A good article on Haye and Coopers respective eras and the differences in boxing.
I enjoyed reading it and pretty much agree with all the author says.
BBC - Ben Dirs: Our 'Enery symbolised boxing's bygone era
Re: A good article on Haye and Coopers respective eras and the differences in boxing.
Thanks for that!
But Cooper was immensely brave, immensely honest, and while he hated losing, he also viewed it as no great shame. In his bravery, honesty and indefatigability, generations of post-War Britons saw themselves: the blood that so often adorned his face was emblematic of an altogether tougher, more resolute, age.
Let's not kid ourselves, not everything was better in Cooper's heyday. But many older readers will view his death as symbolic of the passing of values they consider made this country great. As for the younger readers: just watch those fights and weep. Brutal, eh? Us modern softies have never had it so sweet.
Being older (47) the bold really struck me. What drew me into boxing as a fan and as an occasional sparrer (with generally poor results), and now helping kids learn the sport, was that it was a reflection of a set of admirable values. Dedication and discipline and tenacity and resiliency and on and on. When I was a young fan, men like Joe Frazier and Alexis Arguello and Ray Leonard and Saad Muhammad and George Chuvalo and Ray Mancini and Ernie Lopez and Charchai Chionoi and Venice Bhorkasor and Efren Torres and Alfredo Escalera and Rodrigo Valdez and Yaqui Lopez (OK gotta stop) all GAINED STATURE in fights where they were fairly beaten. Why? Because they adhered to an admirable set of values topped by a warriors code, a code that said I want to win and I have fully prepared to give myself the best shot, but if death is required so be it. Cut? Sew it up. Closed eye? I've got another one. Tired? Yeah but so is the other guy. Didn't make weight? My own fault, get me a sweatsuit and a steam room and some dumbells, making weight is a point of honor. If I leave my fight there? Nobody's fault but my own.
The sport then seemed simpler. It was men facing the greatest and most threatening challenges they could find. Were there exceptions? Sure. BUT THEY WERE EXCEPTIONS! Fighters thought of themselves as FIGHTERS and desired to be CHAMPION (and there could only be one!). Did they argue over money and referees and gloves and judges? You bet yer arse. But they found ways to fight 4-6 times per year because they knew long times away from the gym were dangerous and that one couldn't stay sharp and skilled fighting only occasionally. They didn't let those issues stop fights from being made.
Go watch ten great fighters from the 1930's to the 1970's in fights with good competition. It looks like a different, and superior, sport.
OK rant over. Thanks again for the article.
Re: A good article on Haye and Coopers respective eras and the differences in boxing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Thanks for that!
But Cooper was immensely brave, immensely honest, and while he hated losing, he also viewed it as no great shame. In his bravery, honesty and indefatigability, generations of post-War Britons saw themselves: the blood that so often adorned his face was emblematic of an altogether tougher, more resolute, age.
Let's not kid ourselves, not everything was better in Cooper's heyday. But many older readers will view his death as symbolic of the passing of values they consider made this country great. As for the younger readers: just watch those fights and weep. Brutal, eh? Us modern softies have never had it so sweet.
Being older (47) the bold really struck me. What drew me into boxing as a fan and as an occasional sparrer (with generally poor results), and now helping kids learn the sport, was that it was a reflection of a set of admirable values. Dedication and discipline and tenacity and resiliency and on and on. When I was a young fan, men like Joe Frazier and Alexis Arguello and Ray Leonard and Saad Muhammad and George Chuvalo and Ray Mancini and Ernie Lopez and Charchai Chionoi and Venice Bhorkasor and Efren Torres and Alfredo Escalera and Rodrigo Valdez and Yaqui Lopez (OK gotta stop) all GAINED STATURE in fights where they were fairly beaten. Why? Because they adhered to an admirable set of values topped by a warriors code, a code that said I want to win and I have fully prepared to give myself the best shot, but if death is required so be it. Cut? Sew it up. Closed eye? I've got another one. Tired? Yeah but so is the other guy. Didn't make weight? My own fault, get me a sweatsuit and a steam room and some dumbells, making weight is a point of honor. If I leave my fight there? Nobody's fault but my own.
The sport then seemed simpler. It was men facing the greatest and most threatening challenges they could find. Were there exceptions? Sure. BUT THEY WERE EXCEPTIONS! Fighters thought of themselves as FIGHTERS and desired to be CHAMPION (and there could only be one!). Did they argue over money and referees and gloves and judges? You bet yer arse. But they found ways to fight 4-6 times per year because they knew long times away from the gym were dangerous and that one couldn't stay sharp and skilled fighting only occasionally. They didn't let those issues stop fights from being made.
Go watch ten great fighters from the 1930's to the 1970's in fights with good competition. It looks like a different, and superior, sport.
OK rant over. Thanks again for the article.
Pretty much agree with all you said here!
Re: A good article on Haye and Coopers respective eras and the differences in boxing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Thanks for that!
But Cooper was immensely brave, immensely honest, and while he hated losing, he also viewed it as no great shame. In his bravery, honesty and indefatigability, generations of post-War Britons saw themselves: the blood that so often adorned his face was emblematic of an altogether tougher, more resolute, age.
Let's not kid ourselves, not everything was better in Cooper's heyday. But many older readers will view his death as symbolic of the passing of values they consider made this country great. As for the younger readers: just watch those fights and weep. Brutal, eh? Us modern softies have never had it so sweet.
Being older (47) the bold really struck me. What drew me into boxing as a fan and as an occasional sparrer (with generally poor results), and now helping kids learn the sport, was that it was a reflection of a set of admirable values. Dedication and discipline and tenacity and resiliency and on and on. When I was a young fan, men like Joe Frazier and Alexis Arguello and Ray Leonard and Saad Muhammad and George Chuvalo and Ray Mancini and Ernie Lopez and Charchai Chionoi and Venice Bhorkasor and Efren Torres and Alfredo Escalera and Rodrigo Valdez and Yaqui Lopez (OK gotta stop) all GAINED STATURE in fights where they were fairly beaten. Why? Because they adhered to an admirable set of values topped by a warriors code, a code that said I want to win and I have fully prepared to give myself the best shot, but if death is required so be it. Cut? Sew it up. Closed eye? I've got another one. Tired? Yeah but so is the other guy. Didn't make weight? My own fault, get me a sweatsuit and a steam room and some dumbells, making weight is a point of honor. If I leave my fight there? Nobody's fault but my own.
The sport then seemed simpler. It was men facing the greatest and most threatening challenges they could find. Were there exceptions? Sure. BUT THEY WERE EXCEPTIONS! Fighters thought of themselves as FIGHTERS and desired to be CHAMPION (and there could only be one!). Did they argue over money and referees and gloves and judges? You bet yer arse. But they found ways to fight 4-6 times per year because they knew long times away from the gym were dangerous and that one couldn't stay sharp and skilled fighting only occasionally. They didn't let those issues stop fights from being made.
Go watch ten great fighters from the 1930's to the 1970's in fights with good competition. It looks like a different, and superior, sport.
OK rant over. Thanks again for the article.
Just like the movie Highlander! There could only be one!;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4Sq...?v=kq4SqgxIKM0
Re: A good article on Haye and Coopers respective eras and the differences in boxing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Thanks for that!
But Cooper was immensely brave, immensely honest, and while he hated losing, he also viewed it as no great shame. In his bravery, honesty and indefatigability, generations of post-War Britons saw themselves: the blood that so often adorned his face was emblematic of an altogether tougher, more resolute, age.
Let's not kid ourselves, not everything was better in Cooper's heyday. But many older readers will view his death as symbolic of the passing of values they consider made this country great. As for the younger readers: just watch those fights and weep. Brutal, eh? Us modern softies have never had it so sweet.
Being older (47) the bold really struck me. What drew me into boxing as a fan and as an occasional sparrer (with generally poor results), and now helping kids learn the sport, was that it was a reflection of a set of admirable values. Dedication and discipline and tenacity and resiliency and on and on. When I was a young fan, men like Joe Frazier and Alexis Arguello and Ray Leonard and Saad Muhammad and George Chuvalo and Ray Mancini and Ernie Lopez and Charchai Chionoi and Venice Bhorkasor and Efren Torres and Alfredo Escalera and Rodrigo Valdez and Yaqui Lopez (OK gotta stop) all GAINED STATURE in fights where they were fairly beaten. Why? Because they adhered to an admirable set of values topped by a warriors code, a code that said I want to win and I have fully prepared to give myself the best shot, but if death is required so be it. Cut? Sew it up. Closed eye? I've got another one. Tired? Yeah but so is the other guy. Didn't make weight? My own fault, get me a sweatsuit and a steam room and some dumbells, making weight is a point of honor. If I leave my fight there? Nobody's fault but my own.
The sport then seemed simpler. It was men facing the greatest and most threatening challenges they could find. Were there exceptions? Sure. BUT THEY WERE EXCEPTIONS! Fighters thought of themselves as FIGHTERS and desired to be CHAMPION (and there could only be one!). Did they argue over money and referees and gloves and judges? You bet yer arse. But they found ways to fight 4-6 times per year because they knew long times away from the gym were dangerous and that one couldn't stay sharp and skilled fighting only occasionally. They didn't let those issues stop fights from being made.
Go watch ten great fighters from the 1930's to the 1970's in fights with good competition. It looks like a different, and superior, sport.
OK rant over. Thanks again for the article.
Just like the movie Highlander! There could only be one!;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4SqgxIKM0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4SqgxIKM0
Geeze I'm glad SOMEBODY caught that :)
