|
 |
|
| Silver explains why today's stars can't hold a candle to the bangers of yesteryear. |
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
 |
"The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science"
By Robert Mladinich
If you’ve ever wondered how boxing superstars like Roy Jones Jr., Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Pernell Whitaker, Marvin Hagler and Roberto Duran would have done against their counterparts of decades past—wonder no more. Mike Silver has written the most definitive analyses of the classic “old school” vs. “new school” boxing debate I have ever read. This is a book that belongs on every fan’s bookshelf. It is an important work that reverberates with insight and wisdom, answering with startling clarity who deserves to be ranked among the greatest fighters of all time—and who does not.
Silver, a lifelong New Yorker, has carried on a love affair with the beleaguered sport since he trained as a youngster at the fabled Stillman’s Gym in the 1950s. Over the past few decades he’s been a promoter, as well as an inspector for the New York State Athletic Commission, and a renowned historian who has offered commentary on HBO, PBS and ESPN. Anyone who knows him will agree that when Silver talks boxing, you can’t help but listen.
In his new book, “The Arc of Boxing: The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science,” (McFarland & Company, 229 pages, 50 photos), Silver offers compelling evidence of the ongoing regression of boxing skills. He explains how—and why—the top fighters of the past 20 years are not on the same level as those who came of age during the sport’s Golden Age of talent and activity, which he defines as the 1920s to the 1950s.
When he writes that “unlike their golden age counterparts, one rarely sees today’s fighters—from rank novice to multiple belt holders—duck, parry, slip, sidestep, ride, weave or roll to avoid punches,” the reader is given a crash course in the lost arts of infighting, feinting, body punching, footwork, and counter-punching skills that used to be part and parcel of a seasoned contender’s repertoire.
Silver utilizes his own vast knowledge, as well as the insights of a respected array of panelists that includes trainers Teddy Atlas, Freddie Roach, Emanuel Steward and former lightweight champion Carlos Ortiz. In addition, over a dozen other experts, some of whom are old enough to have personally witnessed the greatest fighters of the past 70 years, offer their discerning comments. This may be the last opportunity to delve into the wealth of information and knowledge they have to offer concerning these issues.
Dozens of champs, both past and present, are scrutinized and evaluated. Floyd Mayweather Jr.’s fights with De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton are deconstructed, revealing weaknesses in Mayweather’s style that, the experts claim, would have been exploited by the top lightweight and welterweight fighters from previous decades.
“If Floyd was born 50 years earlier his athleticism and natural ability would be the foundation—not the end product—for his development into a seasoned and technically proficient fighter,” opines Silver.
Silver does not blame the modern day fighters for their inadequacies. He sees them as a product of their time. Many possess the raw talent but have no chance of reaching their full potential because fighters no longer have to “pay their dues the old fashioned way.” By fighting just 3 or 4 times a year against mediocre opposition, there is simply no opportunity to acquire the kind of extensive experience and bout-to-bout education that empowered the great fighters of the golden age.
The book reveals how the current vacuum of expert teachers/trainers has created “a fertile breeding ground for gimmickry and artifice that is of little use to a fighter.” An entire chapter is devoted to the misuse of weight training and the effects of steroid use. Even the popular and ubiquitous “punch pad” workouts are taken to task.
“Old school trainers rarely, if ever, used them,” writes Silver. “They believed that hitting the pads with the same combinations over and over had limited teaching potential and emphasized a robotic ‘bang, bang’ style of boxing. Their use did not encourage a fighter to think…everything that is taught with the pads achieved better results using the heavy bag.” The extent to which punch pad workouts are used, he adds, “is just another indication of the dumbed down quality of today’s boxing instruction.”
As Silver makes abundantly clear, today’s fighters are also impeded by the pressure to maintain an undefeated record. Promoters, managers and television executives have magnified the cost of defeat to the point that many former amateur stars are carefully navigated to maintain an unbeaten record while waiting to secure a lucrative TV appearance. This “must win syndrome” hinders the fighter’s progress. Over the past 20 years it has fostered a “mismatch culture” that minimizes the number of competitive matches because no fighter with any promise wants to take a chance on losing. When boxing was in its heyday, a defeat did not carry the same stigma that it does today. It was considered a normal part of the learning process.
Silver also places Bernard Hopkins’ decade-long dominance of the middleweight division in historical context. He gives Hopkins his due as a talented and well-rounded professional “by today’s standards,” but considers his placement among the all-time greats as unwarranted. He explains, “Great middleweight champions such as Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Freddie Steele, Mickey Walker, Marcel Cerdan and Jake La Motta could never have defended their titles 20 times over 10 years against the kind of brutal competition that populated the middleweight division from the 1920s to the 1950s. It is even more ridiculous to think any of these fighters—no matter how great—could have been ‘dominant’ in their respective eras as they approached their 40th birthday”. The conclusion reached is that Hopkins’ dominance of a division that was once considered the toughest in boxing is not proof of his greatness— it is proof of how far boxing has regressed.
Silver believes that if Hopkins campaigned 50 or more years ago his talents would be considered just average. He believes it would even be questionable if Hopkins would have been world-rated, let alone win a world championship. “Both Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins benefited from the worst assortment of challengers ever faced by a middleweight or light heavyweight champion since the advent of boxing gloves,” he asserts. “Is it any wonder they stood out as giants in a land of pygmies?”
Silver also exposes the fallacious nature of the absurdly high KO records of today’s fighters. Another eye-opening chapter debunks the myth that today’s 250-300 pound heavyweights (he calls them “dreadful dreadnoughts”) would have been too big for the “small” 190 to 210 pound heavyweight contenders and champions from the 1920s to the 1970s. He is particularly critical of media “faux experts” who, lacking both perspective and frame of reference, too often attribute greatness to ordinary fighters, thereby obfuscating the superior achievements and skills of the truly great fighters of the past.
“It is high time for boxing’s overused words ‘dominant’ and ‘great’ to be given a rest,” writes Silver. “Since the 1990s both words have been used to wretched excess. Let’s be perfectly clear: there are no great fighters today, and under the present circumstances it is impossible to produce one.”
Last, but certainly not least, he describes what he believes to be the severe damage done to boxing and boxers by what he calls the “alphabet-promoter cartels” who he says “have had a free hand in ruining the sport for the past 30 years.”
Although it might sound like it, Silver is not a curmudgeon or a knee-jerk believer in the myth that what’s old is always better than what’s new. He, as well as his panel of experts, persuasively state their cases while speaking with great authority and insight. After reading this entertaining treasure trove of boxing “insider” knowledge I felt like I had taken a graduate course in the finer points of the “sweet science.” The book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what happened to boxing.
|
Fistic Fury:
|
I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the author whatsoever, we've heard this so many times before, "Leonard would have destroyed Mayweather" or "Tyson wouldn't have been able to cope with Ali" It's all born of NOSTALGIA, heart ruling head. I'm sure the likes of Leonard and Ali would have heard it aswell with people comparing Leonard to Ray Robinson or Ali to Marciano and Louis. It will be the same in 20 years time where people will be saying "This kids good but he ain't nothing on the great Floyd Mayweather jr." NOSTALGIA, FACT!!
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
Robert Curtis:
|
This sounds like a well-researched and valuable book which makes a few valid points. But beyond that, I see some obvious exaggeration and sentimentality. "Roy Jones Jr., Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Pernell Whitaker, Marvin Hagler and Roberto Duran" all would have been competitive with fighters of yesteryear. Duran is the probably most complete fighter in my opinion and could probably have held his ground against Barney Ross or Henry Armstrong or Ike Williams or any of the old cats without changing or adding any techniques to his repertoire. I would say the same of Bernard Hopkins. A fight between B-Hop and the original Sugarman would be a rough tough match-up. Roy Jones and Floyd could not be so cute and clownish with a badass like LaMotta, but they certainly have more speed and athleticism. Tyson in his twenties would KO most heavyweights in any era, maybe even the great Joe Louis, who had great timing but slower hands. Marciano could not fight with his face against guys like Tyson, Lewis or Larry Holmes. But this is all a matter of opinion, which is exactly the point. This book expresses an interesting and well-researched "opinion", not absolute truth. We can compare old and new and make all the fantasy match-ups we want. Boxing is no longer on the front page, but its best elements are not dead. The connections to the past are alive and well. Roach was mentored by Eddie Futch. Old veterans like Angie and Nacho are still around helping fighters. All the old knowledge has been carried on and is still being whispered into the ears of today's fighters. This book sounds like fascinating material and I'll probably end up buying it. The thesis is wrong, but the details will be educational.
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
DaveB:
|
What about Archie Moore being so dominate in his time?. He is considered an old-timer and one of the best and he fought and did well way into his 40's. So I don't know about the whole premise of the book but I would have to read it to really comment on it. I do feel a lot of kids today don't have good fundamentals but I wouldn't say that about all of them.
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
Jonald:
|
While I don't agree with everything the author posits, he makes a great point about today's fighter and the overblown importance of an undefeated record. This is so true. These days, guys are brought along with an abundance of caution and against mediocre opposition in order to pad their records. When they do step up the level of competition, it's generally against a past-his-prime name guy that the mainstream media still considers formidable (when a closer examination would prove otherwise - see Roy Jones two Saturday's ago). Andre Ward won a gold medal. Who has he fought? When will he be tested? I think there's such a thing as an acceptable loss. When the competition is steep, one good fighter is capable of beating another good fighter on a given night. This is one of the things that bothered me about Mayweather. His undefeated record was so precious that he never fought any of the top tier guys at welterweight, even though the division was replete with quality opposition. Although, guys like Paul Williams, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito do possess that throwback quality, with an eagerness to take on all comers, even at the risk of a loss. PPV is a major problem today as well, as opposed to in the past. A loud and not too subtle message was sent by the public to HBO and the promoters with the last two big ones being a complete bust (190k for Hopkins-Pavlik and 225k for Jones-Calzaghe). They will scapegoat the economy but there's more to it.
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
peterB:
|
The point about mismatched opponents is an excellent one. When a fighter with a 16-0 record is yet to face a competitive opponent there is something wrong.
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
feedthecat:
|
Fight fans who are of the opinion that modern boxers could have held their own against guys from earlier eras always seem to ignore the fact that boxers back in the day were more durable than modern ones and had to be because of the different conditions under which they fought. For one thing, the lighter, non-water-resistant, horsehair gloves used in earlier eras required one to have stronger hand bones than the heavier, foam-padded, water resistant gloves used today, so any modern fighter who suffers chronic hand injuries would never have lasted very long in bouts fought in earlier eras (unless, of course, they took a little off of every punch that they threw, which, of course, would have made them much less effective fighters). This is one reason why Floyd Mayweather and Joe Calzaghe cannot be considered among the all time best of their respective weight classes.
For another, the lighter gloves of earlier eras, which would afford even less protection once they became waterlogged, required fighters to have much better chins than modern fighters. Indeed, any modern fighter who's had his bell rung or suffered a facial fracture when hit by an opponent who wasn't an honest-to-goodness power-puncher simply wouldn't have been competitive in earlier eras (one should also remember that decades ago, fighters were not allowed to put petroleum jelly on their faces, as is the case today, so the impact of an opponent's punches was greater due to less slippage and that fighters pre-1920 had to do battle without gum-shields/mouthpieces, etc , etc). Furthermore, unliike modern fighters, boxers of the past frequently took on opponents from higher weight classes (to get more fights and, consequently, to make more money), so, again, they required better chins. And for a third, referees of previous eras weren't as strict as modern ones in regard to the rules regarding illegal tactics, so fighters had to be tougher, more durable, and grittier. For example, one has to wonder how Bernard Hopkins - who has a penchant for throwing low blows and kidney punches when the ref's view is obscured by his opponent's body and for headbutting, and also for whining when an opponent employs nefarious tactics - would have fared if he were facing Harry Greb and had to put up with having his eyes gouged, having the laces of Greb's gloves raked across his face, being spun by the 'Human Windmill' and then struck from behind, being hit below the belt, etc, etc. Indeed, how would modern boxers have fared if they had to fight without benefit of protective cups and those ridiculously thick lower abdomen/kidney protectors used today?
This is not to say that all modern fighters couldn't have fared well against fighters of the past or that all of the 'greats' from earlier times were actually great (let's face it, when viewed objectively, many are grossly overrated e.g. Sugar Ray Robinson, who, far from being a defensive wizard, actually ate as many punches during the course of a fight as the average tomato can). Nonetheless, modern fighters, by and large, just aren't as tough or as durable as the old-timers and it is this fact that weighs against them when their all time standing is determined.
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
1:
|
Fistic: But Leonard (both Benny and "Sugar Ray") WOULD have destroyed Mayweather. Robert, a prime Ray Robinson WOULD of ran over a prime BHop. Think anvil landing on Wile E. Coyote. Dave B: Archie Moore and George Foreman head up a remarkably short list. I happen to agree with the author, the fighters of yesteryear were cut from a different cloth.
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008
|
|
AJ:
|
It was a more hardscrabble existence back then but I still think it's impossible to compare eras. Maybe it's tougher now because the money softens them up. Maybe inactivity makes them better fighters, as the wear and tear is less. I just think it's apples to oranges. A good guy in 1945 would be competitive today, and vice versa.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Jim S:
|
FeedtheCat, I agree the conditions were harsher in the first half of the 20th century, and that those fighters who excelled during that time would have an advantage over modern era boxers in a fight with such conditions present. However, would you say all of these fighters would continue to have this advantage if they fought with today's conditions and gear? Would Greb (my fav fighter of all time) be able to rough up Hopkins without being allowed to foul like he was so known for? How would JoeCal do against Slapsy Maxie and Billie Conn with today's equipment, where his brittle hands are not such a factor? As conditions change, the fighters who excel are those who best adapt to those conditions. Since these eras represent different conditions, those factors should be stripped out of fighter comparisons.
Having said that, I think the one biggest advantage the fighters of yesteryear had was simply a much deeper pool of fighters, and more thorough process of elimination. Every kid wanted to be a fighter back then, and there were gyms in every town. You didn't have one Arturo Gatti to wow fans, you had one in every town. And when they fought each other, they eliminated one another until the Gatti's were eliminated (no disrespect to AG) and the Mickey Walkers were left. A much deeper fighter pool meant a much deeper talent pool at the top.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
troy:
|
Boxing is the only "sport" that consistently criticizes it's fighters. Every other sport claims that their atheletes are bigger, stronger, and faster and boxing writers continue to criticize boxings best fighters. U can not compare different eras in boxing. If you take the best 5 boxers of all time, any five u choose, they all have different styles, different strenghts, and different weaknesses. I can't say that Jake Lamotta would have beaten Hopkins, or Duran would have beated Henry Armstrong, all I can say is that Duran and Armstrong were great lightweights. All I can say is that Floyd is one of the most skilled and talented boxers I ever saw.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Robert Curtis:
|
What cloth was that 1? Seersucker? A tartan plaid? A sail-maker's canvas? There are quite a few of great rollers and feinters and sneaky fighters today. Fighters of old did have many many more bouts, and more frequent bouts, and because of that, they had a better sense of self-preservation. You couldn't fight a 120 matches and get hit as much as Evander, obviously. But we know for a fact that Ali studied Sugar Ray Robinson's fight films religiously. B-Hop and Toney are also great boxing historians who studied the game down to its roots. You can argue that television destroyed boxing by putting the small arenas out of business, or that the alphabet soup mishmash reduced the stakes and audience interest. But men are men and the knowledge is out there and today's fighters are using it. Believe me, no one loves Ray Robinson any more than I. I didn't say B-Hop would beat him. If I even dream that, feel free to slap me. I just think it would be a competitive fight.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
JeremieK:
|
The thing is, to make our opinion about fighters of the "golden era" we rely mostly on mythified accounts of fights and, sometimes, on an old scratchy film reel. Nothing to compare with the age of the VHS and the DVD. So we are told that old time fighters were so much more slick, gritty and skilled, as in Willie the Wisp winning a round without throwing a punch (whoever actually saw that round ?).
I might not see so clearly and have to be cautious about those old scratchy reels that almost all the time give an eerie impression of slowness and jerky moves, but I wouldn't say by watching them that Joe Louis or Marciano are defensive wizards who would have easily dismantled a Larry Holmes or even a Riddick Bowe on a good day. Would Jake la Motta fare so well against Hagler ? I have this impression that the importance gained over time by security concerns in boxing also somewhat improved the general defensive ability level of fighters. That make a set of defensive skills that many fighters have today, attack oriented fighters included, that seems less obvious in former generations.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Pete Steward:
|
Jones Hopkins mayweather would've been even better not worse in the old school era because of the more frequent fights they'd have. These men trained like Spartans in today’s lazy era plus the number of tough top elite fighters back then would've pushed them to another level. All three would have some losses on there records but Ray Robinson Lamotta Pep would have there hands full these modern legends. Also the average typical proboxer back then may have been tough but there overall kills were many cases were sub par. That why greats like Robinson and Armstrong could rack over 100 wins and KO’s they too were giants among pygmies. STEROIDS? Well there’s a right way to use them (Holyfield Mosley) and there's wrong way to use them (Vargas Tyson) it comes down to education Knowledge is Power. This author is clearly and OLD FART like Larry Merchant only respects his or earlier era nothing new here folks just another grumpy old man
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Monroe:
|
The Mike Tyson of Reagan's 2nd term is competitive with any man in human history, and quite possibly beaten by no man in human history. 'Nuff said.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
in touch :
|
mayweather would have been eaten alive by the great roberto duran. duran was the greatest lightweight ever. he would have beaten armstrong. leonard would have beaten mayweather. i believe fighters in the 80's compared to the greats of the 50's and 60's, but fighters of today are spoiled. fighters these days pick and choose their matches. (the so-called greats of today, that is). jones ducked a lot of fighters in his prime, so did hopkins. so did mayweather. this is not something guys in the 80's did.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
rudy:
|
interesting piece, sounds like a great read -- will have to check it out the book before commenting.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
andy from newcastle:
|
Good article, outstanding comments, I'm in awe at the knowledge. TSS contributors show their class yet again. Proud to be a member. Toonoy
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Radam G aka Humble PRG:
|
Wow! Bobby C is spot on. I second him twice. And, of course, Pete is right on. The author was a bit "grumpy old man" syndrone. The great boxers of recent years would have been able to compete and defeat many of the greats of "the golden years" era and vice versa. Fighters fight. Boxers boxer. Writers write. The great adjust, improvise, adapt and overcome. Pugilists are a special group. That is why the game is call the sweet science, aka the hurt business. In any era a hurtman, aka sugarman will find the sugar and pain to get the milk and honey and fame. Holla!
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Evans:
|
I agree with Mike Silver there are no great fighters today. There are very good fighters, but no great fighters. The problem is that fighers aren't fighting as much as they did in the golden age. The elite fighers like Floyd Mayweather Jr, Joe Calzaghe, and others don't fight more then a few times a year. So they don't get tested enough to show if they are great fighters. That wasn't the case in the golden age. In those times you could see who was great and who was just very good or average. But, if you can make 5 million dollars for each fight as a champion why would you fight more then a couple times a year.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
pete:
|
Let's compare Ring ratings from 1948 to those of 2008.
Let's compare middleweights, because they are the mean and therefore the best barometer of both eras...
Marcel Cerdan, Middleweight Champion -- 1948
1)Bert Lytell
2)Steve Belloise
3)Jake LaMotta
4)Tony Zale
5)Cyriel Delannoit
6)Sylvester Perkins
7)Dick Turpin
8)Robert Villemain
9) Lee Sala
10)Rocky Graziano
Bernard Hopkins, Middleweight Champion -- 2008
1) Kelly Pavlik
2) Arthur Abraham
3) Felix Sturm
4) Daniel Geale
5) Sebastian Sylvester
6) Javier Castillejo
7) Wayne Elcock
8) Marco Antonio Rubio
9) John Duddy
10) Francois Bastient
...I don't know what this proves, if anything. But I think it's obvious that the quality, and depth, of the fighters from the past--in general--are superior. If we could match Cerdan with Hopkins and #1 with #1 and #2 with #2...the old-timers win. (But Hopkins does beat Cerdan!)
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
stryder:
|
The old timers definatley fought more and were definatley tougher than the guys of today. But I think in the elite caliber you would have some very cool matchups. I would love too see SRR and RJJ at middle weight and both in their prime, how about Duran-Basillio at welter. The heavyweights is a totally different picture. I mean can you imagine how much damage Tyson would have inflicted with 8 oz gloves?!
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Fistic Fury:
|
Tyson would have literally killed with the old gloves on.
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
paulbo:
|
This gets to the heart of the ultimate debate among fight fans: Who's the best? It's fun to argue about and dream about. I agree with the author about the career-stunting aversions fighters feel about losing a fight, which really shouldn't be a big deal at all. But I have to roll my eyes at the suggestion a fighter can't achieve greatness today, and that yesterday's fighters are necessarily better than today's fighters. No matter how far back in time you go, you'll always find old codgers claiming their era was better.
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
Porcupine:
|
While we're talking silly fantasy matchups that can never happen why not debate who would win between Superman and The Hulk? COME ON...
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
Bernie:
|
Many of these comments are being offered without having read the book. The review is a few pages--the book has 229 pages. I read it with an open mind and have concluded that the author is absolutely convincing. Read the damn book--then state your case!!!
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
Robert Curtis:
|
The book cost forty-five bucks plus postage, Bernie. You want to buy us all copies, or can we just borrow yours?
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
stryder:
|
Hey Porcupine, I've consulted with my daughter and we both think Superman would win. Thanks for providing a comment that I can discuss with my kids! Fantasy matchups have and always will be part of being a fan of boxing, too bad you lack the imagination.
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
Benjamin:
|
I have just finished reading Mike Silver's book. To those of you who think this is just some romanticized nostalgia, I suggest that you read the book before you jump to conclusions. This is a highly factual analytic and thoughtful book that is based on facts. It includes the honest and straightforward opinions of some of today's top trainers such as Atlas, Steward and Roach. These guys have nothing to gain by their comments. They are merely being honest with their opinions and they agree with Silver's conclusions. I found this book tremendously informative and educational. It really explores the finer and more subtle aspects of the art of boxing. It is one of the best boxing books I have ever read and I have a large collection. I wish that some of the commentators for big fights on HBO and ESPN had the historical perspective and intelligience that Silver brings to his subject. Please, read this book before you comment.
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
Bernie:
|
To Robert C: Yes, the book costs 45 bucks. Real knowledge sometimes doesn't come cheap. You want cheap--read a comic book. Better yet , why not check the book out of the library.
Thursday Nov 20, 2008
|
|
Robert Curtis:
|
I bought mine at the base price and am waiting for it to be delivered. Barnes and Noble offers it for 65. It goes up from there. It is not available in the LA library. Based on the sketchy thesis of the book, and considering our hard economic times, I took a leap of faith that I would not encourage others to take. My guess is that yours was a press copy you received free of charge. TSS is a great website with intelligent readership. I have have abundant faith in the TSS readers. I learn from them on a daily basis..
Friday Nov 21, 2008
|
|
Frank:
|
Hey folks,
I just finished reading the book today, and it's truly a compelling argument about the scene change in boxing in the past 50 years vs. the golden age. Mike Silver writes a really thorough and informative piece about the origins of prizefighting and breaks down lots of techniques of the old timers vs. how those techniques have been lost today. he breaks down a lot of recent megafights and recent boxers such as Forrest vs. Mayorga I and II, De La Hoya vs. Vargas, Hopkins vs. Tarver, Hatton vs. Mayweather and of course Mayweather vs. De La Hoya. He interviews a lot of the old time trainers and boxers, and newer ones like Emmanuel Stewart and Teddy Atlas. This is the typical trend throughout the entire book, interviewing the old timers and the newer timers mentored by folks from the golden age. I closed the book feeling truly sad for the state of boxing today. Before I knew that boxing had problems with corruption and the walk over opponent etc., but I never knew how bad it was compared to before. I highly highly recommend this book for anyone, not just lovers of boxing but people who are interested in finding out how one truly becomes good at a craft, and how someone should be able to face the truth about themselves. I was skeptical about Silver's argument that today's champions cannot "hold a candle" to even the above average contenders of the 50s, but after seeing his evidence, and the opinions expressed by various experts from that age up to modern trainers, it is hard to form a logical argument any other way.
Tuesday Nov 25, 2008
|
|
joegramby:
|
It's obvious many of those who responded have not read the book since their questions and thoughts all are answered. How can you compare a No. 8 contender today, in any weight class, who has a 17-1 record, let's say, with the similar No. 8 man in that same weight class in the 1950s who has a record of 35-8-2? There is no teacher like experience and today's fighters don't get enough of it. Baseball players always payed 154 games, today 162. Basketball in the NBA has been 82 games forever. The NFL actually plays more games today than before. But fighters? NOT! They fight just a fraction of the number of fights the oldtimers fought. How could they possibly be better with such limited experience?
Friday Nov 28, 2008
|
|
burt bienstock:
|
as an oldtimer, who saw my first pro card in 1942, bewtween beau jack and tough terry young, i agree with mike silver.top fighters in the "golden age",had 3 to 4 times the bouts of floyd mayweather, hopkins etc of today. the pool of top boxers was vast ,and the survivors of so many wars became great fightersbylearning their trade against great opposition.for example,would bernard hopkins at over 40 years of age be a topfighter in the 1940"s against the likes of robinson, zale ,cerdan la motta?. I think i made my point.....
Thursday May 28, 2009
|
|
owen swift:
|
i agree with burt. i recently got the book and from any form of logic and observation, it all make sense [aside from a time machine]. realley one of the best books on boxing i personnaly have ever seen. robinson, perhaps the template for boxing talent, even needed a good 50 bouts before he could be conserdered great, to be able to solve styles and problems, same for louis. now, youre carreer would be over over winding down and its all too late
Tuesday Jun 9, 2009
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It Takes A Special Man"
"It takes a special man to lace them on and step into a ring to either hurt or be hurt. It's always been my opinion that the greatest fighters (not necessarily the most commercially successful) are probably born with that never give up until I'm completely done attitude. It can be nurtured over time, but you either have it or you don't. When adversity hits, and it will, this instinct will allow you to reach inside for additional strength and determination. Ali, Louis, Gatti, Corrales had it....Marquez and Pacquiao have it. De La Hoya, for all the great things he did as a boxer never had it, Tyson didn't have It, Cotto doesn't have it, and as much as I hate to admit it because I loved to watch him fight, Chavez didn't have it. 99.9% of us don't have it either. That's why we're not all fighters and we can sit here and judge these courageous men from the comfort of our computers."
---TSS reader Juan Montelongo offers his take on the Victor Ortiz debate
|
|
|
|
|