Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
Ali
It's funny how the fan thinks about sports. If I were to say that I don't want to hear about Ali, he's just some weak old guy from the 60s and he could never compete with the bigger, stronger heavyweights of today like Tyson Fury and Kubrat Pulev, I would be ridiculed. And rightfully so. But people do the same shit all the time in every other sport and it's those who disagree who are considered ridiculous.
Well I think there are a few mitigating factors in boxing. And I don't say this to downplay your point about the current era triumphalism that seems to be in vogue in most sports but just point out why boxing may be unique in comparison. Rambling boxing geek post below.
One issue is weight divisions, which outside of heavyweight make athletic advances of everyone being bigger, stronger, and faster in other sports less significant.* With heavyweight, most boxing historians seem to think that it's the original division with the spottiest historical quality and that this era is on the lower end of the spectrum. That being said, while you won't get people praising Pulev or Fury quite yet, there is or was a trend of a number of media members picking both of the prime Klitschkos to wreck pretty much every other name heavyweight throughout history. Only Ali and Holmes seemed to be rated with much of a chance.
The second significant factor is that boxing is arguably one of the only sports with a clear shrinking talent pool. I believe the raw number of licensed boxers has gone down in the last 2 decades. This isn't just an Americentric argument either; while the sport has grown in eastern bloc countries as its declined in the US, I don't believe those gains have offset the losses.
Finally and more importantly than the other two is that I believe is there is a tangible deterioration of technical skills** which can be traced directly to trainer lineages dying off. As the sport has become less popular there's less incentive to attempt to make money as a trainer. And I would suggest boxing is one sport where the benefits of working with a particular trainer are derived as much from tacit knowledge as anything that could simply be learned by watching tape. So what happens is you have a certain kind of knowledge lost as outgoing trainers have no real heirs and as more and more gyms have closed. It's not a coincidence that Roach stands out so much as the best trainer of this era and also just so happened to be a Futch protege. Thus even if a shrinking talent pool wasn't true, a shifting talent pool can still result in this kind of deterioration; knowledge of the angles won't be as developed in areas that may have not lacked much support for boxing historically.
*The one area where advances in sports science make a particularly large difference is in rehydration. I've always thought that comparisons of guys moving up in the past to today were apples and oranges anyway due to the shift away from same-day weigh-ins, but the extent to which some guys are able to safely blow up today makes such comparisons even more problematic. Chavez Jr was able to become the #2 middleweight in the world in large part simply because he was able to come in at 180-183 in the ring. I think there's a much overplayed sentiment among boxing fans and media about guys needing to move up to prove they are great and I think the extent to which guys are able to rehydrate makes those calls look even sillier.
**I'd add this is also partly a product of the increasing athleticism of the sport as well. It doesn't matter as much if you cross your heels if you're simply too damn fast for your opponent. The thing is when that's no longer the case the results aren't pretty. See the late career arc of someone like Roy Jones Jr compared to Hopkins for the most illustrative recent example of the difference between relying on your athletic advantages and relying on technical knowledge.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
