18.01.08 – By “Old Yank” Schneider: “Old School”, we hear the term all the time. It has as many definitions as there are fight fans. Is it “anything from the past”? Is it about knock outs? Is it a “romantic notion” for old geezers to have as an excuse that things were always better back in “the day”? Is it the “bare knuckle” days? Is “old school” just “old bunk” or do we simply need to de-bunk the term? Well it’s time you all got taken to school to finally understand what “old school” means..
There is absolutely no way to come to a full understanding of the glorious and colorful meaning of “old school” without first having a basic understanding about the history of boxing. No, I’m not talking about going back to caveman days; I’m talking about the origins of “prize fighting”. In the most basic form of prize fighting the concept was simple; the prize goes to the “last man standing”. It is from the roots of prize fighting and the basic concept of “last man standing” that the term “old school” grows out of.
Any fighter who approaches a fight in a manner that suggests that he intends to prove that he could be the “last man standing” is paying homage to the “roots” of prize fighting and is therefore “old school”. Does this mean that “old school” is all about the brawler who intends to win or lose by the KO? Win or lose by the KO to the exclusion of good technique? Absolutely not! This forces us to make sure we are not confusing the term “sweet science” as the antonym for “old school”. Make no doubt about it, a fighter who applies great technique (the sweet science), in order to prove that he has the ability to become the “last man standing”, pays the highest “respect” possible to the term “old school”.
Why make such a big deal about “last man standing” and require it to be connected to the term “old school”? Simple! There was a gloriously brutal time in the sport when there was no need for judges. The notion of controversial decisions was not within the realm of contemplation. There were two prize fighters and one referee. When one prize fighter, using only his wits and his fists, was able to so impose his will on the other as to force his opponent to yield, only one man remained standing. The winner was obvious. That’s “old school”.
When we pay homage to this gloriously brutal notion of “no doubt about it”, we are paying homage to “old school”; it is the pinnacle of the sport when we can clearly identify who the best man is. However, in modern times fights have been shortened and shortened and shortened. The days of “last man standing” are long gone. We even went through an historical period in the sport known as the “no decision” or “no contest” period; if a fight did not end with a TKO or a KO, it was deemed a “no decision”. It was a time when an attempt was made to remove all controversy and return to the “old school” notions of “last man standing”. In today’s 12 round version of boxing, even when a fighter fights to a decision, if he fights in a manner where through the application of his best technique he’s attempting to demonstrate to his opponent, the judges and the fans that he would in fact, be the “last man standing”, that’s “old school”.
Wits, fists and last man standing are the elements of “old school”. The importance of “wits” is where the notion of “sweet science” enters the picture. Far too many fans have the belief that “old school” and “sweet science” are mutually exclusive terms; one being about going for the KO (a la Kelly Pavlik – old school), and the other going for the “style” (a la Pernell Whitaker – sweet science). So let’s de-bunk this right away. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
“Old school” and “sweet science” can and do co-exist in perfect harmony in many great fighters. “Sweet science” is very much about “wits”; the “thinking” aspects of the sport that hone a fighter’s specialized technique, while “old school” is about the application of a fighter’s best technique in an effort to fight in a manner that demonstrates that he (given enough rounds) would become the last man standing. Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez are both great examples of fighters who combine both “terms” in perfect harmony. Pernell Whitaker, Jimmy Young and Winky Wright are probably examples of a fighters who demonstrate the arts of “sweet science”, but fall short of meeting the requirements to be called “old school”. The obvious element here is that any fighter who can go a career and rarely become the “last man standing”, may not have faired well in the days when that was the only way to win – the “old school” way to win.
So whenever someone tells you that a fighter is “old school”, make sure the fighter meets the definition. Does the fighter make a serious attempt to show you that he could become the “last man standing”? If he does not, then “school” your friend on what it really means to be “old school”. And if he won’t listen, demonstrate what “last man standing” means, and as your friend looks up at you from the floor with no doubt that he does not want to get up, tell him that you’re “old school” and ask him if he gets it now!