By Anthony Mason: Over the years, athletes have benefited from improvements in facets of training such as nutrition and exercise. In some ways, it improves athletes physically, and this leads to a perception that today’s athletes as a whole are superior. Some say that an old school boxer compared to one today would be like comparing automobiles of Henry Ford’s day to those of today. That is a terrible analogy. The boxers of the old school are a force that can’t be compared to any firepower, for it’s mind-power shared.
It is unquestionable that the majority (not all) of the greatest boxers came from the 1930s to the 1980s, and we will analyze why that is so. Before analyzing boxers specifically, it is important to look at old and new athletes of different sports. If we can see that older athletes of different sports are better than those of today, it will be easy to see that boxing is no exception.
Those who diminish the accomplishments of older boxers often bring up the examples of how sprinting and swimming records have been increasing as the years go by. They assume that because athletes in these sports have been slowly improving, the same must be true for boxers. Comparing a one-dimensional sport like sprinting or swimming to a multi-faceted sport like boxing is a foolish thing to do, but I will play along for now. Now it’s time for me to make my impression felt, so sit back, relax, and strap on your seat belt. You’ve never been on a ride like this before.
Usain Bolt’s fastest 100-meter time, 9.58 seconds, demolishes Jesse Owen’s record of 10.2 seconds in 1936. The 0.62-second difference is huge in the sprinting world. Remember, however that Bolt has the benefit of running on specially designed synthetic tracks as well as having a starting block to propel off of. Owens was not given a head start from starting blocks like Bolt, and he ran on uneven tracks made from the ashes of burnt cinders. On top of that, he wore heavy leather shoes instead of specialized sneakers. Lastly, hand timers were used instead of electronic timing like today, so the human error in timing may also have added a little extra to Owen’s time.
Much of the disparity between Owens’ and Bolt’s times is attributable to the changes in sprinting regulations, not purely based on the improvement of athletes over the years. Even in a one-dimensional sport like sprinting, which relies purely on athleticism, the difference in older and newer athletes is not as great as people think. Swimming is in the same boat.
From the 1950s to today, changes in regulations resulted in noticeable increases in swimming times. These include permitting swimmers to propel themselves off of the pool wall on a turn, introducing gutters to prevent water from impeding the athletes, and introducing specialized swimsuits to further benefit today’s athletes. Similar examples extend to cycling and other racing sports.
Now, I shouldn’t even have had to make this comparison, because boxing is not one-dimensional like sprinting or swimming, but unfortunately there are people who are foolish enough to try to make that comparison. Boxing does not require a person to knock out an opponent as quickly as possible, in the way that sprinting and swimming seek out the fastest individual. It is important to remember that sprinting and swimming are relatively one-dimensional sports that rely almost entirely on being physically gifted and fit. Boxing is a multifaceted sport, so such a comparison is invalid.
Having physical and athletic gifts do help in a sport like boxing, but it is not the only factor. If that were the case, there would not be champions like George Foreman or Bernard Hopkins in their mid to late 40s. There are a lot of boxers who are physically more gifted than older versions of Foreman or Hopkins, but have not been able to come close to their status as great boxers. Hopkins and the older version of Foreman are not the fastest or most athletically gifted, but they are still considered among the best.
Meldrick Taylor was a lot faster than either Hopkins or Foreman, but he didn’t have anywhere near as good of a career. Julian Jackson might possibly be the hardest hitting pound-for-pound boxer of all time, but that didn’t get him to an all-time great level. Oliver McCall had perhaps the best chin in heavyweight history, but is he a better pound for pound fighter than the weaker-chinned Tommy Hearns? Physical gifts in boxing alone do not make a great fighter, and it is foolish to diminish the great fighters of the past based on this reasoning. The accomplishments of the old school boxers are un-fadeable, so please don’t try to fade this.
If boxers are supposed to be getting better as the years go by, how did George Foreman regain the heavyweight championship 20 years after he lost it to Muhammad Ali? Foreman had physically deteriorated, but he still knocked out a very good heavyweight in Michael Moorer. After such a long layoff, Foreman was fresh out the game again and decided it was time to raise the stakes again. He fattened his plate again and let Moorer know he always plays to win. I thought boxers were supposed to be getting better as the years went by, but somehow a 45 year old version of Foreman, whose prime was in the early 70s, knocked out the heavyweight champion of 1994. I am not implying that Moorer was a bad heavyweight, he was realer than Real Deal Holyfield when he defeated Evander, it is just that George Foreman and the old school were just that good.
In another example, Bernard Hopkins has been fighting for over 26 years. If boxers of today are supposed to be better than they were almost 30 years ago, why is a 49-year-old Hopkins arguably the best light heavyweight in the sport today? On top of that, the difference in athleticism of the older athletes and the newer athletes is not as great as the records indicate, as shown in the sprinting and swimming examples, so even if athleticism did make a huge difference in boxing, which it rarely does, the disparity wouldn’t be huge.
Boxers with the physical gifts of someone like Roy Jones are once-in-a-lifetime exceptions to the rule, not the norm. There may not be another boxer in the sport’s history that could dominate the sport almost entirely on physical skill. Using one example like Roy Jones does not refute the fact that most of the best boxers came from the old school. I am not insinuating that the likes of Roy Jones are not great boxers. I am simply proving that diminishing the accomplishments of the old school boxers based on the false perception of overall improvement in quality of the sport is a terrible mistake.
The advancement of basketball is a better comparison with boxing compared to one-dimensional sports like swimming and sprinting. Basketball, like boxing, does not rely purely on physical skill to have success. Kobe Bryant, whose career started in 1996, stated that he felt players in the 1980s and 1990s were more skilled due to the harder regulations in place in the older days. Joe Johnson, who started his career in 2001, stated that the lenient rules of the NBA today make it much easier for him compared to players like Michael Jordan, who dominated the 80s and 90s. Gary Payton’s career spanned from 1990 to 2007, letting him witness the evolution of the game firsthand. He stated that the newer NBA players would struggle if they dealt with the rules that were in place in the older days.
Not only do players of modern and older eras agree, but also many of the greatest coaches in the NBA, including Phil Jackson (his coaching and playing career combined spanned from 1967 to 2010), echo the same sentiments. If there are NBA players of the modern era and men who witnessed the evolution of the sport over several decades admitting that the older era was more skilled, why should boxing be an exception? Boxing is different than basketball, yes, but if older athletes in another sport are considered by modern athletes to be greater and more skilled, is it so hard to believe that boxing isn’t any different?
It isn’t. James Toney has stated the fighters of today would not last in his era, and he has been through both the modern and older eras. What he said is proven when even well past his prime and far beyond his natural weight, Toney was able to give John Ruiz and Sam Peter all they could handle. Ruiz and Peter were actually considered the top heavyweight contenders at the time. A washed up version of James Toney defeated Ruiz, and Peter needed two very debated decisions to beat Toney. The heavyweight division alone is proof of the regression in boxing quality, just like NBA players have stated regarding their own sport. There is not one heavyweight today that can match the skill of Lennox Lewis, Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, a prime Riddick Bowe, and many more.
Like the case with the sprinting example, rules were in place that hindered offensive performance in the NBA. Since those rules started to be removed in 1999, the scoring average of NBA teams increased by 10 points per game. This actually made it easier for players of today’s game offensively. In spite of modern players acknowledging that the 80s-90s era was much more difficult, and statistical evidence proving that the removal of older rules made it easier for modern NBA athletes, they still did not perform at the same level of older NBA players, even when they had it much easier.
Not one modern player has put up the scoring numbers that Michael Jordan did in 1987, nor has anybody put up the assist numbers that John Stockton did in 1990, or the rebounding numbers that Dennis Rodman had from 1991-93, nor the steal numbers that Alvin Robertson accumulated in 1986. In a multi-faceted sport like basketball, statistical data and the experiences and sentiments of players and coaches themselves (from both eras) prove that athletes in basketball have actually regressed. There is not one knowledgeable basketball fan that can deny that the likes of older players such as Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Dominique Wilkins would dominate the modern sport easily. The same applies to the great boxers of the past.
Likewise, there is not one modern boxer with the defensive skills of Willie Pep (although Pernell Whitaker comes close), the chin of Marvin Hagler or Oliver McCall, the weight climbing ability of Duran, Armstrong, or Langford, the counter-punching skill of Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, and Ezzard Charles, the ability to cut off the ring and throw accurate combinations like Joe Louis, reflexes like Muhammad Ali (with the exception of a once-in-a-lifetime specimen in Roy Jones), the jab of Larry Holmes or Tommy Hearns, the overall skills of the great Sugar Ray Robinson, and hundreds of other examples.
Looking further, basketball has been around for 70 years, whereas boxing has been around for over a century. The developing curve in basketball ended rather quickly around the late 1960s, as seen by the rapid decline in Wilt Chamberlain’s performance. Chamberlain was considered one of the best players in his day, but his quality of play took a huge blow once the NBA started its path to the high quality sport it is today. If the NBA’s quality of players started to plateau in a little over 20 years, there is no reason to believe boxing’s improvement did not plateau early as well. Therefore, it is ridiculous to discredit the likes of Sam Langford or Jack Dempsey on this basis.
As a final emphasis in the basketball comparison, we can look at the fact that a 40 year old Michael Jordan put up impressive numbers in 2003, when his career first started in 1984. The very next year, after Jordan retired for good, a 19-year-old Lebron James put up statistics almost identical to the 40 year old Jordan one year earlier. Think about that for a second.
A 19-year old Lebron James, one of the best players in the modern era, was putting up the same numbers that a 40 year old washed up version of Michael Jordan did. At age 40, Michael Jordan performed at least as well as a player who had one of the best rookie seasons in NBA history. That is more than enough proof to show that older athletes are more than capable of hanging with those of today. Boxing is no exception.
Now that it has been irrefutably proven that old school athletes in other sports have been able to succeed in modern eras, there is no need to compare boxers to athletes of other sports. If athletes in other sports acknowledge and prove the higher quality of older competitors, boxing shall be no different. Now, we will turn attention purely to the higher quality of old school boxing, and why the late-2000s era of boxing to the present day is so weak.
In the same way that changes in regulation made it easier for modern athletes of other sports, modern boxers have the same benefit. Instead of fighting in an era with only eight divisions and eight total belts, they compete in an era where there are 17 divisions and more than 68 belts. When guys like Diego Corrales (never beating ONE elite fighter) and Ricky Hatton can call themselves champions just like Kid Gavilan and Sammy Angott used to, then you know something is not right.
The increasing financial incentive has affected the sport greatly, but instead of improving the quality of boxing, it has done the opposite. With promoters having such control over the fights, it is like they have their finger on a trigger, making enough figures until their pockets get bigger. With more money at stake, promoters have stronger control over the sport. This leads to promotional rivalries, convenient excuses to avoid challenges, and careful selection of opponents.
Pacquiao and Mayweather are huge pay-per-view attractions, filling their pockets with more high notes than the opera, Franklins on top of the Jacksons. By the standards of their day, they are elite boxers, but it is hard to see how they can stand up to the best of all times with their quality of opponents. You cannot really blame boxers and promoters for choosing the financially favorable outcome, but that does not hide the diminishing quality of today’s boxers.
Oscar De La Hoya, one of the biggest names in modern boxing, has stated that old school fighters like Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Willie Pep are all among the greatest boxers of all time. He also stated that he would have loved to fight Roberto Duran, but that Duran probably would have beaten him. If one of the top boxers in the modern era can acknowledge that a lot of the greatest boxers came from the old school, why do critics with no experience in boxing try to say otherwise?
Bill Miller, the trainer of James Toney in his prime, instilled the skills of old school boxers like Ezzard Charles in James Toney. On an HBO segment, Toney and Miller talked about how they sought to use elements of Charles’ style. Balance, footwork, and defense were among the points of emphasis.
Under Bill Miller, Toney added all the skills Charles had. One after the other one, then he made another one to diss the opposite then ask if the brother’s done. Like Charles, he was a smooth operator operating correctly. During Toney’s fight with Charles Williams, George Foreman was impressed with how Toney boxed his way out of everything Williams threw at him. Toney put on a masterful exhibition of counter-punching and defense. One on one with Williams, Toney was the remainder, so Williams closed his eyes and held his breath. As Toney hit him with the blow of death, Williams was knocked out near the end of the twelfth round.
If old school boxing styles are supposed to be obsolete, according to some critics, why would Bill Miller be trying to instill the skills of an old school 1940s fighter like Ezzard Charles to mold someone like James Toney? Not many would deny that James Toney is one of the best boxers of the 1990s, but somehow certain people can hypocritically claim that old school 1940s boxers like Ezzard Charles have obsolete styles, and are inferior to modern fighters. The funny thing is that modern fighters like James Toney actually emulated those “obsolete” styles instead of disregarding them like critics of the old school. The fact that the “elite” heavyweights of the late 2000s struggled badly with a washed up former middleweight, whose style was modeled after “primitive” 1940’s boxers, makes this even more comical.
If Joe Louis was fighting a Bum of the Month club, against the likes of Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Braddock, Sharkey, Baer, Conn, and more, then what does that say about the Klitschkos’ competition? I don’t see how fighting David Haye is more of a challenge than an all-time great light heavyweight like Billy Conn.
If Willie Pep was fighting in a weak era, then what does that say about today’s era, where nobody can go 155 fights with only two losses, on top of fighting legitimate, dangerous, and elite contenders? Pep fought an unbelievable amount of competition in so little time. He just didn’t stop, he was like a clock when he ticked and he tocked.
Had Manny Pacquiao gone through Sandy Saddler, Chalky Wright, and a load of other prime, elite, contenders so often, they would make Manny famous, then turn around and make him nameless because Manny never understood how vital to them the boxing game is. Manny would be scared to death and scared to look, especially since he is shook when it comes to moving up in weight to fight elite fighters in their prime. Instead, he prefers to fight washed up versions of Margarito and De La Hoya.
If Mayweather’s performance against a paper champion like Diego Corrales, who even the journeyman Joshua Clottey out-boxed, was a masterful exhibition of counter-punching, then what does that say about Jersey Joe Walcott? Can anyone remind me of a moment in Mayweather’s career where he set a trap on an all-time pound for pound great boxer like when Jersey Joe casually walked up to Ezzard Charles and knocked him out?
If Henry Armstrong was so unimpressive, why, even with the addition of extra weight classes and belts, and weaker competition, can no boxer hold three titles at the same time in any division? Mayweather, the pound for pound number 1 today, can’t even hold on to two belts without fighting the likes of Guerrero, Maidana, and Canelo Alvarez. Mayweather fought from 147 to 152 pounds in his last 3 fights, and that slim five pound difference is enough to consider himself a 2-division champion? In Armstrong’s day, he climbed from nine to thirteen pounds if he had to move up just one weight class. Not only that, but the likes of Maidana, Guerrero, and Canelo are hardly comparable to the likes of Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic.
To claim that today’s boxers are better simply by using terrible comparisons such as swimming and sprinting times, even when athletes of other sports are regressing, is a terrible mistake to do. Modern boxers who have been through multiple eras have no issue acknowledging the superiority of the old school, so nobody else has any reason to think otherwise. The top boxers of the modern era, the Mayweathers and Pacquiaos, have a long long way to go before they can be put in the category of the greats. What more can I say? Boxing wouldn’t be here today if the old school didn’t pave the way.
Comments are closed.