Old Fighters Vs Modern Fighters.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Yes, this is a topic that comes up often. Who's better, the older experts, or the newer ones? I'm sure you already have your opinions on this, and so did I. But a recent podcast topic I listened to has given me some more food for thought. Maybe after this video, you will feel the same.
For those inclined to support the channel (It's greatly appreciated! I promise not to spend any funds on NFTs!): www.patreon.com/swordsage
There's so much that goes into this topic - the value of bulk before the introduction of weight classes vs after, the context of boxing technique changing with the introduction of gloves (focusing more on headshots and a higher guard), the weighing between possibly more practical technique in the past vs probably better health in the present, the difference between strict sporting rules and none...
But what I think may be a key here is that there seems to have been a change of focus from efficacy to efficiency. Complexity and subtlety in technique take not only a good teacher but a lot of practice to develop and make use of, while basic techniques and a lot of body conditioning make you stronger right now. Especially in the context of professional athletes in a capitalistic system who grind down their body and health and often need to retire early, there is little incentive to practice a technique that becomes useful at the earliest in your late thirties.
For boxing the introduction of boxing gloves changed the sport from body blows to head shots
Plus it's not easy to do subtle hand movements with massive gloves on.
Great video and convincing arguments. I really think that it is all about the context of the fight. A Newer boxer would likely beat an older boxer in a modern ring, but if you take the modern boxer and put them in the past, they will have to adapt their entire approach to last more than a few fights. Tiny changes in the rules or things like how often fights happen can have a massive impact on the optimal strategy for success.
If the new boxer and the old boxer met on the street in the 1980s, the one who adapts to the localized context will win.
Which of them has more experience in a street fight setting? which of them can better exploit the lack of formal rules in the street setting by doing things like grappling which have not been allowed in boxing for a long time. Which one is more trained to punch without gloves? which one has better cardio? I could keep going on and on but the point is that these arguments cannot go very far if we don’t artificially create a context for them to meet because the context in which they will meet has a massive impact on who wins.
Additionally, it is basically very difficult to talk about “the average fighter” from any given time and place because every fighter has their own unique style. Though by contrast we don’t know how any given famous fighter would react if they were put into an unfamiliar context against an unfamiliar opponent. So maybe it is all just pointless, but it is fun none the less.
Hey Sage good topic. Since you briefly mentioned Jack Dempsey and I know you like video games, anime, etc just as side note I'd like to recommend Hajime No Ippo an anime about boxing in which real boxing techniques are prevalent including ones considered "lost". In fact the protagonist develops the famous Dempsey roll serendipitously in a match which then becomes his signature attack.
It's pretty dope. And the entire series can be watched here on RUclips at a pretty good resolution too (720p).
One thing I want to add is that older fights tended to have less rules, especially in actual wars. Sure you had "honor" (whatever that meant) but that was more like...guidelines. If you have restrictions, for example in boxing where you can't hit below the belt or kick, then some stuff just can't be used.
So like you said, fish out of water. Plus you also have to consider things armor, different types of weapons, group fighting, no weight classes, and possibly fighting a long time without a break or fighting hungry, etc. So you could make the case older stuff was more holistic than modern stuff because they had to be .
I know this is a year late but Matt did a really video on a sort of adjacent topic, relating to the average physique of knights in period art. Those guys are lean but you can tell they have the muscles they need, exactly where they need them. I do think modern pop culture has this idea that warriors of old, like say the vikings for instance were these giant hulking dudes with tattoos, side cuts and big beards who went to battle bare chested, regardless of how impossible that would have been with say a early medieval commoner's diet and the kind of exercise they'd get. Never mind the fact that ancient armies had to by and large either walk or ride to wherever they were going, and being a massive pile of roid infused muscle really doesn't help in either scenario.
Funnily enough, I can take this back to one of my favourite topics, which is Tolkien being an absolute giant of both fantasy and history. Think about how Aragorn is described in the books, he's not just any warrior of course, the guy's got Numenorean, Elven and even a bit of Maiar blood in him, but he isn't described like a modern Hercules. He's described as ''tall and lean'' and lean is exactly the physique of someone who doesn't just do a lot of fighting, but a lot of walking and running too, he isn't called Strider for nothing after all. Funnily enough this exact depiction was kind of what I subconsciously always based my idea of an ''ideal ancient warrior / fighter'' physique on, because the LOTR trilogy were the first fantasy books I ever read and I did this at a very young age, and maybe because on some level it just made sense.
Hell yeah, perfect upload timing. May fortune smile upon thee, Sword Sage
Great Video. When it comes to Boxing the introduction of Gloves and Weight Classes obviously brought Major changes. After that i agree that Old fighters might have been better based on experience however i disagree with the notion that there are skills that have been lost, there are plenty quick and snappy boxers aswell as guys that are on the skinnier side people who say that tend to only look at the Heavyweight class which has gotten worse as far as skill goes. Welterweights are Welterweights and Lightweights are Lightweights they aren't heavier or slower than before and the skills are still used there, the only differnce other than the amount of fights is a better understanding on dieting and weight cutting we have nowadays.
The problem with counting just the matches fought is that it ignores the training, much of which is fighting. Really hard to judge experience just by that number. If their only training was in the ring they'd be less experienced that someone who spends every day training.
The snappiness reminds me of the Cell vs Trunks fight and why despite the raw power of the bulk SSJ form Trunks couldn't get a hit in when Cell stopped toying with him. It doesn't matter how hard you can hit if you can't land that hit. The size of your gun matters a lot less than the ability to hit the target.
The bit about audiences not recognizing techniques is oddly similar to why I prefer Ben vs Vader rather than Obi v Anakin as a fight. Obi vs Anakin is far more flashy, but Ben v Vader shows more technique and skill focus. These days flash matters a lot more than substance.
I think it boils down far more to specific individuals than anything else. I'm certain that there are some past warriors who would destroy most modern fighters, and there are plenty of modern fighters who would manhandle most past warriors. While the more openness of the rules made for some hard men back in the day, better knowledge and stronger competition between styles and standard evolution of techniques in most cases would close that gap. I do see the argument for combat vs sport, as I saw that first hand in my old Dark Age reenactment group (It was clear who was treating it as a game and who was treating it as a martial art). The gameification of certain things has most certainly changed them for the worse, but a greater knowledge base and greater information sharing has made it so those that treat them as martial arts should perform very well against the old masters.
Thats a nice topic to talk about and i agree with your opinions!! Nice video mate 👏
Great output, immersive update, and even better contemplations Brother Sword Sage.
Thanks for the lesson on martial arts awareness,
If you want the ultimate example of an old time fighter who fought all the time, look up Archie "the Old Mongoose" Moore. 220 fights. 186 wins. 132 wins by KO. Incidentally 4 of those 34 loses were to Muhammed Ali, Rocky Marciano, and Ezzard Charles. And that's his OFFICIAL record, he probably had a lot more fights before people began keeping track of his record.
P.S. Moore is also interesting as an old-time fighter because he had a cross guard that is very rarely seen anymore. The last person who really used it was an older George Foreman who learned it from... Archie Moore.
I enjoyed the conversation, and I agree to your points in broad strokes. They probably were technically better fighters; where I disagree is the impact and effectiveness of how much of an advantage that would be in a modern context. "Everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face" -Mike Tyson. The simple fact is that even if they were better fighters in the past they would still lose because of the gap in physical conditioning. You see this pronounced in the refining of modern MMA and how grappling techniques have transitioned from primarily Judo and Jiu Jitsu towards Greco-Roman wrestling. The technique isn't the driving factor, they're all grappling arts trying to address the same issues; it's the conditioning that comes with a wrestling background. I appreciate the importance of technique, but I don't want to be one of those armchair philosopher warriors that discounts the very real advantage of brute force either. A champion kickboxer from Laos that fights three times a month at 130lbs is still going to be at a major disadvantage against a larger faster fighter with a 1/4 of the real world experience. Technique can compensate for physical disadvantages to an extent but there's a point of diminishing returns.
Mm, I do agree. I have been of the opinion for some time that people who lived-and-died by their skills are presumably better at their field than someone who is cultivating that skill for sport or hobby. They may be essential skills to that field, but there are PLENTY of other skills that come into play when there are different rules (especially when there are NO rules) that can mean the difference in results. Especially skills only gained by experience.
So it's not necessarily Old vs Modern Fighters; I'd say it's what techniques & skills are considered to be important to the situation.
Yeah that has always been my opinion too, the legends of the old were in real life-and-death fights where their own fighting skills decided if they survived or not. It's how Miyamoto Musashi as an example developed his sword skills, by constantly killing new opponents and improving his techniques. All the founders of each martial arts style had to go through their own struggles and live to pass on the art. That's why as a kid whenever I hear other people saying Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan/Jet Li was the best I would just shake my head, because they never heard of the real legends that those movie actors portray in their films. Those old kung fu masters were the real deal, the ones that trained all day from morning until night from childhood to adult, who fought countless duels and even multiple armed assailants.
I would even go a step further and say even those old legends do not compare to the true ancient legends like Yue Fei or Guan Yu who fought countless wars and killed many enemies on the battlefield. The word martial in martial arts refers to warfare and the techniques are meant to kill the opponent. With the exception of natural born geniuses I feel like the general skill level should be: warfare > dueling > sports. Of course this is just my opinion, I would to see how a modern marine or soldier compares to a professional boxer or fighter for instance.
Sam Langford was probably the best boxer of all time. A 5 ft 6 1⁄2 185 pounds man that the best boxers of his era were scared to fight. Jack Johnson was so scared of losing the title that he ducked him and Even the legendary Jack Dempsey was apprehensive, in his own biography writing
“There was one man, he was even smaller than I, I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford”.
The man was a legend and now people will debate that he wasn't as good as that even though he won the Mexican heavyweight title at the age of 37 and was so blind that he had to feel the rope to get his way into the ring.
I'd be interested in your opinion of Adam Mizner...Yay or Woo or something in between?
I'd say if you're speaking strictly swordplay? The Warriors of the past, from any region would mostly defeat those of modern practitioners. I say practitioners, because that's all we are. We aren't members of standing armies using medieval or further back weapons and skill sets associated with those weapons. Your analogy with boxers is great because there's no way a early 1900's era welterweight would be able to defeat a Sugar Ray Leanard or Roger Mayweather. There's no way a Joe Lewis would survive one round with Mike Tyson. But we're talking about a discipline that is actively used to this day. Sword Play just isn't used or practiced or even applied now, with enough people to even be accurately judged in any meaningful way. Imagine the sword master responsible for the training of thousands of troops who produces 100 who can consistently destroy any other soldier other than those 100. Who produces, of those 100 who can defeat even him. Of which one is greater than all the other 100 best of the best of an entire army. A kings guardsman. One who is so great that legends are made of. Whose legend lasts thousands of years like an Achilles. Miyamoto. Or any great swordsman form ages ago. They would absolutely annihilate anyone from modern day. But hand to hand? Well now that different. Knife fighting? Archery? The Generals now? No if it's still practiced it's a fair comparison. But swordplay? There's no one alive who can compare, likely, to even your average good swordsman then.
I'd put any modern fijian up against any ancient Greek and would choose the fijians in weapons fighting, every day
That’s an interesting point but you’re also forgetting about the rule changes, I don’t know how Mike Tyson would do in an early boxing match and I mean early boxing before Queensberry rules. Where it was bareknuckle and grappling was also allowed to a certain extent. The guard you use the positions you use it was all different and there was also sometimes no time limit.
If you change the rules you change the game. Just like taekwondo when it was originally made in it’s inception it used to have throws and take downs incorporated in it as well as some form of basic boxing like we can see with the ITF TKD guys.
Even Kendo back in the 1920s used to allow throws. My point is if you change the rules set some of the modern guys might not do as well as you think.
@@Wingzero90939 Eye concede your points in certain circumstances. For instance, the bare knuckle fighting is a good one. It's not just the fighting styles used for a given match. It's the training involved as well and athletes are much better trained.
But analogies involving Sport don't apply to warfare. Their are no rules unless artificially applied. As far as swordplay is concerned modern practitioners just aren't good enough, and more than likely aren't trained well enough, and we aren't even concerning the experience of actual fighting within a war, surviving and then passing along what was learned to another. Kendo 8s about as close as you'll get. But it's still not enough. Not even close.
That’s a really interesting topic
My question is where is the line for just enough, if anything I would say with modern training we have streamlined everything. Those old masters particularly in Eastern Martial arts that talk about holding horse stance for hours or doing very specific training to improve certain skills before you’re even allowed to move to the next stage and undergoing years of training before you’re even considered fighting fit/ ready....
I would make the argument that even with boxing when you take into consideration that with modern boxers you can teach people how to fight at least on a basic level in less time and make them at least baseline average athletes this is possible because we know how the structure and process works to an amazing degree.
It may not be incredibly refined but we can get someone up and running/ in fighting shape quickly.
So I’m just wondering how long it would take for them to do that historically And is the modern trade-off better? We do everything in less time and with similar results albeit less longevity.
Part of that is just to screen the student and see if they are worth actually teaching the real skills too. I'm referring to back in those times though, things have changed nowadays and it's beginning to become more important that the art survives in some form instead of being forgotten. However, back then the diligent student that does what they are told and do not question it are probably more appealing to the master's eye, there's also less chance of them abusing their skills later. If they keep complaining or are unable to handle the pain and suffering that the training requires it means they would be even more useless after taking a hit from an opponent or being hit by an arrow for instance. But yeah, for the students that don't care about the spiritual side or building discipline and just want the techniques the master will usually just teach them the basics (like in modern boxing) and send them on their way, only the disciplined student with patience will get the full set and carry on the style.
@@daierosenyeah while that’s understandable, as the student you have no idea if what they’re teaching you is good, there were plenty of fakes and con artist back then too just like now.
I think also for back then it must’ve been super hard to sort out who was qualified and who was good/ had your best intentions at heart…
Nowadays you can go to any gym and if you see guys on the training roster that are legitimate martial artist, like they win BJJ tournaments, they compete competitively in Muay thai, their gym has people who went to the Olympics for Taekwondo or boxing... You know it is a good gym.
Mute the notification sounds during recordings please, thank you.
I think for combat sports the mentality is different now in these champs and there are a lot more distractions. Muhammad Ali was ready to DIE in the ring, in Manila. 120 degrees in that arena and he was Not gonna stop until he dropped. I don’t feel that aura from anyone now. There are some beautiful artists in the ring like Lomachenko, who studied Traditional MA (Judo) and is big fan of Bruce Lee. But Not even the big blockbuster days did I see that Ali mentality. Mike Tyson literally gave up against Lennox Lewis and Evander. The big spectacle got too big, I think and the money and the media. Those guys fighting on Black and White TV seemed like they were fighting for their lives forreal lol
And the audience and competition definitely makes a big difference. Best example is Muay Thai. People make the same complaints about the Traditions of Muay Thai. Because the stadium fighting dictates a certain pace and flow to the art for the benefit of the fan betting. And the prominence of the combat sport, other traditions like the forms and weaponry people don’t even know it exists in Muay Thai / Muay Boran / Muay Chaiya.
Another example is the sport side of Chinese Wrestling. Because of the popularity of Judo and BJJ you see people now doing sacrifice throws where they fall too. That would never be done before. You cannot purposely fall to the ground in the combat focused art. The sport? It’s about the points. And even worse, now you see guys training completely for the strategy of pushing the other guy out of the ring. Winning by ringout… is Nasty work lol
Swordsage it was a different style of fighting you did have hand wraps and heavy gloves.
I listened to it a week ago? I was going to comment on it but you already listened to it. If you are talking about boxing, dan has a point, if you are talking about fighting in general, then no, Today is way more advanced.
Also dan has 3 podcasts. The third is the common sense podcast which talks about modern politics
Boxing gloves fundamentally changed the game, though. It was practically impossible to use pure strength without breaking your fists, so people fought differently out of necessity. Even after the introduction of gloves, people would have trained and fought with the old style finesse for many decades before the culture slowly shifted towards what it is now. It gives the illusion that something was lost, while in reality people just adapted to the new conditions and rules.
So the new style actually is better, given the current rules of the game.