 10+ rounds with Billy Conn or Bob Pastor for example.

The development in physical training is the reason Leonard is clearly faster than Robinson, why Barrera and Morales were faster than Oliveras, Mosley or De La Hoya were faster with their punches than Napoles, Hopkins seems much sharper than Cerdan. The trend is there, even though there are exceptions.

I'll underline that I am not making picks here, just an observation about speed and explosiveness (and nothing else)

 

Barrera and Morales were NOT faster than Olivares. At all!

Have you ever seen the Rose fight? Or any peak Olivares fights? He was far more athletic/explosive than either one.

 

About Leonard-Robinson: Most the full footage we have of Robby is from his late 20s and throughout his 30s.

I dont think theres a marked speed difference between a Robinson in his early-to-mid 20s and Leonard.

The combo Robinson iced Graziano with was as fast as any Leonard combination. And the Graziano version of Robby was NOT in his 20s.

 

Last point, I don't know if "physical training" is the reason why Shane was faster than Napoles...

 

Ugo, I think that you put soooooo much emphasis on athlete evolution (and athletes haven't evolved allllllllllllll that much) and enhanced training methods that you sometimes don't account enough for plain ole talent.

Some joe blow soccer player in the MLS today has access to enhanced training regimens and dietary knowledge compared to Pele - but that doesn't mean said joe blow has a fraction of the talent Pele had.

Talent is king.

The truly generational fighters would do well in any era.

 

My statement actually prompted me to rewatch the Robinson-Graziano KO. Robby had WICKED handspeed. I don't think we give him enough credit for his handspeed actually.

That double left hook, straight right he KO'd Graziano with was every bit as fast as the combo Leonard iced Dave Boy Green with. Only Leonard was 24 in the Green fight, while Robinson was his 30s in the Graziano fight.

The "Leonard was clearly faster than Robinson" narrative is a myth.

 

Yes, talent is king.

But in every measurable sport the talented guys of the 80s dethrone the talented guys of the fifties and it isn't even a contest. Even in soccer studies show that the shots are harder and the sprints are faster, added to the tactical development.

For boxing to be the exception among sports it would have to mean that either physical abilities are meaningless in boxing or that they haven't been studied and trained at all. I don't believe either to be true

 

I do think Leonard and Hearns were a tad quicker, but Robinson was definitely quicker than guys like De La Hoya.

Robinson was freakishly fast.

And so was Gavilan, since he was mentioned earlier.

 

There was a difference in mindset. I believe it was Jack Hurley- he started training fighters just before WW1 and continued into the 1970s- who discouraged fighters from fighting fast all the time because it made the other guy move faster. The idea was to be fast when you needed to be, when it was advantageous.
They taught timing more than speed. How many times have you seen a guy, much faster than his opponent, land all sorts of counters but not really do any damage? He is hitting the guy too soon, too fast, and isn't getting the full effect of using the momentum of the other man's punch against him. If that makes sense?
Napoles fought with pretty freaking perfect timing while Shane tried to fight fast.

 

Exactly timing beats speed. I can think of many examples in which the guy with the better timing beat a guy with the faster hands. Mosley vs Forrest comes to mind.