BOXING GYM-THE MOVIE

Here's the review of a 90 minute documentary of Frederick Weisman's latest movie Boxing Gym. A couple of snippets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/movies/22box.html?src=me

Mr. Lord, an amateur boxer turned super featherweight professional, opened his institution sometime later in a nondescript pocket in Austin, Tex., behind a Goodwill. By the time Mr. Wiseman and his terrific cameraman, John Davey, hit the gym three years ago, it was known for welcoming women alongside men, an equal-opportunity reputation reflected by some of the fighters trained by Mr. Lord, including Jesús Chávez (also known as El Matador) and a lesser-known champion, the female junior flyweight Anissa Zamarron (the Assassin).

Most of the heavy bags are swaddled in duct tape, and the walls, lined with mirrors and posters (“Raging Bull”), look as if they hadn’t been painted since Hagler vs. Duran. Speed bags, medicine balls, exercise machines, weights and a large tire (to practice footwork on) clutter the space around a couple of rings. Just outside the door, men and women build bulk and endurance by hitting another tire with a sledgehammer.

But, but , but where's all the new technology that has so impacted the sport? It's gotta be there somewhere right? (I can be a real douchebag)

The review is as positive as they get. In a couple of months it might come to a screen near you! If you're in New York City (cough*hardecore*cough) please go see it.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

But, but , but where's all the new technology that has so impacted the sport? It's gotta be there somewhere right? (I can be a real douchebag)

The review is as positive as they get. In a couple of months it might come to a screen near you! If you're in New York City (cough*hardecore*cough) please go see it.

Ok, I'll bite. The kind of technology that's impacted the sport isn't found in the gym, it's in the hospital, the nutritionists' office and physiotherapists' clinic. Actual boxing training methods aren't different - what works, work. It's how guys are taken care of before and after the fight that has changed.

Still, sounds like a cool doc. Hope I can catch it someplace.

Sadly I have not been able to get hardcore to join this site yet.

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

But, but , but where's all the new technology that has so impacted the sport? It's gotta be there somewhere right? (I can be a real douchebag)

The review is as positive as they get. In a couple of months it might come to a screen near you! If you're in New York City (cough*hardecore*cough) please go see it.

Ok, I'll bite. The kind of technology that's impacted the sport isn't found in the gym, it's in the hospital, the nutritionists' office and physiotherapists' clinic. Actual boxing training methods aren't different - what works, work. It's how guys are taken care of before and after the fight that has changed.

Still, sounds like a cool doc. Hope I can catch it someplace.

I still haven't seen any evidence that that the nutritional stuff does anything other than turn 5'7 lightweights into 5'7 welters. I mean if that stuff worked in a weight restricted sport wouldn't we have on average taller fighters in a given weight class than we used to? But it just ain't so. And if guys are so well taken care of? Why do they fight so infrequently and why are so many fights cancelled due to injuries?

[quote="marbleheadmaui"][quote="Tobe"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

I still haven't seen any evidence that that the nutritional stuff does anything other than turn 5'7 lightweights into 5'7 welters. I mean if that stuff worked in a weight restricted sport wouldn't we have on average taller fighters in a given weight class than we used to? But it just ain't so. And if guys are so well taken care of? Why do they fight so infrequently and why are so many fights cancelled due to injuries?

Nutrition enables taller fighters to fight at lower weights, as well as carry more strength with them when lowering weights.

As for why fighters fight less, I think that's obvious (fewer fighters, less interest).

And moreover what was defined as an "injury" back in the day isn't the same as it is today: Torn ACL? Ah, that's just a "trick knee" don't worry about it. Detached retina? Blind in one eye? Don't worry Joe, we'll "take care of you" (i.e let you keep fighting). Dead at 50 or 60? Oh well, you had a good run.

Guys 40, 50 or 60 years ago expected to have chronic pain and lower quality of life during their careers after they retired from the sport. The standards are different today.

[quote="Tobe"][quote="marbleheadmaui"]

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

I still haven't seen any evidence that that the nutritional stuff does anything other than turn 5'7 lightweights into 5'7 welters. I mean if that stuff worked in a weight restricted sport wouldn't we have on average taller fighters in a given weight class than we used to? But it just ain't so. And if guys are so well taken care of? Why do they fight so infrequently and why are so many fights cancelled due to injuries?

Nutrition enables taller fighters to fight at lower weights, as well as carry more strength with them when lowering weights.

As for why fighters fight less, I think that's obvious (fewer fighters, less interest).

And moreover what was defined as an "injury" back in the day isn't the same as it is today: Torn ACL? Ah, that's just a "trick knee" don't worry about it. Detached retina? Blind in one eye? Don't worry Joe, we'll "take care of you" (i.e let you keep fighting). Dead at 50 or 60? Oh well, you had a good run.

Guys 40, 50 or 60 years ago expected to have chronic pain and lower quality of life during their careers after they retired from the sport. The standards are different today.

Yeah, they're lower

On the serious matter, your first statement just isn't born out by data I don't think. In 1920 most welters were 5'7-5'9. It's still true today. 60 years ago Ray Robinson was a tall welter at 5'11. 30 years ago Ray Robinson was a tall welter at 5"11. Today? Margarito is a tall welter at 5'11. There are always freaks like Mcrory and Hearns and Williams who break 6'. But if your theory was correct we'd have oodles of 6' welters and we don't.

[quote="marbleheadmaui"][quote="Tobe"][quote="marbleheadmaui"]

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Guys 40, 50 or 60 years ago expected to have chronic pain and lower quality of life during their careers after they retired from the sport. The standards are different today.

Yeah, they're lower

See, that's the thing - I can see how we want to idealize these "noble warriors" and see them make sacrifices with their bodies and overcome everything to win glory. But, in reality is that what we want from pro athletes in this day and age? Do we really expect boxers to get in the ring when injured, or keep fighting when we know they could do more damage to themselves?

As a fan I want to see fights and I get frustrated when cards fall apart due to injuries. Also, I appreciate that it's hard when you can't know for sure if a guy is legitimately injured or just not ready to fight.

Still, I think the way it is today is better than in the past, sport has to be humane or else it has no place in modern society.

[quote="Tobe"][quote="marbleheadmaui"][quote="Tobe"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Guys 40, 50 or 60 years ago expected to have chronic pain and lower quality of life during their careers after they retired from the sport. The standards are different today.

Yeah, they're lower

See, that's the thing - I can see how we want to idealize these "noble warriors" and see them make sacrifices with their bodies and overcome everything to win glory. But, in reality is that what we want from pro athletes in this day and age? Do we really expect boxers to get in the ring when injured, or keep fighting when we know they could do more damage to themselves?

As a fan I want to see fights and I get frustrated when cards fall apart due to injuries. Also, I appreciate that it's hard when you can't know for sure if a guy is legitimately injured or just not ready to fight.

Still, I think the way it is today is better than in the past, sport has to be humane or else it has no place in modern society.

I hear ya, I do! But you have to admit that the notion of "humanity" being applied to a business that kills five men a year for the sake of our entertainment is, um, incongruous, shall we say.

marbleheadmaui wrote:I still haven't seen any evidence that that the nutritional stuff does anything other than turn 5'7 lightweights into 5'7 welters. I mean if that stuff worked in a weight restricted sport wouldn't we have on average taller fighters in a given weight class than we used to?

I know we disagree on this but I think the "modern advancement" stuff means that on average, professional athletes at X lbs today are stronger and faster than professional athletes at X lbs were in the past. The best examples of that to me are the Olympics. People who break world records in a lot of disciplines aren't necessarily bigger or taller than they were before, but their athleticism has continually risen over time.

Also, in sports where there are no weight restrictions, small guys are still able to compete. Chris Johnson isn't bigger than backs in the past, but make no mistake, if you sent him back in time he would be a freak of nature.

marbleheadmaui wrote:And if guys are so well taken care of? Why do they fight so infrequently and why are so many fights cancelled due to injuries?

I think this is because the sport has changed. It has become much different. A fight may get canceled over a minor injury because each fight has more at stake. If a fighter loses he might not get another shot, lose a significant amount of money, or lose promotional backing. Good training is geared to having a fighter perfect for fight night so if there are any kinks, things get canceled because people want to protect the investment made on each fight.

Also, the overall quality of the sport has declined. The relatively quality of athlete and trainer in the sport in way down. And finding top fighters is harder because those smaller number of good/great fighters get even more divided by a bigger number of weight classes. Fighter's whole careers are being built up to one big showdown against the "other great fighter" in the division. In the past everyone was great, so boxers had to fight through more competition to distinguish themselves. No one had the option of building a career to a few key fights. And people became great because of that.

Now people are so desperate to find greatness, when they see a glimpse of it that fighter becomes coddled and protected so they don't spoil it. The big elephant in the room being, no one is being forced to prove they are great after they show glimpses.

Sorry to get off topic, but I think the thread was heading that way anyways and this debate got cut short at Ninjas.

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:I still haven't seen any evidence that that the nutritional stuff does anything other than turn 5'7 lightweights into 5'7 welters. I mean if that stuff worked in a weight restricted sport wouldn't we have on average taller fighters in a given weight class than we used to?

I know we disagree on this but I think the "modern advancement" stuff means that on average, professional athletes at X lbs today are stronger and faster than professional athletes at X lbs were in the past. The best examples of that to me are the Olympics. People who break world records in a lot of disciplines aren't necessarily bigger or taller than they were before, but their athleticism has continually risen over time.

Also, in sports where there are no weight restrictions, small guys are still able to compete. Chris Johnson isn't bigger than backs in the past, but make no mistake, if you sent him back in time he would be a freak of nature.

marbleheadmaui wrote:And if guys are so well taken care of? Why do they fight so infrequently and why are so many fights cancelled due to injuries?

I think this is because the sport has changed. It has become much different. A fight may get canceled over a minor injury because each fight has more at stake. If a fighter loses he might not get another shot, lose a significant amount of money, or lose promotional backing. Good training is geared to having a fighter perfect for fight night so if there are any kinks, things get canceled because people want to protect the investment made on each fight.
Also, the overall quality of the sport has declined. The relatively quality of athlete and trainer in the sport in way down. And finding top fighters is harder because those smaller number of good/great fighters get even more divided by a bigger number of weight classes. Fighter's whole careers are being built up to one big showdown against the "other great fighter" in the division. In the past everyone was great, so boxers had to fight through more competition to distinguish themselves. No one had the option of building a career to a few key fights. And people became great because of that.

Now people are so desperate to find greatness, when they see a glimpse of it that fighter becomes coddled and protected so they don't spoil it. The big elephant in the room being, no one is being forced to prove they are great after they show glimpses.

The first bold I must don't think is true in either of it's assertions. When specifically applied to boxing, if fighters were stronger wouldn't we have dead fighters/permanently damaged all over the place? I mean there is no way to make the skull or brain stronger.

I suspect the second bold and almost all the second paragraph is true...bummer.