PROFESSOR MARBY GOES “OLD SCHOOL” AGAIN

June 12th, 2011 By Professor Chuck Marby

Archie Moore 185-23-10, 131 KOs

TIME & EXPERIENCE MAKES ONE BETTER

Las Vegas, NV- It is a law of nature that the more you do something, the better you become at it. Experience and challenge are necessary for any field of endeavor. The ‘Ol Professor has written hundreds of papers in college and Graduate School, yet here I am putting in my time, learning to write on the boxing beat. Its just the way it works.

COMPARING TODAY PUGS WITH YESTERDAY’S

Yet when it comes to boxing, and one of the reasons I continue to beat the “Old School is better” drum is this: it took the ‘Ol Mongoose, Archie Moore, four years to fight fifty fights. Roy Jones Jr. fought for 17 years to reach the same number of fights. The more you do something the better you become at it. In fact, if you go back and dig through the numbers you will see that in 1955, the average fighter had about 70 fights before fighting for a title. In 1995, the average fighter had 24 fights before fighting for a championship. These statistics show that fighters used to fight at least once a month, while now we are lucky to see a fighter fight two or three times a year.

NEED TO BALE HAY WHILE THE SUN IS OUT

You see, no matter how much athletic ability, talent, or skill a fighter may bring to the ring today, the fighting environment does little to help a fighter realize his or her full potential. It’s only when faced with a variety of styles, skill sets, and ring psychologies that a fighter can develop their own potential to the maximum, and learn how to overcome adversity. If you look at Roy Jones Jr., or the oldest legitimate champion, Bernard Hopkins, or even the enigmatic “galloping ghost” Floyd Mayweather, if you look at their last couple of fights, and then go back and look at film of some of their fights say at around twenty five or thirty pro fights, and study them closely, you will see that there is very little progression to be noted. And I would suggest that a big part of the problem is the frequency of fights, compounded with the quality of competition they are facing.

Let’s face it, “Old School” fighters used to fight a lot of fights, and yes most of that was due to economics, but I contend there was more to it than mere dollars. Tony Canzoneri, for example, had 175 professional fights. Tell me one fighter today that has a snowball’s chance in hell of coming close to having that many pro bouts. But not just because the top guys make crazy money, either. To be perfectly honest, while I still have all the respect in the world for anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to lace on the gloves and step into that squared circle (I have done it myself, so I know from whence I speak), but most of today’s fighters simply are not cut from the same cloth interstitially as Jake LaMotta, Ray Leonard, Harry Greb, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Battling Levinsky, et.al. And most are not willing to put in the sweat equity to learn the craft of boxing. (As an amateur, my trainer, Lou Kemp, had me shuffling around the ring for three month throwing left jabs into the air before he would even let me begin to punch a bag. How many kids would put up with that today?)

TODAY’S FIGHTERS LACK “OLD SCHOOL” STONES

So, now that I’ve come this far, I’ll go ahead and say it: I do not believe fighters today in general have the heart of “Old School” fighters. This generation of fighters are not as tough, and I don’t blame it all on them. They don’t have the trainers (teachers) today. Now a lot of it is tied to money that some of them make. (Not all, for there are still plenty of ‘Ham and Eggers’ who spill their blood at a moments notice for a payday, and a shot to get noticed). But with the “prospects,” it’s not a job with them, it’s something they use to try to get rich (Money Mayweather ring a bell?). And they become short time pseudo celebrities. Long gone are the days of men like “Jersey Joe” Walcott, or James J. Braddock. Boxing was their livelihood. It wasn’t just something to make big moolah and then be seen with a starlet on their arm. It was their craft- like a mechanic who doesn’t expect to become wealthy but it’s what he does for a living to care for his family, and those days are gone. The Old School attitude was ‘this is my job. I’ve got to get up in the morning and run. I’ve got to stay in shape. I’ve got a family to feed. If I’m not in shape and if I don’t learn my craft and try to be better with every fight, I’m going to end up working in the Lumber Yards, or worse.’

THE PROFESSOR’S PARTING SHOT

That is what motivated the Old School guys, made them willing to pay the dues, and that’s whats missing today!

Professor Chuck Marby

COMMENTS

  1. Old school is for old fools! Even sparring sessions back then were added to pad a fighter’s record. The bottomline line is athletes today are stronger, faster,and bigger. This is due to science, nutrition. People are smarter today than before, that’s called progress.

    Benny on June 13th, 2011 at 12:50 AM

  2. Agree with benny, but must also add that there are more media outlets to generate that “buzz” a fighter needs to garner attention, eliminating the need to fight often. Further the popularity of other sports have increased significantly diminishing interest in boxing thereby decreasing the supply of boxing venues eager to put up an attractive weekly or monthly show.

    sean on June 13th, 2011 at 3:37 AM

  3. I’m with the professor. In this era we have “manufactured so called champions”. J.C Chavez, Jr. is a prime example. If Benny thinks that Chavez, Jr. could compete with ANY of the old time real champions he is entitled to his opinion. I would ask him if he thinks Chavez, Jr. could last with Robinson, LaMotta, Graziano, Zale, Hagler and many others. I’m sure he knows the answer. Having seen many of the old time greats in person I can assure you that Chavez, Jr. might be a four round fighter at best. Most of the old time non champions like Burley, Briscoe, etc would murder him. Imagine a fight of his with Dick Tiger. The simple fact is that today you have approx 1000 licensed fighters in this country as opposed to approx 35000 in 1935. Also remember our country has three time the population today as opposed to then. Good luck to Benny and those who think that today’s fighters are better than the old timers, but believe me that is a crazy pipe dream…

    dick "The Mick" on June 13th, 2011 at 6:38 AM

  4. Reggie Strickland (Reggie Buse) (Reggie Raglin) had 363 fights before he retired in 2005. He lost 276 fighting as an opponent.

    Jake Hall on June 13th, 2011 at 8:32 AM

  5. The next generation is almost always softer than the last. Quality of life. changes in society, what is acceptable behavior now compared to then. The higher the number of people in a fight to live every day raises the odds.
    Younger guys hate hearing this but here`s an example. How many of you got a chance to really know your grandfather or greatgrand father?
    You meet alot of men that will tell you that there, older relitive was hard as stone. Most men at least. My grandfather at 71 years old could swing a sledgehammer better than most 22 year olds. So, so you at 20 fighting agenst your great grandfather…anyone here think they wouldn`t get lumped up abit?
    Also please consider this: At the turn of the century most fights were held outside in the open since an arena with light was rare, so u think todays fighters could go 40 rounds in 95degree heat? With leather shoes tearing your feet up? Or hoarsehairglove with little padding and wrinkles that tear skin easy? Also so of this while drinking whisky between rounds….
    Here`s a modern example off the top of my head. Watch the tape of Jirov vs Norris. The ring temp was insane and both fighters looked like they needed an IV.

    Mac on June 13th, 2011 at 9:03 AM

  6. Regarding stones, young dudes today have grown up seeing UFC on SpikeTV, and as a result they see nothing wrong with quitting!
    That’s what a tapout is: it’s quitting! It’s submitting to the other guy who imposes his will.

    I can understand tapping to a submission where otherwise your knee gets ripped apart or your arm gets broken which necessitates surgery, setting your career back and your earning power too… but many of these UFC guys even tap to strikes?!

    St.Pierre sure as $#!t did!
    Quitting was once the cardinal sin of combat-sport, but young guys nowadays raised on UFC see nothing wrong with it!

    They even see it as being “honorable”!!!

    the bradguy on June 13th, 2011 at 9:04 AM

  7. Maybe stronger, faster and bigger….but more disciplined? I don’t think so. Today we have boxers…not fighters!!!!

    alberto on June 13th, 2011 at 10:20 AM

  8. Guys of the past weren’t scared of losing fights. Undefeated records weren’t held in as high of esteem and it was regular for champions to fight in non-title bouts. Today thats unheard of. The last active champion to battle in non-title bouts regularly when holding a title is James Toney. He is a real throwback. Other than him, every other fighter hides behind their promoter and isn’t willing to fight anyone anywhere anytime. His record says it all 73-6-2, 44 KOs. He’s fought a who’s who of his generation in the respective weights he’s fought in.

    KP on June 13th, 2011 at 10:24 AM

  9. Does this mean that Buck Smith was an all time great?

    David in Dunedin on June 13th, 2011 at 11:21 AM

  10. While I do agree that old school fighters had more professional fights and were hungrier to fight. I don’t believe they were always better fighters. One thing is back in the day their amatuer system was practically non existant. Today hearing of a novice having 200 fights is comonplace. Also believing that old school boxers were better athletes is like saying runners from the Berlin olympics were faster than Usain bolt because they had better technique. Their are plenty of good trainers today. Their just not all in the united states. The biggest problem in boxing is still splintered titles and the inability to organize the big fights. That is the reason the ufc is killing our sport. Stop offering insane purses to fighters with good looks and a padded records. That kills our sport.

    Bender on June 13th, 2011 at 3:50 PM

  11. lets see
    15 round championship fights with 6 ounce gloves. Great trainers and teachers, Ray Arcel, Whitey Bimstein , George Gainford, Harry Wiley, Doc Robb, Manny Seaman and on and on. Thousands of fighters who fought to survive during the years before WW2. Anyone who thinks the fighters of today with dozens of weight classes , at least 4 sanctioning bodies claiming to have champions, are as good as the fighters of the past knows nothing about boxing history or has never watched films of great fighters of the past.

    Jim on June 13th, 2011 at 6:50 PM

  12. i agree professor some of today’s fighter are pampered and payed to much. We don’t see fighters that want to be great no more, just rich.

    P.R Boxer on June 14th, 2011 at 5:32 AM

  13. 141 ko’s not 131

    Roberto Rios on June 14th, 2011 at 12:47 PM

  14. Jim: You are right on the mark. Boxing in the “good old days” (when times were bad) was a rite of survival in many cases. In no way am I denigrating today’s fighters, I am just reminding people that the fight game was very, very different than it is today. In New York, as in other cities, there was a fight card in neighborhood fight clubs every night of the week except Sunday. So many more fighters, different times produce a better product. Having seen so many of the greats in person, I think that Ezzard Charles(as a middleweight) was in the top ten of all time. Imagine Ezzard against any of the recent era’s middleweights or Light Heavyweights. Just look at what he did to the all time great Archie Moore in their three fights. Sad to say, if you mention a fighter such as Ezzard Charles. most people would say: WHO????

    dick "The Mick" on June 14th, 2011 at 2:25 PM

  15. dick, is 100% right, today you have a very thin talent pool of pro-boxers. Years ago there were thousands of fighters trying to make it to the top.

    Look at the American heavyweights, it’s hard to find a top ten of American heavys. However, go back to 1973 and you had a top 50 of American heavys. And that’s the same with all the weight divisions.

    Jerome on June 15th, 2011 at 2:15 PM

  16. Hey Benny, today’s fighters are bigger because they weigh-in long before the fight. I’d like to see what Chavez Jr. could do with an in the ring right before the fight weigh-in.

    And I wonder how it would turn out if he had to face another guy who also weighed 180…

    Donald on June 16th, 2011 at 12:02 AM

  17. Is it that maybe theirs more competition from abroad not less fighters competing is the reason you don’t see more American top 50 heavyweights. For over 60 years on of the biggest talent pools never got the opportunity to test themselves against top pros.

    Bender on June 17th, 2011 at 8:36 PM

  18. I believe there were 16,000 licensed boxers in the US circa 1989. Now it is around 6,000 was told. Sorry Bender, your theory has holes! Peace, Pedro

    Pedro Fernandez on June 17th, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Leave a Reply

Powered by Crowd Ignite