Are the REAL oldtimers overrated?

[Felix25]

By "REAL" I dont mean boxers from 50 or 70 years ago - but those who boxed a really long time (100+ years) ago! Last week I came across this all-time p4p list by Tracy Callis, which I have since given some thought:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charlie Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
10. Harry Greb

... and the first thing that struck me (hence the question!), was that all but 2 (Robinson and Armstrong) were born in the 19th century! We have Mitchell, Nonpareil and Fitz all born within 18 months of each other in 1861-63... followed by O'Brian, Ketchel, Langford, Greb and Dempsey (1895) before the century ran out. So, according to Mr. Callis, 8 of the 10 best boxers ever just happen to have been born in the last 4 decades of the 19th Century! Hmm...

But what is it, that makes a historian rate these oldtimers over more modern boxers? Were they really better back then, and if so... why? More fights against tougher competition, better conditioning due to longer fights, better trainers... or something else? Or is Mr. Callis simply being a tad too generous to the oldtimers? I would like to hear some opinions on this.

[sonnyboyx2]

By "REAL" I dont mean boxers from 50 or 70 years ago - but those who boxed a really long time (100+ years) ago! Last week I came across this all-time p4p list by Tracy Callis, which I have since given some thought:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charlie Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
10. Harry Greb

... and the first thing that struck me (hence the question!), was that all but 2 (Robinson and Armstrong) were born in the 19th century! We have Mitchell, Nonpareil and Fitz all born within 18 months of each other in 1861-63... followed by O'Brian, Ketchel, Langford, Greb and Dempsey (1895) before the century ran out. So, according to Mr. Callis, 8 of the 10 best boxers ever just happen to have been born in the last 4 decades of the 19th Century! Hmm...

But what is it, that makes a historian rate these oldtimers over more modern boxers? Were they really better back then, and if so... why? More fights against tougher competition, better conditioning due to longer fights, better trainers... or something else? Or is Mr. Callis simply being a tad too generous to the oldtimers? I would like to hear some opinions on this.

my first thought was, - "Charlie Mitchell ive never heard of him"!
No they are not overrated they are underrated.

[The Old LefHook]

Actually, bias is much more front heavy than back heavy. Most active fans are younger, even new to the sport. People usually end up believing that someone they saw when they were young would pulverize everyone else. A lot of boxing fans' experience reaches back no further than the Klitscho era. It is contemporary boxers who give them excitement they are going to overrate, not those they watch in black and white, who they tend to underrate because they look primitive and grainy.

[The Old LefHook]

At least half the guys on the Callis list were placed there by reputation alone. I need to see them fight. If Fitz had knocked Jefferies cold, then there would be a stronger case. As it is, Good luck, Fitz, against the likes of Braxton and cruiser Holyfield.

[billeau2]

By "REAL" I dont mean boxers from 50 or 70 years ago - but those who boxed a really long time (100+ years) ago! Last week I came across this all-time p4p list by Tracy Callis, which I have since given some thought:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charlie Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
10. Harry Greb

... and the first thing that struck me (hence the question!), was that all but 2 (Robinson and Armstrong) were born in the 19th century! We have Mitchell, Nonpareil and Fitz all born within 18 months of each other in 1861-63... followed by O'Brian, Ketchel, Langford, Greb and Dempsey (1895) before the century ran out. So, according to Mr. Callis, 8 of the 10 best boxers ever just happen to have been born in the last 4 decades of the 19th Century! Hmm...

But what is it, that makes a historian rate these oldtimers over more modern boxers? Were they really better back then, and if so... why? More fights against tougher competition, better conditioning due to longer fights, better trainers... or something else? Or is Mr. Callis simply being a tad too generous to the oldtimers? I would like to hear some opinions on this.

You make an excellent point. Most people in this debate have a bias but actually this works very well. Consider this analogy: To an Egyptologist who studied the agrarian state as a political development, this state structure, which has parallels in mesoamerican culture, etc is the best archeological evidence of the state and its development....karl Marx famously stated that in his scientific (his use of the term) development of the state, Egypt was an exception called the "asiatic mode of production" because it, and most non-western societies, did not conform to his dialectical materialist history of the state. So who is right?

Well to a hammer maker all problems are a nail. What you are seeing with some of the better boxing historians is their view based on their specialties, research and opinions. Burt Sugar also gets called on this point you make btw. I think one should look at their research and understanding, but need not hold their opinion. They will always speak from the vantage point of their own reason for doing the research in the first place. If you are Callis you see that older fighters threw more punches, fought more rounds, fought more often, started training younger, etc. If you are Freddie Roach you see new physical developments in the sport, more international presence, etc.

Callis represents a school of thought, not the last word on the subject by any means.

[The Old LefHook]

If you are Callis you see that older fighters threw more punches

This is not true, unless Callis sees what is not there. Fighters from more than eighty years ago did not throw more punches, but far fewer. What they did a lot more of was clinching and yanking on one another's arms. The farther back you go the fewer punches they threw. Many moderns who punch in combination outpunch oldsters by a wide margin. The oldsters did indeed have a craft for fighting in clinches, but too often they just yanked each other around and wasted time.

There are always a few exceptions, but in general boxers did not throw many combinations pre 1920, they threw one punch at a time and then grabbed. A contemporary viewer, used to much better entertainment, could not stand to watch them, and would certainly not cough up PPV fees to watch Ketchel. Flailing is not a combination in the modern sense.

With bare knuckles, even fewer punches were thrown. Placement was very careful unless a fighter wanted shattered mitts. Leaving the bare knuckle age, grappling was still a major part of boxing business, just as one sees the heavy influence of radio on early television.

[billeau2]

This is not true, unless Callis sees what is not there. Fighters from more than eighty years ago did not throw more punches, but far fewer. What they did a lot more of was clinching and yanking on one another's arms. The farther back you go the fewer punches they threw. Many moderns who punch in combination outpunch oldsters by a wide margin. The oldsters did indeed have a craft for fighting in clinches, but too often they just yanked each other around and wasted time.

There are always a few exceptions, but in general boxers did not throw many combinations pre 1920, they threw one punch at a time and then grabbed. A contemporary viewer, used to much better entertainment, could not stand to watch them, and would certainly not cough up PPV fees to watch Ketchel. Flailing is not a combination in the modern sense.

With bare knuckles, even fewer punches were thrown. Placement was very careful unless a fighter wanted shattered mitts. Leaving the bare knuckle age, grappling was still a major part of boxing business, just as one sees the heavy influence of radio on early television.

Actually I stand corrected. I was referring to post 30's up until the 1970's. During this boxing epoche the fighters tended to throw more punches, and were on the average conditioned to fight an entire 15 rounder. Earlier fighters, circa the Grebb era in back to bare knuckles tended to be more involved fluidly with all ranges, punching to the body, setting up distance, and yes...one did indeed have to be careful with the hands which is why fighters threw more anatomically correct punches...i.e. the elbows were tucked in tight, the hands held naturally, little pronation occurred and the punching hand, even on hooks was held straight in line with the arm. The idea was to get momentum and the body swinging into the punches. Speed was not even as important as being heavy handed and knowing how to set up punches and distance....theories that were taken from fencing.

One way to look at it, is a theory that also applies in the ancient JuJutsu arts known as communitive locking. The idea is to create the most direct transfer of power to and from the body. In the Jitz this means locking the whole person and taking the balance by affecting no loss of energy from the wrist grab to the elbow, the elbow to the shoulder and the shoulder to the spine. In Boxing this means when throwing a blow having the hand in line with the wrist, the wrist in line with the arm, the arm in line with the shoulder and the shoulder in line with the turning of the spine and the dropping of the weight into the punch. Also because of fencing theory, another big thing was to time a step so that the foot hit the ground the same time as the hand hit the target. Again, this is the most efficient way to transfer energy....If oen steps too early, or too late a lot of energy goes into the ground instead of the target.

Left Hook, looks can be very decieving....its kind of like the biologist who says "look into the microscope and tell me what you see" and you look and say "?" then the biologist proceeds to explain that all the small darting thigies are a whole universe of creatures...he has a trained eye and knows what he is observing. In the Bare knuckled era the guys fought in such a way that they protected the hands, used the grapple to get position, trap the hands of the opponent, create the right distance to counter etc. But it all looks like chaos if one does not know the strategies being observed.

Again, you are correct about placement. Correct placement and footwork were two very important skills to have. You had to be able to close the gap fast....think Jack Johnson. And Grebb's windmill punches? Windmilling with straight arms is actually the most anatomically powerful way to hit. Biologically we are designed to hit down on targets, it is why we are so protected from things coming downaward upon us, we have a forehead that protects our face, our groin is below a belly and our plexis is hard to approach downward....yet upwards? I can catch your groin, your plexis your throat your nose, etc.

the first thing a skilled fighter learns to do is punch straight to the targets the older fighters in the old stance were setting up to hit all the targets that hurt (eyes, nose throat plexis, groin) without telegraphing....its why the arms were so straight and tucked ane why the hands were places so if the lead hit the other arm was ready with no preparation....`one could extend, step or hook the other arm but the body moving did the work, not the arms. Even the hands moved very little. just a little extension with tucked elbows and a drop of the weight and a massive punch could be delivered...Dempsey learned this trick on the hobbo circiut.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Honestly it's impossible to compare guys from the 1800s early 1900s with anyone from modern times... The sport is so drastically different especially the rules n regulations, that there is little semblance between them

[BattlingNelson]

This is not true, unless Callis sees what is not there. Fighters from more than eighty years ago did not throw more punches, but far fewer. What they did a lot more of was clinching and yanking on one another's arms. The farther back you go the fewer punches they threw. Many moderns who punch in combination outpunch oldsters by a wide margin. The oldsters did indeed have a craft for fighting in clinches, but too often they just yanked each other around and wasted time.

There are always a few exceptions, but in general boxers did not throw many combinations pre 1920, they threw one punch at a time and then grabbed. A contemporary viewer, used to much better entertainment, could not stand to watch them, and would certainly not cough up PPV fees to watch Ketchel. Flailing is not a combination in the modern sense.

With bare knuckles, even fewer punches were thrown. Placement was very careful unless a fighter wanted shattered mitts. Leaving the bare knuckle age, grappling was still a major part of boxing business, just as one sees the heavy influence of radio on early television.

Well Leffie, I think you are wrong here. Check out this bit by the highly respected Monte Cox:

The notion that fighters of the early 20th century fought at a slow place and their punch stat numbers were not equal to those of modern fighters can be verifiably proven false. It’s a myth!

Take a look at a well-known modern-era classic: Ray Leonard versus Roberto Duran, June 20, 1980 Montreal, Ca. Duran averaged 90-92 punches for 15 rounds -- a sizzling pace ?a classic war.

A recent, more familiar fight, Gatti-Ward three in 2003, Arturo averaged 71 punches a round, according to Compubox, which is still a very fast pace.

In comparison, Henry Armstrong’s Nov 15, 1938 welterweight title defense against Ceferino Garcia, Hammerin?Hank averaged 70 punches a round, to earn a 15-round decision.

His punch output was very good, but fell short of the torrid pace he set at his peak.

Shane Mosley threw an average of 41 punches a round in his return 12 with Oscar De La Hoya that he won by a shade in 2003. ODLH, who some ringsiders had ahead, averaged 51 a round.

Did past greats fight slower than moderns? Consider the following: One of the most action-packed battles of recent memory was the 2003 Fight-of-the-Year candidate, Vassily Jirov versus -James Toney. Jirov lost a hotly contested nod, but was the busier man, averaging 86 punches for all 12 rounds.

There have been fights in the past just as heated over greater distances.

The Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast lightweight championship held on Feb 22, 1910 was called “for concentrated viciousness... the most savage bout I have ever seen?wrote W.O. McGeehan in the New York Herald Tribune.

Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.?They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round.

They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!

The full article, that covers the alleged difference between todays fighters and the old timers as well as busting a few myths, can be found here. It's a great read:

[The Old LefHook]

I already said there were a few exceptions, and that is all I think there were. My impression is gained from watching numerous fights of the era, not just one fight. Next perhaps you will tell me that bareknuckle fighters threw as many punches as moderns.

I don't know who Monte Cox is. I have read so many so-called experts that I no longer take them seriously at face value. They love to take some popular opinion and try to show how wrong it is. This makes them look like bigtime researchers for whom there is some reason for them to be there other than they got hired by a family friend. If they can turn a popular opinion on its head, they feel they have done something big. Instead of reading this churl simply watch the fights from that era.

This guy is probably as big an expert as Tracy Callis, who is a boxing halfwit in my opinion.