Black and white boxing era

[jabvargas24]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

[Dark Lord Al]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

You tube has plenty of old fights free.

[greynotsoold]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

I'm an old guy, with about 40 years of boxing behind me, and I think the same thing when I watch modern boxing.
A lot of what makes a fighter better than others is pretty subtle. Watch how they control distance. Watch how a guy throws his jab, what his feet do, and how he reacts to the other guy's jab. Class shows in how a guy punches when the other guy is punching, how he finishes his combinations.
Myself, personally, I have been on a jose Napoles trip for awhile now, and I think I am about to embark on a study of Ike Williams.

[Rantcatrat]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

I'm an old guy, with about 40 years of boxing behind me, and I think the same thing when I watch modern boxing.
A lot of what makes a fighter better than others is pretty subtle. Watch how they control distance. Watch how a guy throws his jab, what his feet do, and how he reacts to the other guy's jab. Class shows in how a guy punches when the other guy is punching, how he finishes his combinations.
Myself, personally, I have been on a jose Napoles trip for awhile now, and I think I am about to embark on a study of Ike Williams.

@greynotsoold - Good post. I have some good articles on Ike Williams if you want me to pass them on to you. Let me know.

[Rantcatrat]

@greynotsoold

Check out this article on Ike Williams.

[IamInuit]

This is starting to crack me up. I have been trying so hard to not get into this eternal debate that in the end never really solves anything. To a certain segment of society if you can’t find it on youtube or a film then it didn't happen or it’s extremely exaggerated. Does anyone with even an iota of boxing history/human history on their belt realize what you are dismissing using the premise that there is no footage? Specifically with boxing you are dismissing quite literally at least a hundred great boxers going back as far as George Dixon and beyond. On practically every top ten atg list you will find fighters with little or no footage. Robinson has topped the 147 list for ever and there is maybe one fight floating around of his time spent there and its crap. Much of the footage available is shit to say the least.

Just sit back for a second and think of the fighters one tosses out because of a lack of footage. Then think how much history in general that we could dismiss because of a lack of footage? It is by that blood and those events that we now have all of this gadgetry. We could I suppose dismiss all of history prior to the advent of all of these devices.

In the end I don’t need a chunk of film to tell me who Greb was. I bring Greb up because for some reason he is singled out. And singled out ironically because of his dominance. I can read the history of the man in books and by alternate sources using testimony by those who were there and respected historians that have followed him and others through their time. In many ways, the written word is as important as any tape. There are quite literally hundreds of great fighters with no film attached. Somehow this makes them less great? And this is a sound argument how? How much of human history is accepted by word alone? The medium of film has been a short one compared to our shared human history w/o it. And ftr they did film some of Grebs fights. Tunney 1, Walker and Flowers but they were filmed using a nitrate base which only has about a 50 year lifespan.

Harry Greb was a marvel and would have wiped the floor with any middleweight fighting today including that Russian Godlike character that the rest of the world ducks. Speaking of ducks, this shit never played out in the fashion it does today. Today, a time when the chances on getting an undisputed champion is slim to none and slim left the party. Either Greb was as good as all his contemporaries say along with historians, broadcasters and onlookers or they are all liars based solely on the fact that there is no film. Seems a fickle stance and better suited for a first year philosophy course and the study of skepticism.

Harry Greb fought over 300 times. 299 at boxrec and only lost 8 times including only one legit stoppage. He fought from welter to heavy and was the only man to beat Tunney, arguably twice. He fought heavyweight contenders and 45 times in one year but of course the skeptics merely suggest they were scrubs and cab drivers. He fought and beat 18 Hall of famers, 7 light-heavyweight champions and fought blind in one eye about the last 3 years of his career. If this isn’t great then I don’t know what is. Those who love this Nanny state of boxing will simply reply “he was great for his time” Bullshit. He would have been great at any time. My lord both Moyer brothers would be world champions with ease today and animals like Stanley Ketchel probably would not be able to get a fight.

If anything guys like Greb, Gans, Langford and countless others don’t get their due respect based solely on this lack of footage. That is pretty evident. Perhaps the Roman Empire was an elaborate hoax. And later, people such as Da Vinci and Galileo are all made up characters. I've seen no film footage. All nursery rhymes and really no different then the stories of religion. The boxing establishment was steered away from Burley and the rest of Murderers row because they were that good. It took Moore 160 fights to even get a title shot and he's the only one that made it out with any degree of success. You can’t capture that fact on film.

It’s funny because you see the phrase “rose coloured glasses” being tossed around and if anyone is wearing them its those who believe that boxing began in 1990.

[Max Power]

The main point I got in your post Inuit, is that everybody elevates and appraises these way in the past greats without EVER even seeing them fight! And you think this is right.



Nobody ever said it should be dismissed, history is history and it's what enables those that come after to build from it.

[FinitoElDinamita]

I agree with those who say the black and white era are overrated.. personally they are boring to me..

I think 70s-early 90s fighters were the most skilled, had competitive matchups, and were most exciting.

[Rantcatrat]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

NO worries. It's never a bad idea to ask questions.

Check this video out. There are others out there like it.

[Max Power]

They were great mate, but people tend to get carried away on what "greatness" really means. Because for me it certainly does not mean that these old guys could have wasted their current peers.

Boxing is a sport that grew out of competitions of fist fighters that had more in common with bully types than sportsmen. Gradually, over time, the boxers became more and more "professional" if you will. Now days the boxer is the most highly trained and Spartan conditioned of all athletes.

They looked like slug fests back then because boxing was still not yet a completed sport. It was more like a wild bar brawl. Between those days and now, things have been worked out more fully and it has become appreciated to fight with what's between your head.

Take Ray Robinson's quip for example... I forget the exact quote but he is fond of saying that boxing is all instinct, that you cannot think about what you are doing.

I believe Ray has a point because fighting instincts are a necessary part of success at top level. But this contrasts completely with Whitaker or Floyd's principles "boxing is cerebral. It's atleast 50% mental!"

Obviously Robinson and his era were lacking in the "thinking" aspects of boxing and it is telling when you watch the tapes.

Same with Ali and his friends. Every fight was a slug fest. It was sometimes a test of who could take the most punches. Today nobody WANTS to get hit like that and nor should they. The idea of boxing is to hit and NOT GET HIT.

[greynotsoold]

They were great mate, but people tend to get carried away on what "greatness" really means. Because for me it certainly does not mean that these old guys could have wasted their current peers.

Boxing is a sport that grew out of competitions of fist fighters that had more in common with bully types than sportsmen. Gradually, over time, the boxers became more and more "professional" if you will. Now days the boxer is the most highly trained and Spartan conditioned of all athletes.

They looked like slug fests back then because boxing was still not yet a completed sport. It was more like a wild bar brawl. Between those days and now, things have been worked out more fully and it has become appreciated to fight with what's between your head.

Take Ray Robinson's quip for example... I forget the exact quote but he is fond of saying that boxing is all instinct, that you cannot think about what you are doing.

I believe Ray has a point because fighting instincts are a necessary part of success at top level. But this contrasts completely with Whitaker or Floyd's principles "boxing is cerebral. It's atleast 50% mental!"

Obviously Robinson and his era were lacking in the "thinking" aspects of boxing and it is telling when you watch the tapes.

Same with Ali and his friends. Every fight was a slug fest. It was sometimes a test of who could take the most punches. Today nobody WANTS to get hit like that and nor should they. The idea of boxing is to hit and NOT GET HIT.

That is the most asinine thing I have ever read.

[jabvargas24]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

NO worries. It's never a bad idea to ask questions.

Check this video out. There are others out there like it.

Good video, Thank you.

[Spicoli]

I also dismissed past eras when I first started watching. It seemed..irrelevant and out of touch. We as fans live in the now. "Living fighters live" cannot compare to "repeats or knowing how it ends". I looked at grainy sped up b&w with old timey audio and though...BAHAHAHA you have to be kidding me ...but after a couple of years It occured to me I might be so caught up in the presentation or tunnel vision love of NOW that I wasn't taking the time with an open mind to appreciate what I was seeing, and more importantly learning. The skill was there, the guile and knack for gameplan. With respects, the thread title may just say it all We're not any different and the same will be done to this generation. If anything we now may have too much exposure, too much hoopla and hype on every single guy with a pulse.