Has there been an improvement in technique since the 50's

cowzerp

Has their been an improvement in technique since the 50's?

Let's put this to bed with a poll, to make it honest I'd ask that people view a few clips of the top 10 lads and then decide rather than just voting based on what they read from some 80-90 year old!

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

Here we go....

Its such a difficult thing to say definitively. There are guys back then that have better technique than most fighters today and vice versa. I think technique in general has improved in most cases since the 50s. A better question is has it improved since the 70s and 80s. Since then I see no clear signs of an improvement in technique.

At elite level I don't think there has been clear improvement. Guys like Joe Gans who boxed from the late 1890s on has better technique than someone like Brandon Rios today. Even from the few videos of him on Youtube you can see this. He was ahead of his time to be fair but there are others like him.

cowzerp

No there hasn't

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Here we go....

Its such a difficult thing to say definitively..

basing an eras technique on 1 or 2 men is stupid.

Look at the journeymen today and they have technique as good as most from the 50's top 10-of course there was a few exceptions to the rule, outside the champs of yesteryear the skill/technique was awful and plenty of the champs where too such as Marciano

walshb

No there hasn't

I am with Maravilla33 on this. There has been progression, as I always said, but since the 60s and 70s I don't think it's near definitive.

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

cowzerp wrote: »

basing an eras technique on 1 or 2 men is stupid.

Look at the journeymen today and they have technique as good as most from the 50's top 10-of course there was a few exceptions to the rule, outside the champs of yesteryear the skill/technique was awful and plenty of the champs where too such as Marciano

I haven't based anything on 1 or 2 men. I said in general it has improved since the 50s.

I disagree with the journeymen comment aswell. Alot of them have poor technique. Unless windmilling is a technique you rate :rolleyes:? Seriously though the good fighters today have good technique. So did those from yesteryear. Its what marks them out as good fighters..

Do you think its improved since the 80s? I don't. Seems to have peaked and not really improved.

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

For the record I voted yes because I think there has been an improvement in general. I still rate a lot of fighters from back then a lot higher than a lot from today but would be silly to say there hasn't been an overall improvement. At elite level not so much.

cowzerp

No there hasn't

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Do you think its improved since the 80s? I don't. Seems to have peaked and not really improved.

Scientifically speaking I don't see how it could not have, it's not that noticeable if it has though-the major increase would be from 1950-1970, after that the differences are tactical and much slower, but again Boxing is not a special sport that stops evolving.

walshb

No there hasn't

Maybe it has scientifically improved as regards diet and technlolgy etc, but, are we seeng benefits and improvements? Sometimes a new technology or diet etc may not yield a better result. Is this not possible? I mean, 30-40 years is not all that long a time.

That is why boxing is very difficult to discuss as regards improvements. It is not like many other sports where we can show the improvement and measure the improvement in an accurate fashion.

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

If we're talking about pure boxing technique then I don't think it has to have improved since then. Fitness, nutrition and training methods may have improved that's fair enough. People have more knowledge of these things and can use them to improve their performance. That doesn't mean that everyone implements these things and improves as a result. A farmer working on his farm day in day out can be much stronger or fitter than someone who lives in the gym.

There are only so many ways you can throw a jab, block a punch or evade your opponent. Technique doesn't have to keep evolving in boxing.

Spazdarn

No there hasn't

Technique since the 50's definitely, but since the 70's probably not.

cowzerp

No there hasn't

Maravilla33 wrote: »

A farmer working on his farm day in day out can be much stronger or fitter than someone who lives in the gym. .

Wrong! Unless he is naturally bigger than gym person to start with!
Great fitness is not developed by manual labou, yea he may be fitter than an office person but not someone who's goal is to be fit and knows what they're doing.

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

cowzerp wrote: »

Wrong! Unless he is naturally bigger than gym person to start with!
Great fitness is not developed by manual labou, yea he may be fitter than an office person but not someone who's goal is to be fit and knows what they're doing.

Ha we've no way of measuring this so you cant say its wrong. I didn't say great fitness. You can be naturally strong and enhance that through things you do in everyday life. I'm not saying this is the rule but its possible. Obviously a professional athlete or someone whos vocation involves the gym is going to be stronger but its possible for your average farmer (same size) to be stronger than someone who goes to the gym 4-5 times a week and does a few weights programmes.

cowzerp

No there hasn't

We're talking about pro boxers and you used farmers, the debate was not about regular lads.

Farmers are not fit, not in any sporting context.

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

If we're talking about pure boxing technique then I don't think it has to have improved since then. Fitness, nutrition and training methods may have improved that's fair enough. People have more knowledge of these things and can use them to improve their performance. That doesn't mean that everyone implements these things and improves as a result. A farmer working on his farm day in day out can be much stronger or fitter than someone who lives in the gym.

There are only so many ways you can throw a jab, block a punch or evade your opponent. Technique doesn't have to keep evolving in boxing.

Read the bit in bold again. I was making a general statement. I didn't mention pro boxers. I said that technique doesn't have to have changed whereas as physical fitness, nutrition and the likes have. In the majority of cases these advanced methods lead to a greater result but not all. Eg a farmer can be stronger than a guy who does weights regularly. Its a simple point really. I agree modern techniques are greater in general.

cowzerp

No there hasn't

So in a debate about pro boxers you pointlessly brought farmers into it!

Look the farmer thing means nothing at all

walshb

No there hasn't

Paul, your background has been fitness and training and studying for so so long. A life long passion, any chance it's in any way slightly biased? I am all for improvements and I agree with you to a certain extent. I just don't think it's as black and white as diet/science and years.

I know humans improve and strive to improve in anything they do. But, as regards the fight game, I think it's one of the most complex and difficult to measure.

Facts are we can give many examples form any era where the men may be better than an era before or after. And, we can do it across the spectrum of average/good/very good/excellent boxers.

BTW, I voted yes too

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

cowzerp wrote: »

So in a debate about pro boxers you pointlessly brought farmers into it!

Look the farmer thing means nothing at all

Not really getting it..

Jim Jeffries who was a boilermaker by trade was known for his strength. I'd fancy him to be naturally stronger than someone like Holyfield whos training was very weights based. As I said its not the rule but its possible to get good results with old school methods.

You're getting hung up on the farmer bit for some reason...

cowzerp

No there hasn't

I doubt Jim was stronger than Evander, and if he was I'd credit boxing and his natural strength more than his trade anyway

walshb

No there hasn't

Strength is very subjective, isn't it? I mean, a lot of it can de down to technique, manoeuvring etc. Using your body the best way. Coordination, flexibilty etc all play a part. That's what makes someone like PBF deceptively strong. Balance, coordination, and intelligent use of his body.

So, how would we test their strengths? It would have to be over different disciplines, wouldn't it?

Arm wrestle, tug o war, chin ups, dead lift, wrestling, pushing contest?

What is raw strength?

I would associate it with the likes of Jefferies and Foreman more than Holyfield. Thing is, Foreman can really back it up due to more video footage available.

Also, size and weight are so important. See Bowe-Holyfield.

barney4001

No there hasn't

Originally Posted by Maravilla33
A farmer working on his farm day in day out can be much stronger or fitter than someone who lives in the gym. .


thats a joke most farmers sit on their arse all day driving a tractor,thats them that are working, most of them are on subsidies for not working

Maravilla33

No there hasn't

barney4001 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Maravilla33
A farmer working on his farm day in day out can be much stronger or fitter than someone who lives in the gym. .


thats a joke most farmers sit on their arse all day driving a tractor,thats them that are working, most of them are on subsidies for not working

Oh ffs why is everyone getting so hung up on the farmer bit? My point was modern training methods are obviously better but there will always be exceptions. I picked a farmer as someone who can generally be active in their work all day and gain strength this way. I could have said a butcher carrying carcasses all day or a builder or laborer etc. Also note I said A FARMER. I didn't say all farmers etc.

Spazdarn

No there hasn't

I saw a farmer kill a gaggle of swans with his bare hands.