Who wins? John L Sullivan or Wladimir Klitschko?!!!

[StuBoxing]

Hey guys,

I've been thinking this for a while now. Who would win if the first ever world heavyweight champion John L Sullivan faced current world champion Wladimir Klitschko in their primes. With over a century gap between these two heavyweight fighter, lets compare their styles, attitudes and hearts and come up with how this matchup would look if it were to actually happen! What do you think?

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) vs [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[RonnieHornschuh]

that guy on the right is vitali actually.

[kirk]

why you talking about wlad, then post a vitali picture?

[RonnieHornschuh]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
besides that 30 of that guy sullivan fought had their first fight. only a hopeless nostalgic thinks sullivan takes it.

[RonnieHornschuh]

i'm pretty sure his were mainly hobos, farmers and truck drivers, just that there were no trucks at that time.

[RonnieHornschuh]

...sure his OPPONENTS were....
sorry bout that.

[nervousxtian]

Funny.

First punch landed Sullivan would go down, guys back then didn't have access to the training aids guys have now.

[PATSYS]

It would be unfair, Wlad could kill the poor old timer with no gloves.

[achillesthegreat]

I'd hazard a guess that Wlad would ko hmi.

[curmudgeon]

Wlad would hurt his hands with the first punches he throws. Today´s techniques aren´t suited for bareknuckle boxing.

He will hurt his hands by punching his opponent nose in with a jab - so it sticks from the other side.

Modern technique is suited for bare knuckles just fine with some training. MMA folks are doing quite OK.

There is no magic about "old-school masters". Modern athletes in all sports are just as dedicated and much better schooled. Boxing and other martial arts are no exception. MOdern guys run faster and box better. Do not confuse the instanity of modern boxing promoters and sanctioning with the quality of fighters.

[ripcity]

Klitschko

[Boxfan1]

i'm pretty sure his were mainly hobos, farmers and truck drivers, just that there were no trucks at that time.

C'mon that's not right. They were mostly cab drivers from Mexico. Wait a minute....that's someone else.

[curmudgeon]

But since beeing ignorant is modern here ... i´ll stop arguing, waste of time.

It is mildly amusing how some people assume that anybody who disagrees with them is ignorant.

Did you stop arguing beacuse you do not have an argument?

I do have an argument. In every single discipline - every one - where an objective comparison is available, modern athletes are improving year after year. It does not matter whether this is endurance, speed, strenth or mental toughness. That holds true even in disciplines where dedication and mental aspects are as important or more important as in boxing (such as many of thsoe "extreme" sports, like rock climbing.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that boxing is anyhow different.

WHy would you think that boxing is different?

[teetop]

John L. sullivan is a legend and one of the pioneers of the sport, but he
was too undersized to even be slightly competitive with wlad.
Klitschko by death.

[tryggve]

Well pea you are making yourself look stupid boxing peaked in the 40s yikes training and the ability to train professionaly without having to have a real job on the side wasnt realy there until the 60s 70s that when the sport realy started to evolve just as all other sports when money got good enough not having to rely on a "real job".

[curmudgeon]

there is always a point where the sport will peak as well. Mile runners will not continously get faster to the point of running the mile in 1 second either, every sport peaks at some point, it's pretty simple.

Name one sport, where an objective comparison is available, that has "peaked"?

In every single well defined discipline athletes are faster, stronger and mentally better prepared. From marathon to mountaneering to weight lifting to even golf - I have not heard of an exception.

This argument is only beeing made in sports where there is no objective criteria to compare performance - and thus it leaves plenty of room for speculation. But there is no reason to believe - if you believe in scientific method - that the lack of an objective metric will somehow render the practioneers of the said discipline to be somehow immune from the overall tendencies.

[Heavyrighthand]

Seeing as how Sullivan passed away many years ago, I'd have to pick Wlad.

[tryggve]

The whole point is that there were very few "world" class fighters then much like the ufc today and they met each other a lot thats were their lore comes from today boxing on the world stage is a much bigger sport and more talent world wide is trown in the pool instead of being mostly poor americans. Most americans complain that there are no good fighters anymore but they are wrong there are more good fighters today but as money is huge to many wants a piece of the pie making to many classes and even more titles to make cash out of if you start looking at the fighters out there today and put them in the original weight classes there is a HUGE talent pool. The biggest guys have maybe gone back technique wise but they have increased size strenght and tactics to make up for loss of speed and skill the big fighters today wouyld embarress the smaller heavyweights of yesteryear with their size and strenght. To bad the sport is nowhere near as popular as football (soccer for americans) nothing realy compares in world wide talent just need asia and africa catching up in tactical awareness to have a non south american or european world cup winner.

[curmudgeon]

Basketball, it has not improved since Wilt Chamberlain's time, I have yet to see an athlete on his level.


Bzzt. Where is the "objective" comparison in here? Points scored per game? Hardly directly comparable.

Overall basketball today is faster, much more complicated and more athletic. Modern teams will whoop Chamberlain's era teams like little boys.

We're still human, we can't continue to improve at the rate you say, there is a point where a sport peaks.

I am still waiting for a fact, that would support this assertion. Repeating a point does not prove it.

[tryggve]

Guys like Demspey and co were not poor. Your stereotype shows a lack of knowledge.

William Harrison Dempsey was born June 24, 1895, in Manassa, Colo., to parents accustomed to living in poverty. The ninth of 11 children, he was called Harry during his boyhood. Growing up, the family moved to another part of Colorado and then to Utah. After Harry graduated from the eighth grade, he struck out on his own.
Legend has it that Dempsey became a hobo, but he actually was an itinerant laborer who rode the freights and camped by the wayside on his way to temporary work. Digging ditches, picking peaches, cutting timber and being a circus roustabout were among his jobs. Whenever he could, he fought in local clubs in Colorado, Utah and Nevada, using the name "Kid Blackie" or "Young Dempsey."

[curmudgeon]

That's not true at all, there is no 'objective comparison' to my knowledge because you're talking DIRECTLY out of your ass.

Hello! Anybody home? Are you capable of comprehending what I did say?

It was my point that this is not an objective comparison in your example. My other point was that anywhere such a comparison exists.. yada yada - read it again a few posts back.

And the third argument was that for disciplines where no comparison exists there is no reason to believe... yada yada - read it again.

[curmudgeon]

And please, tell me where the 'direct comparison' is in boxing.

Try to read what I have said. You will feel less of an idiot making arguments against points that nobody made.

[Lampley]

That's not true at all, there is no 'objective comparison' to my knowledge because you're talking DIRECTLY out of your ass. Watch him play, that's all you have to do, watch him play, just like all you have to do is Watch Robinson box, or watch Ali box, or watch other athletes of other sports play. Geesh you're lame.
Pea, I normally like your posts, but I believe you are way, way off-base here. Your Wilt example is case in point, because in no way was he as talented a natural athlete as Shaquille O'Neal.

Have you watched Wilt move laterally? He's not gifted at all. Even players during his day commented as much. He was a dominant force because of his size and strength (pre-weight training), but in terms of speed and leap, today he would be nothing special.

I think he works against your point, rather than assists it.

And if there's been an overall decline in boxing since the middle part of last century, it's because the talent pool has shrunk. Kids now don't dream of becoming HW champ. They play BB, FB, even baseball, rather than box. The lack of boxing programs in high schools makes the the sport inferior to the others and always will (at least in America), as long as that's the case.

[brooklyn1550]

Wladimir Klitschko

[McGrain]

I would pick the whoever gets to fight under their own ruleset.

[RUSKULL]

Too big, too strong, too skilled & hits too fuckin' hard.

Wladimir Klitschko by early KO.

[Decker]

Agree with curmudgeon above - and curmudgeon fans like "Sweet" Pea will never let facts get in the way of how they feel.

Not only does Sullivan not belong in the same century as Wlad, he does not belong in the same ring.

Prediction: Wlad Murder 1.

[MSTR]

How so? Wlad has no idea how to properly throw a punch or defend against one with bare knuckle rules. There are different ways of defending and taking a punch, as well as throwing one, when bare knuckles get thrown into play. Wlad would be much better under modern rules unless he trained bare knuckle style.
There is no difference Pea. I have trained martial arts, basic mma, boxing and muai thai, and the most effective way to throw a punch is with boxing technique. Bare knuckle simply means that when Wlad hits him there would be a very real chance of him KILLING sullivan no BS. Someone wlads size and skill, hitting a guy who is standing flat footed full force with bare knuckle would do some very serious damage. Totally different worlds. As for your comments on conditioning, you can't compare the two. The pace of the fight would be 1000% different. Todays guys fight at a very fast pace. The guys from that era would have taken their time, and to be honest lacked the skills to effectively push the pace of the fight without getting cleaned up. They had long term endurance, but could definitely not match the intensity that todays fighters can achieve.

[MSTR]

No, that applies mostly in sports like track and pole-vaulting and high-jumping and stuff like that, even though it isn't neccessarily true in them either, they all peak. As far as sports like basketball, football, baseball, and combat sports like kickboxing and boxing, there is always a point where the sport will peak as well. Mile runners will not continously get faster to the point of running the mile in 1 second either, every sport peaks at some point, it's pretty simple. It took boxing about 50 years to reach this stage in the 40's, and really boxing has gone downhill since the 80's and some of the 90's. Are you gonna say that today's Heavyweight division has evolved from Tyson's or Ali's? Or that Tyson or Ali are primitive?

All sports peak at a certain point, they don't continue to evolve throughout all mankind, not unless boxers grow another arm.
I think that you are severely under rating sports science. If sports have peaked then why are world records continually broken. Because of better technique, better nutrition and more advanced training thats why. Your example of a mile in one second is as extreme as you could possibly go. The improvements will always be gradual. Boxing is evolving still, it is just a very slow process. It is just very difficult to compare how fighters from different eras would actually compete with each other. I am one of the few who believe that Lennox Lewis could beat someone like Ali, based on size, style and reach. How could Ali out box someone who is taller, stronger, punches harder and has a longer reach. IMO he couldn't. I know a lot of the classic forum people will probably jump on here and bag me for this, but if any of you have actually sparred bigger guys before ( I have on different occasions) you would know just what a big difference it makes.

[MSTR]

There is a difference. You think covering up such as boxers do when being teed off on(which only works with big gloves) would work with no gloves? The punches would be coming through easily because there would be nothing there to block except the small amount of space blocked with your arms. The styles changed in boxing as the rules and regulations changed. Body shots were far more damaging with little gloves on, which is why they held their gloves at a lower setting then they do now. In bare knuckle days, the hands were held out farther to pary shots easier because of the damage of a gloveless hand. They didn't hold them as close because they wouldn't be able to block them with no gloves, and the chances of parrying them would be less, which is why the styles have changed as the gloves and regulations have.
I agree there is a difference in the way that you take the fight itself. For instance you wouldn't cover up for long periods of time. However you were talking about the way you punched, which is esentially the same. Also the hands are still held correctly in boxing form, except with bare knuckle they should always be kept high, as one good hit can often times mean a KO. I don't agree that the hands are held further apart. Modern Boxers naturally parry in the ring, and hold their hands far enough apart to see punches coming (there are exceptions like Tyson though). Parrying is a big part of modern boxing already. If they held their hands further apart they would be leaving themselves wide open. As you follow MMA, you would know that almost all top MMA guys get seperate boxing coaching, as it is UNIVERSALLY recognised as the best way to throw and defend agaisnt punches in the stand up. The main difference is the range, as MMA fighters need to stand further apart to defend against both takedown and kicks.

[MSTR]

Boxing and basketball are different than sports like mile-running and things of that nature, which have only one common goal, so obviously there will be ways to break records. Things like mile-running and long-jumping and such will have records broken often because there is nothing more to do than break them.

What is there to measure that way in boxing? What way of measuring it is there? It's simple really, watch them fight, and take into account the rules and regulations. Sports like boxing, basketball, football, and baseball peak because they are not sports you can simply put a measuring stick on. In a mile, the goal is simple, to run fast. In boxing, the goal is simple, to win, but how can you judge if someone is better than someone from another era? You simply watch them fight. Are you guys really trying to tell me that the fighters of today are better than fighters like Duran, SRL, SRR, etc? Miguel Cotto is better than them? Are you kidding or what? There is no way to measure it because each fighter is different in their physical ability, nature, etc. Roy Jones was not Roy Jones because of modern advances in technology, he was Roy Jones because that's how he was born, he was gifted.

What measuring stick is their to measure boxers other than to watch them fight?
Pea don't put words in my mouth. I never said Cotto is better then Duran or SRL, so don't make up arguements on my behalf thanks. I clearly said that it is very difficult to compare the fighters of different eras. However, I can see watching footage of SRR, that he wouldn't compete in todays era. The advancements in the sport have been far to significant since that time. Its not a fair comparison. As for Roy Jones, he is a great athlete, but he became so good by analysing fights, and honing his technique in the gym over many years as an amatuer. The reason he is so good is because boxing technique and training has evolved. If he was born in the 1950's are you saying he would have been as good? Because if so I firmly disagree. Although with sports such as boxing, basketball ect it is hard to measure talent, simple perception is good enough. You can't seriously tell me that guys that played baketball in athe early parts of the sports origin could compete with the size and professionalism of todays athletes. I think you are grossely overating the athletes of yesteryear if so.

[MSTR]

I meant further away from the body, not further apart from each seperate arm. Firther away from the body to catch the punch quicker.

I have been thinking about this lately. Fedor is one who does what I say above, holds his hands further out as in old school style boxing. I have been thinking it might be a better idea with the smaller gloves to alter the standup a bit, and MMA isn't really the best way to gauge it anyway, as not a whole lot of them have good, orthodox standup anyways.
The problem is with holding your hands extended further, is that it becomes harder to counter punch, and someone with excellent movement can catch you easily with combination punching. I studied Wing CHun, except in a hybrid form (brown belt, trained 4-5 days a week for almost 3 years). We learnt boxing, muai thai and BJJ, excpet we also were told in stand up (because it was bare hand) to keep our guard held out to a degree (more then boxing but not like traditional martial arts). The first time I fought a boxer I got cleaned up, because although it is effective at range, when trying to counter combinations you are blocking your own view of the punches, and it is very easy to hook over the top of your guard.

[2smart4u]

:yep JOHN L takes it ! Just cuz es IRISH !:bbb

[Lampley]

You've never seen Wilt play then, simple as that. I have seen him play and do things that noone else has ever done, even in today's game, I think you're way, way off base.

His vertical was 44 inches, he set track and field records at his high school. Yeah, I guess he didn't have much in the way of 'speed and leap'.

I absolutely have seen him play. Both of them. And quite a lot. Shaquille far outpaces Wilt as a natural athlete, there's just no comparison. His balance, power, explosiveness -- all superior to that presented by Wilt.

Wilt has a greater statistical portfolio, he was a relative underachiever in the playoffs. Shaquille was a more forceful presence on both ends, and even in a modern weights program, I don't think Wild could match Shaq's power.

You act as though Wilt played in the stone ages. This isn't arguing Sullivan vs. Lewis -- it's two guys who played 30-40 years after each other. Different eras, to be sure (which plays to my point), but not outside the realm of comparison.

[MSTR]

Yeah, by saying today's athletes are better and boxing has evolved since those days, you are saying that the best fighters of today are better than the best fighters of yesterday. Am I wrong?

I have seen SRR, and his combinations, speed, ability to box and pick his shots, and power are unlike anyone fighting today. This guy is not primitive in the least. How do you say so?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Roy Jones wasn't known for his technique at all, he was known for his gifts, physically and inside of him(there is no word to describe it, there is just something some fighters have, a fighting genius). Many fighters honed their techniques in the gym, but they didn't have his abilities, he was gifted, he wasn't an orthodox boxer, he had a gift, although obviously he trained to hone his talent, he didn't have better schooling than most other boxers, he just saw things better and was able to act on them. This doesn't come with practice, it is just something some have.

No, I won't say that at all, because they were primitive in those days, just as boxers were primitive in the earl days of the sport, but after about 40-50 years of evolving and finding out the trade and such, they came into their own. No way in hell Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, etc in basketball are primitive compared to today's players, you can watch them and tell. In fact Wilt is still unlike anything I've seen.

Again, I said I believe Wlad would beat Sullivan if you read my original posts, but that under his rules and regulations, with grappling and clinching allowed more and things like that, Wlad would have a harder time, but would beat him due to his boxing skill and size. Under modern rules he torches him. I believe modern boxing came into it's own in around the 40's, when it had had many years to find itself and the sport had evolved to the point that it's fighters had come into their own with the sport. I can't watch a Sonny Liston, Robinson, Willie Pep, etc. and say they were inferior. Willie Pep is unlike anything I've seen nowadays as well.
When I watch Ray Robinson, I also look at the opponents he is fighting and how good they look. My opinion is that he couldn't compete with todays athletes. The strength, the professionalism and the advancements in the technical part of boxing would be too much. It is my opinion, and you are entitled to yours although I disagree. Yes I said boxing was evolving, but the guys you mentioned were the best from their era. Cotto has yet to prove how good he really is so its an unfair comparison. Do I think that Roy Jones is better then Duran and SRL then YES, although his resume suggests otherwise. Anyway, Agree to disagree, it basically comes down to personal opinion. There is no possible way for either of us to prove it otherwise.

[MSTR]

Well, wing-chun is similar in that they use their hands out further, but they don't box, they are all about rolling hands and chopping and shit like that. But I will say I get your overall point. Perhaps it isn't the best as far as MMA rules go.

But, has boxing evolved in your eyes since say, Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Hagler, etc? Since we're talking modern rules here, we'll stick to modern fighters and rule out John L Sullivan and co. I don't believe since the rules ave been modernized(glove size, etc) that boxing has evolved at all. I believe Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns and guys like that are better than anyone of today.
I wouldn't say better. Better then some but not others. Floyd could beat some of those guys p4p, he just isn't as exciting a fighter. Boxing is becoming more defensively orientated IMO. Roy p4p is better then all of the guys mentioned. Cotto is still untested. With improvements he could become our generations Duran, although he still has a way to go yet. Chad Dawson IMO is destined for greatness. I think he has the skills to one day be considered in the ILK of the fighters mentioned, although once again he is still developing. It was basically a fantastic era in boxing. I have no doubt it will come again, and when it does the fighters will be that bit better then those you put forwards. It takes time though. I think like all cycles, it peaks then falls and peaks stronger again. I think that it peaked in the eighties, and will surely peak again.

[aliwasthegreatest]

Pea, I normally like your posts, but I believe you are way, way off-base here. Your Wilt example is case in point, because in no way was he as talented a natural athlete as Shaquille O'Neal.

Have you watched Wilt move laterally? He's not gifted at all. Even players during his day commented as much. He was a dominant force because of his size and strength (pre-weight training), but in terms of speed and leap, today he would be nothing special.

I think he works against your point, rather than assists it.

And if there's been an overall decline in boxing since the middle part of last century, it's because the talent pool has shrunk. Kids now don't dream of becoming HW champ. They play BB, FB, even baseball, rather than box. The lack of boxing programs in high schools makes the the sport inferior to the others and always will (at least in America), as long as that's the case.

gotta disagree on the "speed and leap" there lampley everything else is about on point

[Lampley]

gotta disagree on the "speed and leap" there lampley everything else is about on point

By today's NBA standards, Chamberlain's quickness (I'll admit to being wrong on fullcourt speed, but I misspoke) and leaping ability are just "good". Certainly not great. Certainly not at the Shaq level, particularly considering the difference in bulk.

What Wilt had was a very long, smooth stride. He really could run. He was a one-footed leaper as well (hence the track success), which is flashier in the open court.

However, his reactions and overall explosiveness was never, ever on a par with that of Shaquille, nor of Kevin Garnett. Those guys also boast superior hand/eye coordination, although by Shaq's (and Wilt's) free throw shooting, you wouldn't know it.

Pea, you have yet to acknowledge the Elephant in the Room. During Wilt's day, the NBA was not fully integrated. Just look at some old highlights. Lots and lots of white faces. The NBA has achieved racial balance, now, after many years of evolvement, and Wilt played during the beginning stages of that.

[cross_trainer]

Name one sport, where an objective comparison is available, that has "peaked"?



In the sports where athletes aren't allowed to use new gadgets to improve their performance? A few off the top of my head:


Deadlift -- "Raw" deadlift record currently at 800 pounds, with steroid testing. 1920's record was 790 (Hermann Goerner)

Highland Games -- Most of these (unlike modern track and field) retained the same equipment since the mid 19th century. Most remain pretty close to older records.

Paul Anderson's squatting -- His squat records, adjusted for equipment, are more or less comparable to the records around today.

George Seward -- 9 1/2 second 100 yard dash from a standing start on dirt without modern shoes. Good times today even without adjustment (and you would need to adjust quite a bit). He did it in 1840.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then there's the fact that the sports you mentioned (and those above) are specialist sports that yield demonstratably superior training routines. Boxing is a subjective sport in which any testing is done against inconsistent opponents, and thus boxers' routines cannot be expected to be remotely as efficient as some of the above. The same is true to some degree of all man vs. man skill sports. Add the dozens of intangibles that cannot be trained in a scientific fashion -- technical skill, pain tolerance, "heart", a fighter's specific style, ring intelligence, reflexes, and many others -- and the physical qualities that you list are secondary. The boxing world is littered with athletic fighters who failed against weaker opponents because they lacked one or more of the above.

It's silly, really, to say that modern fighters run over the "old timers" because a group of track and field guys with highly specialized routines designed to augment a narrow band of abilities can break records under very controlled conditions.

[MSTR]

In the sports where athletes aren't allowed to use new gadgets to improve their performance? A few off the top of my head:


Deadlift -- "Raw" deadlift record currently at 800 pounds, with steroid testing. 1920's record was 790 (Hermann Goerner)

Highland Games -- Most of these (unlike modern track and field) retained the same equipment since the mid 19th century. Most remain pretty close to older records.

Paul Anderson's squatting -- His squat records, adjusted for equipment, are more or less comparable to the records around today.

George Seward -- 9 1/2 second 100 yard dash from a standing start on dirt without modern shoes. Good times today even without adjustment (and you would need to adjust quite a bit). He did it in 1840.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then there's the fact that the sports you mentioned (and those above) are specialist sports that yield demonstratably superior training routines. Boxing is a subjective sport in which any testing is done against inconsistent opponents, and thus boxers' routines cannot be expected to be remotely as efficient as some of the above. The same is true to some degree of all man vs. man skill sports. Add the dozens of intangibles that cannot be trained in a scientific fashion -- technical skill, pain tolerance, "heart", a fighter's specific style, ring intelligence, reflexes, and many others -- and the physical qualities that you list are secondary. The boxing world is littered with athletic fighters who failed against weaker opponents because they lacked one or more of the above.

It's silly, really, to say that modern fighters run over the "old timers" because a group of track and field guys with highly specialized routines designed to augment a narrow band of abilities can break records under very controlled conditions.
If you are saying that a fighters style, technical skill, ring intelligence, reflexes and conditioning can't be trained or benefit from a much better knowledge of both the sport, nutrition and all elements of sports science then you are very badly mistaken. All of these aspects of the fight game can most certainly be trained and enhanced. If you don't think so then I would question your knowledge of boxing and especially your knowledge of training techniques. Of the sports you listed above, I would be VERY SCEPTICAL of the accuracy of these so called achievements. Not only that but there will always be exceptions, the ones you have pointed out are not only dubious but to an extent irrelevant. World records are constantly being broken in a very wide array of sports. To suggest that it is only happening in track and field is ridiculous.

[2smart4u]

If you are saying that a fighters style, technical skill, ring intelligence, reflexes and conditioning can't be trained or benefit from a much better knowledge of both the sport, nutrition and all elements of sports science then you are very badly mistaken. All of these aspects of the fight game can most certainly be trained and enhanced. If you don't think so then I would question your knowledge of boxing and especially your knowledge of training techniques. Of the sports you listed above, I would be VERY SCEPTICAL of the accuracy of these so called achievements. Not only that but there will always be exceptions, the ones you have pointed out are not only dubious but to an extent irrelevant. World records are constantly being broken in a very wide array of sports. To suggest that it is only happening in track and field is ridiculous.:good :deal

[McGrain]

If you are saying that a fighters style, technical skill, ring intelligence, reflexes

All of these are more readily improved by fighting, not training.

and conditioning

Arguable. But I would submit that fighting all the time makes you more likely to be fit for the ring than processed training.


nutrition and all elements of sports science

Not new. Not for the men involved. Read Jack Johnson's own account of training diet. Not that different. Less red meat perhaps.


All of these aspects of the fight game can most certainly be trained and enhanced.

But this idea you have that these ideas are new is not accurate.

[MSTR]

All of these are more readily improved by fighting, not training.



Arguable. But I would submit that fighting all the time makes you more likely to be fit for the ring than processed training.




Not new. Not for the men involved. Read Jack Johnson's own account of training diet. Not that different. Less red meat perhaps.




But this idea you have that these ideas are new is not accurate.
The game is so much more professional now though. The skills of fighters gone can be passed down, and the next generation of fighters have the opportunity to build on this in their now extensive amatuer careers. You can't seriously believe that Oscar who would have fulltime nutritionalists making his every meal and monitering his diet at all times would be comparable to a journal kept by John Sullivan? If so you are surely deluded. Guys now have the opportunity to pour over tapes, to spend the months between fights analyzing their opponens skills and behaviour, to bring in specific sparring, to train their explosivness using polymetrics, explosive weights training, and have the most educated conditioning coaches money can by, to ensure they are in the best possible shape when they enter the ring. They have full time coaches monitoring and taping their every move in the ring, fixing up their technique and developing them to be the best fighters humanly possible. It is in total honesty not even comparable. I cannot believe how much some of you are severely overating the fighters of old. Watch the tapes FFS. The technical deficiencies is as clear as day.

[cross_trainer]

If you are saying that a fighters style, technical skill, ring intelligence, reflexes and conditioning can't be trained or benefit from a much better knowledge of both the sport, nutrition and all elements of sports science then you are very badly mistaken.

There are no "scientific" ways to train any of these, except possibly basic coordination. Improving muscle-to-muscle coordination as Hatfield did with Holyfield would be possible, but this is limited. There are no super-secret "ring intelligence" exercises developed in a scientifically valid way. Just the skills that fighters have always been taught. If you allege otherwise, please point me to the research.

Also where did I mention conditioning?


All of these aspects of the fight game can most certainly be trained and enhanced. If you don't think so then I would question your knowledge of boxing and especially your knowledge of training techniques.

Very well--show me valid sports medicine research demonstrating methods of improving ring intelligence, reflexes, etc. that were not used by older trainers. Further, demonstrate that the tests were done with consistency--factoring out the inconsistency of opponents in sparring.


Of the sports you listed above, I would be VERY SCEPTICAL of the accuracy of these so called achievements.

I suspect you're skeptical only because you expect progress in athletics as natural, and did not give any thought to the technique, equipment, and "supplements" improvements through the years.

In most cases--Dinnie's T&F records, Goerner's deadlifts, all Highland Games scores, and even Seward--they were verified as official records.


Not only that but there will always be exceptions, the ones you have pointed out are not only dubious but to an extent irrelevant.

Deadlifts and squats are two of the most widely practiced exercises in the world, and the hammer throw and stone puts used in the highland games are direct links (technique-wise) to the 19th century's track and field records. Hardly irrelevant.

And again, unlike many of your examples they are adjusted to factor out changes in technique, equipment, and drugs.

World records are constantly being broken in a very wide array of sports. To suggest that it is only happening in track and field is ridiculous.

I didn't say track and field. I said specialist sports under very controlled conditions requiring a narrow band of abilities. T&F and weightlifting are the two most prominent examples of these, so I used them. You could include swimming if you like.

Which other ones are you referring to? Caber tossing? Baseball-throw-for-distance? Karate powerbreaking? There aren't many major sports that fit the "measurable" criteria.

[MSTR]

All of these are more readily improved by fighting, not training.



Arguable. But I would submit that fighting all the time makes you more likely to be fit for the ring than processed training.




Not new. Not for the men involved. Read Jack Johnson's own account of training diet. Not that different. Less red meat perhaps.




But this idea you have that these ideas are new is not accurate.
As for the first part of your post it is just flat out wrong. Skill is definitely improved in training. What do you think gys are doing when they work the pads? Do you think they watch videos just for the hell of it? NO. Its to improve their technical knowledge, to gain ring intelligence, and then make it a factor when working the bag, or when hitting the pads. I have seen Kostya Tszyu and heard of other fighters doing specific reflex training. Every part of training is to improve those abilities. Have you ever trained before? Because if so then surely you would realise that most of the technique is learnt in the actual training. Sparring is simply an opportunity to practice the techniques and to hone the skills learnt in training. Your opst is wrong for so many reasons.

[cross_trainer]

The game is so much more professional now though. The skills of fighters gone can be passed down, and the next generation of fighters have the opportunity to build on this in their now extensive amatuer careers. You can't seriously believe that Oscar who would have fulltime nutritionalists making his every meal and monitering his diet at all times would be comparable to a journal kept by John Sullivan? If so you are surely deluded. Guys now have the opportunity to pour over tapes, to spend the months between fights analyzing their opponens skills and behaviour, to bring in specific sparring, to train their explosivness using polymetrics, explosive weights training, and have the most educated conditioning coaches money can by, to ensure they are in the best possible shape when they enter the ring. They have full time coaches monitoring and taping their every move in the ring, fixing up their technique and developing them to be the best fighters humanly possible. It is in total honesty not even comparable. I cannot believe how much some of you are severely overating the fighters of old. Watch the tapes FFS. The technical deficiencies is as clear as day.



Fighters had access to film of their opponents as early as the 30's, as Schmeling's demolition of Louis indicates. The plyometrics, explosive weight training, and similar methods improve specific physical aspects of the game, but have little to do with skill, pain tolerance, reflexes, and the other factors I mentioned. And just because it's trainable, it isn't necessarily trainable scientifically--again, unless there are studies to back up the efficacy of certain types of mitwork (for example) on improving reflexes better than other types of mitwork.

Your point about the tapes is salient. By all means, look at them. Frazier and Holmes were (each in their own way) technically superior to the heavyweights of today. Ali's reflexes were on another plane compared to Peter or even Klitschko. And his chin--well, you don't take flush punches from Shavers or Foreman with a bad chin. Lest you complain that these guys don't punch hard because they're old timers, remember what an old Foreman did to modern heavies.

[McGrain]

The game is so much more professional now though.

No. Compared to Tiger Flowers, Johnny Tapia is not proffesional. Compared to Bernard Hopkins? Flowers is about equal. Maybe Hopkins edges it.


and the next generation of fighters have the opportunity to build on this in their now extensive amatuer careers.

And on and on it goes. But Michelangelo has not been surpased.

You can't seriously believe that Oscar who would have fulltime nutritionalists making his every meal and monitering his diet at all times would be comparable to a journal kept by John Sullivan?

You are comparing one of the modern games most dedicated proffesionals with one of that pasts greatest drinkers. This is not fair.

To answer your general point; i don't beleive that a fighter under nutriotinist's care (waste of time) is any more likely to succeed than an experienced and disciplined fighter. Attitudes to food brought on by the uber-modern nutritionist's ideas are of limited value. The basics? Not difficult to understand.


Guys now have the opportunity to pour over tapes, to spend the months between fights analyzing their opponens skills and behaviour

Are you so sure that this is an advantage? I am not. If you are, you will be hard pressed to find a man who made a greater advantage of it than Tunney. Excluding him, I would site Schmeling. Do you really think veiwing film is a huge advantage where WATCHING your opponent fight that Friday was the tradition?


to bring in specific sparring, to train their explosivness using polymetrics,

Training polymetrics is not a new idea. The word is pretty fashionable.


and have the most educated conditioning coaches money can by, to ensure they are in the best possible shape when they enter the ring.

I'm not 100% comfortable with this abdication of responsibility. Are you?

[MSTR]

There are no "scientific" ways to train any of these, except possibly basic coordination. Improving muscle-to-muscle coordination as Hatfield did with Holyfield would be possible, but this is limited. There are no super-secret "ring intelligence" exercises developed in a scientifically valid way. Just the skills that fighters have always been taught. If you allege otherwise, please point me to the research.

Also where did I mention conditioning?



Very well--show me valid sports medicine research demonstrating methods of improving ring intelligence, reflexes, etc. that were not used by older trainers. Further, demonstrate that the tests were done with consistency--factoring out the inconsistency of opponents in sparring.



I suspect you're skeptical only because you expect progress in athletics as natural, and did not give any thought to the technique, equipment, and "supplements" improvements through the years.

In most cases--Dinnie's T&F records, Goerner's deadlifts, all Highland Games scores, and even Seward--they were verified as official records.



Deadlifts and squats are two of the most widely practiced exercises in the world, and the hammer throw and stone puts used in the highland games are direct links (technique-wise) to the 19th century's track and field records. Hardly irrelevant.

And again, unlike many of your examples they are adjusted to factor out changes in technique, equipment, and drugs.



I didn't say track and field. I said specialist sports under very controlled conditions requiring a narrow band of abilities. T&F and weightlifting are the two most prominent examples of these, so I used them. You could include swimming if you like.

Which other ones are you referring to? Caber tossing? Baseball-throw-for-distance? Karate powerbreaking? There aren't many major sports that fit the "measurable" criteria.
Ring intelligence is increased by watching fights, by learning from the technical coaches, from analysing footage and from getting effective sparring. Modern day fighters have FAR better access to all of these things. Are you seriously trying to tell me that older day fighters had access to modern sports science, and everythign that goes with it. The knowledge of the human body, the knowledge of supplements. Its different worlds. Its just common sense. I dead set can't believe that you guys truely think that we haven't progressed in this regard. In regards to your comments on Track and Field, and the events you listed, the more technical skill involved in a sport, the greater the opportunity for it to progress as time goes on. It just gives more opportunities for the athletes to benefit from modern techniques. I don't have links handy for proof, but I don't need them. Go watch training footage of modern fighters. Go read a book on their training techniques. Then do the same thing for the older day fighters and make a direct comparison. See for yourself.

[MSTR]

Anyway I am going back to work now. I was lead to believe by other posters that you guys were some f the most knowledgable on the site. I am disappointed to say the least. Your opinion just totally defies logic and common sense. I wish that I could somehow match these fighters head to head, to see your faces when the fighers of old were demolished. Unfortunately, as we cannot, it is a stupid arguement. My only hope that people with common sense who read this can see that OBVIOUSLY with all the advancements in modern sport, and the absolute professionlism that we now have in place, and with the greater technical knowledge of the sport that it would surely have evolved. You won't hear any more from me regarding this. You are entitled to your opinion, and i have no clear way to prove you wrong, however I very strongly disagree.

[cross_trainer]

Ring intelligence is increased by watching fights, by learning from the technical coaches, from analysing footage and from getting effective sparring. Modern day fighters have FAR better access to all of these things. Are you seriously trying to tell me that older day fighters had access to modern sports science, and everythign that goes with it. The knowledge of the human body, the knowledge of supplements. Its different worlds. Its just common sense. I dead set can't believe that you guys truely think that we haven't progressed in this regard. In regards to your comments on Track and Field, and the events you listed, the more technical skill involved in a sport, the greater the opportunity for it to progress as time goes on. It just gives more opportunities for the athletes to benefit from modern techniques. I don't have links handy for proof, but I don't need them. Go watch training footage of modern fighters. Go read a book on their training techniques. Then do the same thing for the older day fighters and make a direct comparison. See for yourself.
I've read books from the 1790's all the way until the modern manuals. I've seen.

All of the training techniques you've listed for training ring intelligence were available to fighters in the 1930's. The supplements and knowledge of the human body you mention immediately afterward don't have anything to do with ring intelligence development. So where is the special scientific improvement in ring intelligence?

As to technique in track and field--we're trying to distinguish here between athleticism (which weight training, plyometrics, "functional" training and their relatives develop) and technique. If you want to make the argument that modern athletes are more athletic, you need to cancel out the technique, which is what I did. So again (to give a for-instance), if Goerner can equal the current nonequipped deadlift record using 1920's training techniques, the idea that modern athletes are stronger becomes more tenuous. It doesn't matter that you don't believe he's SUPPOSED to be able to do that--he did. Similarly, the 19th century track and field guys were as adept with older equipment and techniques as the moderns. They proved it by actually racking up the performances.

[J_Roth]

Sullivan was a hero in his day. Wlad would hurt him big time.

[McGrain]

Anyway I am going back to work now. I was lead to believe by other posters that you guys were some f the most knowledgable on the site. I am disappointed to say the least. Your opinion just totally defies logic and common sense. I wish that I could somehow match these fighters head to head, to see your faces when the fighers of old were demolished. Unfortunately, as we cannot, it is a stupid arguement. My only hope that people with common sense who read this can see that OBVIOUSLY with all the advancements in modern sport, and the absolute professionlism that we now have in place, and with the greater technical knowledge of the sport that it would surely have evolved. You won't hear any more from me regarding this. You are entitled to your opinion, and i have no clear way to prove you wrong, however I very strongly disagree.

Bascially, as far as I can see, you couldn't be talking more balls.

A lot of what you say is interesting, but that isn't the same thing as right. I see very little difference era-era. What you've discussed here though, is the least interesting aspects of what differences exsist.

[cross_trainer]

Anyway I am going back to work now. I was lead to believe by other posters that you guys were some f the most knowledgable on the site. I am disappointed to say the least. Your opinion just totally defies logic and common sense. I wish that I could somehow match these fighters head to head, to see your faces when the fighers of old were demolished. Unfortunately, as we cannot, it is a stupid arguement. My only hope that people with common sense who read this can see that OBVIOUSLY with all the advancements in modern sport, and the absolute professionlism that we now have in place, and with the greater technical knowledge of the sport that it would surely have evolved. You won't hear any more from me regarding this. You are entitled to your opinion, and i have no clear way to prove you wrong, however I very strongly disagree. You're simply refusing to listen to what we're saying.

When you asked for measurements of athleticism, I provided a few. You refused to believe they were real. When you said that modern technique training is better and more scientifically valid, I was ready to listen and asked for proof. You did not give me any that would demonstrate the "scientific superior training" argument. As for manuals--how many have you seen from before the 80's? I've seen a fair share, and there is not a huge gap between them. You haven't even given analysis of the footage--in your opinion, the clearest demonstration of modern superiority.

If you're going to malign our knowledge without providing facts to support your argument, that's fine. I won't lose much sleep over it. It disappoints me, though...I expected a stimulating debate. Amsterdam, for instance, argued your point far more convincingly.

[MSTR]

You're simply refusing to listen to what we're saying.

When you asked for measurements of athleticism, I provided a few. You refused to believe they were real. When you said that modern technique training is better and more scientifically valid, I was ready to listen and asked for proof. You did not give me any that would demonstrate the "scientific superior training" argument. As for manuals--how many have you seen from before the 80's? I've seen a fair share, and there is not a huge gap between them. You haven't even given analysis of the footage--in your opinion, the clearest demonstration of modern superiority.

If you're going to malign our knowledge without providing facts to support your argument, that's fine. I won't lose much sleep over it. It disappoints me, though...I expected a stimulating debate. Amsterdam, for instance, argued your point far more convincingly.
Said I wouldn't come back but here I am. I would love to research the stats, and to provide a more informed arguement with links, however I simply do not have the time. As said above, I am presenting my case on my own experiences, things I have learnt, and most of all common sense. Hypothetical arguements I learned long ago are a waste of time on ESB. It will prove nothing. Regardless, if i had the time I would love to debate the issue. Unfortunately I do not, and can only post on ESB 99% of the time from my work PC. That is why I have nothing further to say on the point. Would love to here what Amsterdam had come up with though in regard to this issue.

[Amsterdam]

Does MSTR need assistance from Magnum?:think

I don't really want to engage in this, but I will say one thing that goes along with my material -

Not only would Wlad blow Sullivan out in a matter of 20 seconds or less, but smaller guys around Sullivan's size from the more advanced era's would probably do the same, maybe 40 seconds when dealing with the fact that they don't hit as hard as Wlad and when dealing with that Sullivan was a bad man.

It'd actually be like putting a guy like Couture in with Wlad under boxing rules, just no comparison at all. Sullivan fought in a clinch fighting bonanza style and the style is not the problem, but the lack of technical skill involved with even further era standard boxers.

I can go get Magnum though.

[Amsterdam]

Bring...that....shit....on!:fire

:lol: :lol:

[MSTR]

I'm confused... Who is Magnum? Well, whoever he is if he has the time and ability to drive this point home then I say go for it.

[Amsterdam]

Magnum is legendary.:deal

[RonnieHornschuh]

come on! sullivan didn't wasn't the bruce lee of early boxing. he didn't take the skills to another level. he was a tough guy with rudimentary boxing skills. but against someone of the modern era who has the skills and the power he has not the slightest chance. the first right hand wlad throws - he's out. maybe just the jab would do it. he could injure him seriously. or imagine him against tyson, sullivan has never seen such movement and explosiveness. he would probably shit himself.

[McGrain]

Magnum is legendary.:deal

He didn't show me very much...your percieved difference between him and yourself is imagined. :D

[cross_trainer]

come on! sullivan didn't wasn't the bruce lee of early boxing. he didn't take the skills to another level. he was a tough guy with rudimentary boxing skills. but against someone of the modern era who has the skills and the power he has not the slightest chance. the first right hand wlad throws - he's out. maybe just the jab would do it. he could injure him seriously. or imagine him against tyson, sullivan has never seen such movement and explosiveness. he would probably shit himself.

Actually, he is credited with developing variations of both the hook and uppercut.

[McGrain]

Actually, he is credited with developing variations of both the hook and uppercut.

:yikes

A pioneer of the game?

[Lampley]

Again, it has nothing to do with who he played against, but how he played (and for some reason guys like Russell, Petit, West, Baylor, Robertson, etc. etc. don't seem like such bad comp by the way). I've seen footage of a guy shooting a jump shot from about 13 feet out and Wilt being in betwen the shot and the middle of the basket, and WIlt leaping up getting the ball near it's apex and blocking it, never seen anything like it in any era.

And again! You say he couldnt leap anything like Shaq, yet I tell of his 44 inch leap, and of how he was an all around track star, and you continue to say he didn't have the physical abilities of Shaq, which is ridiculous. I know for a FACT he jumped WAY higher than Shaq and was a better athlete. I just don't think you know too much about him honestly.

I don't want to hijack this thread with too much BB talk, but I suspect you are just another guilty of romanticizing the players of yesterday, without giving enough regard to the advances made since then.

And it's certainly not a FACT that he was a better athlete than Shaq. I say he wasn't, and both of us having nothing but opinion at our disposal. There's no empirical measure of overall athleticism.

You're being silly to suggest it has nothing to do with his competition. It has a great deal to do with that, and although I agree he'd still be an excellent player, he lacked the power, overall skill (particularly as a passer with his back to the basket) or competitive drive as Shaquille.

Oh, and Wladimir annihilates Sullivan under your rules or mine.

[Lampley]

I have just given you evidence to back up that Wilt was a more accomplished and amazing athlete than Shaq.

You said he couldn't jump near as high as Shaq, I gave you his 44 inch vertical, which is the same as MJ's. DO you admit you were wrong there?

Absolutely not. Vertical leap is one of the most fabricated and inaccurate measures in all of sports. It remains totally unreliable today, and certainly back during Wilt's day. It's right there with times for the 40-yard dash, both for unreliability and lack of translation to actual play. It's a candy stat.

I have seem him block a jump shot about 13 feet away being in between the ball and the goal. You have definitely not seen Wilt if you think that is not amazing stuff, stuff players of today can't even do. .

False. I've seen high school kids pull shots out of the air (not many, but a few), and in a couple cases by people a good bit shorter than Wilt. It amazes me every time, yes, which is why I (and many others) consider basketball athletes the most rare in all of the sports. Finding guys who can do what they can do physically -- and at those heights -- is mind-numbing. I don't question Wilt was an athletic freak for his era, and even today he would be a "good" (just not great) athlete in the NBA. It's not the insult you interpret it to be.

He was an athletic freak. You've made no actual points, I've proved that Wilt was a great athlete, and superior to Shaq in running and jumping, and you make no points but to say he was not better because he played a long time ago. You're saying what you want to say, I'm providing facts to show you that Wilt was very far from primitive, and was in fact at least as good an athlete and force as Shaq.

All you've done is describe a great play made by Wilt. I can think of many for Shaq as well, so it seems pretty pointless to me to go back and forth along those lines. And then you have the vertical leap stat, which in my opinion is worthless.

And no, level of competition(and I even provided a bunch of ATG players that he played in the same time as) doesn't affect one's jumping ability or strength.

My mistake on this. I got sidetracked into the "better player" argument (an easier one to make in Shaq's favor), so you are correct here. Having said that, one can appear more athletic against inferior comp, but that's not the crux of my argument.

[McGrain]

Having said that, one can appear more athletic against inferior comp, but that's not the crux of my argument.

Do you really think that's true? Even for those who know a given sport?

[Asterion]

Under 1880's rules....Wlad beats Sullivan but ends up with a broken nose.

Under 1940's rules....Wlad KO1

Under 2000's rules.....Wlad KO1

[Lampley]

Do you really think that's true? Even for those who know a given sport?

Yes!!! Without a doubt. College coaches in both football and basketball -- trained professionals with many years of experience -- always prefer to evaluate players against the best competition possible.

"Small school syndrome" is very real, and coaches always are wary of the superstar who moves likes like Jim Brown/Michael Jordan against 1A competition.

You can tell that someone is athletic in any context, but relative athleticism -- what we're discussing here -- is much more complex. Certainly, part of what they're watching is skill (which obviously is affected directly by level of competition), but even pure athleticism also is colored by the competition.

[Amsterdam]

He didn't show me very much...your percieved difference between him and yourself is imagined. :D

Are you suggesting that *I* am Magnum? My knowledge is nowhere near that level!

Besides, everyone knows that Zakman/Amsterdam/China_hand_Joe are all the same person.:yep

[McGrain]

Yes!!! Without a doubt. College coaches in both football and basketball -- trained professionals with many years of experience -- always prefer to evaluate players against the best competition possible.

Of course, I wouldnt' dispute that is true for one moment. But that would surely be more to do with domination, defending the ball/your face from superior counter-attacking foes? But more athletic?

Certainly, part of what they're watching is skill (which obviously is affected directly by level of competition), but even pure athleticism also is colored by the competition.

It's a well desribed position, but I don't agree.

[McGrain]

Are you suggesting that *I* am Magnum?

Nope. Thought never crossed my mind...

My knowledge is nowhere near that level!


I beg to differ.

[Amsterdam]

Nope. Thought never crossed my mind...




I beg to differ.

Explanation.

[cross_trainer]

Certainly, part of what they're watching is skill (which obviously is affected directly by level of competition), but even pure athleticism also is colored by the competition.

Which cuts to the heart of the matter. You can believe Ali was great because he beat Frazier and Foreman, who were also great because Frazier beat Ali and Foreman beat Frazier. Or you can conclude that one of them was a bum and therefore all of the other ones were too.

Either way you're playing dominoes.

[McGrain]

Either way you're playing dominoes.


All the really insane posters play that game.

[McGrain]

Explanation.

I haven't read a lot of his posts. Perhaps you know him in private life or have read more of his stuff. But what I hae seen of him, i'd say you were better.

[Lampley]

Of course, I wouldnt' dispute that is true for one moment. But that would surely be more to do with domination, defending the ball/your face from superior counter-attacking foes? But more athletic?Sure. Certain elements of athleticism are more overt, while others are very subtle. Reaction time, agility and balance sometimes cannot be accurately observed unless the athlete in question is pushed, for lack of a better word.

In real world terms, two identical players can dominate competition based on an equally elite level of quickness and leaping ability. It isn't until better competition enters the picture that one separates himself from the other in terms of the other athletic components.

That's true whether you're talking basketball, soccer, boxing, whatever. Good athletes stand out against average comp, while only great athletes stand out against good comp.

Does that make more sense?

And by the way, I appreciate your civil tone of disagreement.

[cross_trainer]

All the really insane posters play that game.

Unfortunately, so do we--just to a much lesser degree. Since boxing is a subjective sport in which the only measurement of success is against other fighters, we have to start making our assumptions somewhere. It helps to bring in a variety of measurements (film performance, rating of opponents by objective sources, physical abilities and athleticism, perceived quality of era) but ultimately we're just playing a sophisticated domino game.

[Lampley]

Which cuts to the heart of the matter. You can believe Ali was great because he beat Frazier and Foreman, who were also great because Frazier beat Ali and Foreman beat Frazier. Or you can conclude that one of them was a bum and therefore all of the other ones were too.

Either way you're playing dominoes.

I'm not sure how that applies. Please explain. If it implies that you can't offer any meaningful assessment of athletlicism without empirical data, I disagree. But I may be misunderstanding you entirely.

[McGrain]

Sure. Certain elements of athleticism are more overt, while others are very subtle. Reaction time, agility and balance sometimes cannot be accurately observed unless the athlete in question is pushed, for lack of a better word.

Does that make more sense?

Yeah. Keeping to boxing, I would say that talent can be measured almost irrespective of opponenet. But how well those skill can be utilised under the type of pressure only a great opponent can bring is questionable until we see exactly that.

I'd say that it's the mental side of boxing that is autopsied at the sharp end, rather than the pyhsical.

And by the way, I appreciate your civil tone of disagreement.

Likewise.

[cross_trainer]

I'm not sure how that applies. Please explain. If it implies that you can't offer any meaningful assessment of athletlicism without empirical data, I disagree. But I may be misunderstanding you entirely.
What I mean is that in all of our arguments, we're not dealing with athletes who can be measured to objective standards. We have to make certain assumptions about fighters as a starting point.

Say you want to assess fighter X's era. To do so, you would have to decide just how good fighter X is to begin with--by looking at his films, his record, his talent pool size, his professionalism--and then judge his opponents accordingly. The reverse is also true, but ultimately we're judging fighters only in relation to other fighters, so we have to make rather arbitrary decisions about their quality before we can make any meaningful comparisons.

Take Joe Louis. Some would argue that his decade-long dominance over his division, perfect punching, massive power, and large talent pool he fought indicate he was a great fighter head-to-head. Others would focus on his flaws and conclude his amazing film performances were the result of bad opponents. From there, they would deduce that the era was weak, and Louis would not do well head to head.

Or take Foreman. Some would argue that beating Frazier (who beat Ali and was a dominant champion) and Norton (who beat Ali) make him a great fighter--and also confirms Ali's greatness by beating him...and therefore the era's greatness. Others would look at his crude lunging punches and decide that his era must have been pathetic, and grade accordingly.

Dominoes.

[McGrain]

Unfortunately, so do we--just to a much lesser degree.

The difference between assesing and insisting is the difference beween us and them. I hope.

[cross_trainer]

The difference between assesing and insisting is the difference beween us and them. I hope.

Quite.

[Lampley]

Sweet Pea, you won't be able to get them to realize their INABILITY to structure a proper argument.

Yes, you are giving evidence (that can be interpreted differently) to support your argument, while the others are just simply REFUTING your evidence, but NOT offering any of theri own.

Everything you say they simply say it is wrong but they have no evidence to support their own ideas.

What evidence? If evidence is invalid, why shouldn't it be refuted? There's simply no firm way to answer a question like this -- we're all merely applying our own observations. Evidence, in this case, is my opinion against yours.

This is a classic tactic amongst people who are arguing over a subject they have little knowledge of.

What I like is how Lampley states, vertical jump and 40 yrd times are candy stats which don't reveal athleticism.

They are candy stats, because fans vastly overvalue them.

Really? I mean I do realize they are not the end all be all of whether a person can play or not. Take Jerry Rice, I ran the 40 as has fast Jerry did. He ran a 4.7 40 at the combine. But people like Walsh understood that Jerry was an elusive runner, and a someone who played faster than his time.

But Walsh like every other NFL coach recognizes that those skills and athletic measurements gives you a sense of a person's overall talent. And then they also look at film of a player in REAL GAMES, because that is what counts.

But Lampley you are saying that those measurements are completely USELESS, and that all these teams and sports using them are wrong.

You appear to agree and disagree with me at the same time. NFL scouts have made a science out of the combines, and if 40 times are included in the mix, they obviously have some value to the people who evaluate NFL hopefuls for a living.

My response to Sweet Pea -- and you disagree with him, whether you mean to or not -- is that he offered 40-inch vertical as a standalone measure of athleticism. He wanted me to concede that Wilt was the superior leaper to Shaq because of that unverified (keeping in mind that many 40 times and verticals are not undertaken at a venue such as the NFL combines) number. It's silly.

Even if Wilt hypothetically did achieve a greater height than Shaq on a vertical, that does not mean he is a better functional leaper vis-a-vis his peformances in games. Leaping ability is related to balance (some guys go off one leg, many off of two) and muscle explosion (some have to gather, some don't), and in my mind the best leapers are those who repeat these tremendous athletic feats against real competition.

Combine athletes are a dime a dozen, but those isolated drills simply don't do justice to the complex world of real, full athleticism.

I think it is clear that no matter what Sweet Pea says those that disagree will simply REFUTE it but offer nothing of their own on why they are right.

They will use his THOUGHTS on the subject but have none of their own.

This makes no sense at all.

[Lampley]

Lampley it seems like you are making the argument that no one can discern who was the better athlete between Shaq and Wilt more than anything.

To me that is using the tactic that something cannot be proved without a doubt therefore you can't claim it.

Lets not try and prove it without a doubt lets just say who appears to be the better athlete based on the evidence we have.

We cannot know for sure, this is true. But I believe a fair-minded person watching these guys for the first time and studying actual game play will conclude, more often than not, that Shaq was the clearly superior athlete, and especially given the way he carried his considerable mass.

That's obviously just my opinion.

[Amsterdam]

I haven't read a lot of his posts. Perhaps you know him in private life or have read more of his stuff. But what I hae seen of him, i'd say you were better.

I know him off the forum, he's the most knowledgable boxing enthusiast that I have ever met, bar none.

[McGrain]

I know him off the forum, he's the most knowledgable boxing enthusiast that I have ever met, bar none.


Sure. I assumed as much based on the way you enthuse about him. Of course I can only judge him on the little bits and bobs i've read on site.

[Lampley]

Yeah. Keeping to boxing, I would say that talent can be measured almost irrespective of opponenet. But how well those skill can be utilised under the type of pressure only a great opponent can bring is questionable until we see exactly that.

I'd say that it's the mental side of boxing that is autopsied at the sharp end, rather than the pyhsical.

Fair enough.

Let me posit my argument another way. Watching Roy Jones vs. Bernard Hopkins, one might mistakenly conclude that Hopkins was something other than world-class athlete.

The 20-something Hopkins was tremendously fluid (he actually could bend both knees inward and look slithery doing so, not something you see from many athletes) and quick, yet he looked inferior athletically to Jones.

Of course, he *was* athletically inferior to Jones, but even the trained eye of Gil Clancy failed to given Hopkins any credit at all for his athletic ability in that fight.

That's a case of over-competition potentially skewing someone's perspective, but again, athleticism most definitely is viewed in relative terms. I don't think the human brain is quite sharp enough to calibrate as well as it might.

[McGrain]

Fair enough.

Let me posit my argument another way. Watching Roy Jones vs. Bernard Hopkins, one might mistakenly conclude that Hopkins was something other than world-class athlete.

The 20-something Hopkins was tremendously fluid (he actually could bend both knees inward and look slithery doing so, not something you see from many athletes) and quick, yet he looked inferior athletically to Jones.

Of course, he *was* athletically inferior to Jones, but even the trained eye of Gil Clancy failed to given Hopkins any credit at all for his athletic ability in that fight.

That's a case of over-competition potentially skewing someone's perspective, but again, athleticism most definitely is viewed in relative terms. I don't think the human brain is quite sharp enough to calibrate as well as it might.

That's a really good post. It wouldn't be my conclusion, but very well put.

[Lampley]

What I mean is that in all of our arguments, we're not dealing with athletes who can be measured to objective standards. We have to make certain assumptions about fighters as a starting point.

Say you want to assess fighter X's era. To do so, you would have to decide just how good fighter X is to begin with--by looking at his films, his record, his talent pool size, his professionalism--and then judge his opponents accordingly. The reverse is also true, but ultimately we're judging fighters only in relation to other fighters, so we have to make rather arbitrary decisions about their quality before we can make any meaningful comparisons.

Take Joe Louis. Some would argue that his decade-long dominance over his division, perfect punching, massive power, and large talent pool he fought indicate he was a great fighter head-to-head. Others would focus on his flaws and conclude his amazing film performances were the result of bad opponents. From there, they would deduce that the era was weak, and Louis would not do well head to head.

Or take Foreman. Some would argue that beating Frazier (who beat Ali and was a dominant champion) and Norton (who beat Ali) make him a great fighter--and also confirms Ali's greatness by beating him...and therefore the era's greatness. Others would look at his crude lunging punches and decide that his era must have been pathetic, and grade accordingly.

Dominoes.

I understand, but again, I don't see how this contradicts my posts. I'll have to go back and look again. There's certainly no way to *prove* that either guy was more athletic than the other.

Having said that, basketball competition certainly would figure to have improved since Wilt's heydey, if for no other reason than integration. Given that racial balance in the NBA wasn't achieved until relatively recently -- and presumably these are the best players in the game -- then the obvious conclusion would have to be that 1) Black athletes have improved relative to their white counterparts or 2) Black athletes lacked the same opportunities.

Perhaps both 1) and 2) are true, but I think No. 2 is so clear, you have to factor it into any dicussion of era comparison. I can't imagine a reasoned counterargument to this.

[cross_trainer]

I understand, but again, I don't see how this contradicts my posts. I'll have to go back and look again. There's certainly no way to *prove* that either guy was more athletic than the other.

It doesn't contradict your posts. I'm simply saying prophesying that it will be the general direction of the conversation--we will both have our own subjective judgments of "quality" and few hard facts to back it up. Therefore, it is possible that we won't get anywhere.


Having said that, basketball competition certainly would figure to have improved since Wilt's heydey, if for no other reason than integration. Given that racial balance in the NBA wasn't achieved until relatively recently -- and presumably these are the best players in the game -- then the obvious conclusion would have to be that 1) Black athletes have improved relative to their white counterparts or 2) Black athletes lacked the same opportunities.

Perhaps both 1) and 2) are true, but I think No. 2 is so clear, you have to factor it into any dicussion of era comparison. I can't imagine a reasoned counterargument to this.

I agree. But at the same time, we don't know the total number of players in the game (do we?). It may be that there were more whites playing basketball back then compared to today--a reasonable assumption, since people tend to go into sports they believe they can win--and thus the talent pools are equal in size even though black players were excluded.

[Lampley]

It doesn't contradict your posts. I'm simply saying prophesying that it will be the general direction of the conversation--we will both have our own subjective judgments of "quality" and few hard facts to back it up. Therefore, it is possible that we won't get anywhere.
OK, I got it now. Sorry for the confusion.



It may be that there were more whites playing basketball back then compared to today--a reasonable assumption, since people tend to go into sports they believe they can win--and thus the talent pools are equal in size even though black players were excluded.
I view this as extremely unlikely. For one thing, the athletic talent pool has grown along with general expansion of the population, in terms of raw numbers. Beyond that, basketball exposure is almost a given for any American youth.

Kids play it in P.E. classes, on playgrounds, in impoverished cities and in soccer mom suburbia. There are numerous middle school teams, and the sport's popularity makes it attractive for older and low-level athletes (unlike football), hence the existence of so many weekend warriors.

Perhaps there are studies out there indicating that white kids are leaving basketball earlier than they did previously, as black athletes begin to dominate at an early age. I'm not sure to what extent this is true, if at all, but it's certainly possible. But even if it is, they are not leaving for lack of exposure, but bowing out when they recognize that they can compete better elsewhere.

Given that black athletes dominate the game as much as they do -- because so much hinges on quickness and overall athleticism -- Wilt almost definitely benefited from a lack of widespread black opposition -- or at least as black as should have been, based on ability.

Bottom line: If you have a 40% drop in white participation and a 20% increase in black participation, the game as a whole still gains. That's because, at the highest levels, black athletes dominate the sport at more than a 2-to-1 ratio.

Back to boxing, the talent pool issue is a much better question. You still have overall population numbers expanding the talent pool, but the percentate of kids exposed to the sport seems to have dropped precipitously over the decades. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.

[Lampley]

I have provided evidence to prove that Wilt was a great athlete, and on par easily with the players of today, and you have provided nothign at all except to refute FACTS. You saud Wilt couldn't jump as high as Shaq, I have given you his vertical, which shits all over Shaq's, and you just decided it wasn't relevant.

It is not conclusive in any way. Even if taken accurately under controlled circumstances (in relation to others) raw vertical leap numbers don't tell you much. By the way, according to this link -- [Only registered and activated users can see links] -- Shaq had a 42-inch vertical in high school.

For the record, I don't buy that for a second and don't give a shit either way. It's almost completely meaningless.

According to this Wiki link -- Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler] -- Wilt thinks he could outjump Spud Webb (reportedly a 46-inch vertical).

And both Michael Jordan and Vince Carter jumped a couple inches worse than 44 Wilt, according to your number. See how silly that is?

So how do you judge how high someone jumps? If not by their verticcal? By how you high you want them to jump in order to win your argument?
You say Shaq is better jumper with no evidence though. From film, pics of him in the air, and records of his vertical and accomplishments in track and field, I can tell you that Wilt is morew accomplished and a better leaper and athlete than Shaq. You refute by saying "Nuh uh, you're just a fan of old-timers".

Vertical leap is candy. It does not measure functional leaping ability in actual competition. On top of that, numbers vary wildly for many players and cannot be trusted. At some point, you have to rely on your own eyes.

Which brings me to your next assertion. I say Shaq is a better jumper based on film, the same claim you make in favor of Wilt. The arguments are equally valid. Wilt's track and field exploits underscore what a talented, versatile athlete he was during his time, but they have nothing to do with a comparison to Shaq.

Are you saying somehow that Wilt didn't do this against real competiton like Russell, Thurmond, Unseld, Abdul-Jabbar, Hayes, etc? He showed it in games, as I've already talked about.

This threatens to devolve back into the Better Player argument, and we don't need to discuss that on a boxing board. My point about comp is that Wilt was made to look more athletic by some suspect competition at various stages of his career. But again, even today, he'd be considered a good NBA athlete. And with his size, skills and strength, I believe he'd still be an excellent overall player.

Just not the athlete (or player) Shaq was.

[cross_trainer]

Bottom line: If you have a 40% drop in white participation and a 20% increase in black participation, the game as a whole still gains. That's because, at the highest levels, black athletes dominate the sport at more than a 2-to-1 ratio.


Only if you assume that black players today and black players from the 70's are equivalently superior to white players...though the assumption that black players are better than white players wouldn't seem to have any scientific backing, unless you're talking cultural propensity to practice.

[Lampley]

Only if you assume that black players today and black players from the 70's are equivalently superior to white players...though the assumption that black players are better than white players wouldn't seem to have any scientific backing, unless you're talking cultural propensity to practice.
My assumption about black players of yore is not nearly as much of a reach as yours regarding white participation.

Given the composition of NBA (and major college) rosters, I think we have our proof that black players are superior. Unless 1) teams intentionally are fielding teams that are not their best (preposterous), or 2) they have made numerous, numerous scouting errors in favor of black players (extremely unlikely).

The percentage of black folks in the general pop versus the percentage of black players in the NBA tells you what you need to know.

You can go too far with demands for scientific backing. We may not have any scientific basis for asserting that Lennox Lewis is at this stage in life more content than Johnny Tapia, but we could produce some compelling evidence that this likely is the case.

[cross_trainer]

My assumption about black players of yore is not nearly as much of a reach as yours regarding white participation.

Given the composition of NBA (and major college) rosters, I think we have our proof that black players are superior. Unless 1) teams intentionally are fielding teams that are not their best (preposterous), or 2) they have made numerous, numerous scouting errors in favor of black players (extremely unlikely).

The percentage of black folks in the general pop versus the percentage of black players in the NBA tells you what you need to know.

You can go too far with demands for scientific backing. We may not have any scientific basis for asserting that Lennox Lewis is at this stage in life more content than Johnny Tapia, but we could produce some compelling evidence that this likely is the case.
On the contrary, decreased participation is a far more logical than an entire race being naturally inferior at basketball.

Scientific backing would be necessary to prove that black athletes are naturally superior to whites at basketball, yes. Bear in mind that a similar argument could have been made in boxing for (at various times) Jewish, Irish, and Italian ethnic groups. I doubt that these are all "naturally" superior in boxing, especially since their prevalence varied depending upon the time period and social circumstances.

Any assertion that one race or ethnic group is superior to others would require a large amount of backing to be considered valid. It's far more likely and logical (since similar instances have often happened in the past) that the discrepancy is the result of more black athletes entering basketball than white athletes.

[Lampley]

On the contrary, decreased participation is a far more logical than an entire race being naturally inferior at basketball.
How so? There are numerous differences that run along racial lines, skin pigment being a major one. Right? Why should athleticism necessarily be any different?

You have no evidence pointing to decreased participation among whites -- and certainly not to the tune of a 75% black population in the NBA, given the black % of the general population.

I find it amusing how many people struggle to accept the superiority of the American black athlete.

Scientific backing would be necessary to prove that black athletes are naturally superior to whites at basketball, yes.
To prove it scientifically, sure. But how are we going to do that? Look at my Lewis/Tapia example to see what I mean. I'm arguing reality, not scientific process. Again, I can't prove Lewis/Tapia, but I sure as shit can argue its likelihood. And the superiority of black athletes is easier, because we have rosters and performance played out before us.

Bear in mind that a similar argument could have been made in boxing for (at various times) Jewish, Irish, and Italian ethnic groups. I doubt that these are all "naturally" superior in boxing, especially since their prevalence varied depending upon the time period and social circumstances.
But boxing's participation rates never have been as uniform as American basketball participation rates are now. It's nearly a universal sport that is exposed to nearly every kid, yet a certain racial segment dominates. Why, if not for greater aptitude?

Any assertion that one race or ethnic group is superior to others would require a large amount of backing to be considered valid.
There's no real way to actually prove this, so the absence of scientific evidence doesn't apply. There are documented differences between skeletal and muscle properties among blacks and whites -- accentuated due to selected breeding during slavery -- but I agree that would not in and of itself constitute proof. But again, you can't attack an unprovable argument by citing its lack of proof. Makes no sense.

It's far more likely and logical (since similar instances have often happened in the past) that the discrepancy is the result of more black athletes entering basketball than white athletes.
False. And I would love to hear your examples.

Further, allow me to paint with a broader brush. In *any* sport that relies primarily on explosive athleticism, black athletes will hold the natural advantage. Football bears this out as well. Baseball does not to the same extent, and I'd argue that it's much more reliant on hand/eye coordination, which appears to be roughly equal among races. (Having said that, MLB becomes less white all the time because of latinos and other imports.)

Access is key. Tennis is not dominated by black athletes because few ever play. Soccer is the same in America, because by and large it is a suburban sport. Internationally, black athletes have become much more prominent.

I haven't found a truly satisfying link backing me up yet, but this is a start:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[cross_trainer]

How so? There are numerous differences that run along racial lines, skin pigment being a major one. Right? Why should athleticism necessarily be any different?
It needn't. But you're looking at it in a superficial way--like someone claiming whites are naturally smarter because more of them succeed in higher education. Social factors have more to do with it than race.



You have no evidence pointing to decreased participation among whites -- and certainly not to the tune of a 75% black population in the NBA, given the black % of the general population.
The percentages of Irish, Jewish, and Italian boxers were similar, if not greater. Moreover, the Irish also dominated the major track and field events.


I find it amusing how many people struggle to accept the superiority of the American black athlete.
Or the Irish athlete. Or the Jewish athlete. Or the Italian athlete. Or the Norwegian weightlifting athlete. Or the Eastern European athlete. (Wow, look at how many Eastern Europeans are winning the Olympics and in combat sports! They must be racially superior too...)


To prove it scientifically, sure. But how are we going to do that? Look at my Lewis/Tapia example to see what I mean. I'm arguing reality, not scientific process.
Muscle fiber percentages would be a decent start, but only a start. Also, define "black". Most "black" athletes have a reasonably high percentage of "white" blood in them...enough that in Africa many consider them white.




But boxing's participation rates never have been as uniform as American basketball participation rates are now. It's nearly a universal sport that is exposed to nearly every kid, yet a certain racial segment dominates. Why, if not for greater aptitude?
Greater willingness to make basketball a career is an obvious one.


There's no real way to actually prove this, so the absence of scientific evidence doesn't apply.
If there's no way to prove it, then it is not valid to make generalizations about it.

I doubt that it's unprovable, though. The sports science field is getting ever more experienced in learning exactly why the human body is able to perform at a high level.


There are documented differences between skeletal and muscle properties among blacks and whites -- accentuated due to selected breeding during slavery -- but I agree that would not in and of itself constitute proof. But again, you can't attack an unprovable argument by citing its lack of proof. Makes no sense.
Slavery-as-selective-breeding is tenuous, and the "test period" is not long-term enough to make a great difference anyway. 100-150 years? Most "racial" differences took a lot longer than that to form...and that's assuming that every slave owner was a brilliant eugenicist--which they weren't--and that they were all doing it in the first place.


False. And I would love to hear your examples.

Further, allow me to paint with a broader brush. In *any* sport that relies primarily on explosive athleticism, black athletes will hold the natural advantage. Football bears this out as well. Baseball does not to the same extent, and I'd argue that it's much more reliant on hand/eye coordination, which appears to be roughly equal among races. (Having said that, MLB becomes less white all the time because of latinos and other imports.)
"Latinos and other imports" as you put it are not black. They are a relatively poorer minority with a cultural affinity for the sports they do well in. Like the Irish, the Jewish, the Italians of yesteryear. Like African American athletes for much of their existence. Like the Eastern Europeans in comparison to most of the Western world. Middle Easterners in European sports are yet another example. In another fifty years I'm sure people will be saying that Indian and Indonesian athletes are racially superior. :patsch


Access is key. Tennis is not dominated by black athletes because few ever play. Soccer is the same in America, because by and large it is a suburban sport. Internationally, black athletes have become much more prominent.

I haven't found a truly satisfying link backing me up yet, but this is a start:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
And only a start. Legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals, preferably in sports science, would be vastly preferable. Books like the one you mentioned, "The Mismeasure of Man", and "The Bell Curve" all show the limits when we try to use one or two "genetic" factors to explain away complex trends in human performance...which is why they are so controversial.

[Lampley]

It needn't. But you're looking at it in a superficial way--like someone claiming whites are naturally smarter because more of them succeed in higher education. Social factors have more to do with it than race.

That's bunk. Intelligence is a far trickier construct to pin down than inherent quickness. The two issues are not even kissing cousins. You keep repeating that black dominance is due to social factors, yet you don't offer any rebuttal to basketball's tremendous popularity and inclusive nature. The rich kids play it, the poor kids play it, and so do all the blacks and whites. It's there for everyone, yet a particular subset dominates.

I'm looking at it superficially because it cuts across very clear, superficial lines. If there's a deeper reason for that, I haven't seen it. Lots of science folks (and I certainly appreciate science) argue that race is not a satisfactory explanation, then toss out the generic "social factors" -- just as you have -- as a (non) basis for the discrepancy.

And this isn't just about basketball. Take the speed positions in football: running back, wide receiver, and cornerback. Guess who fills the overwhelming majority of these spots in the NFL.



The percentages of Irish, Jewish, and Italian boxers were similar, if not greater. Moreover, the Irish also dominated the major track and field events.

I won't argue with you here about the prowess of those athletes during those timeframes, but I feel this parallel is dubious. You need to show that the participation rates are universal as they are for basketball. Additionally, we now have two sports dominated by blacks -- not to mention the sprinting track and field events -- included in the mix.

Remember, I'm asserting that *all* sports and positions within sports that rely primarily on explosive athleticism are subject to American black domination, given the interest and access.


Or the Irish athlete. Or the Jewish athlete. Or the Italian athlete. Or the Norwegian weightlifting athlete. Or the Eastern European athlete. (Wow, look at how many Eastern Europeans are winning the Olympics and in combat sports! They must be racially superior too...)

Don't forget curling for whoever wins curling. Not at all related to my argument for reasons I'm sure you can understand, once again based largely on participation rates.


Muscle fiber percentages would be a decent start, but only a start. Also, define "black". Most "black" athletes have a reasonably high percentage of "white" blood in them...enough that in Africa many consider them white.

I would say that's better than a "decent" start, once they get that narrowed down, given the relationship between muscles and explosive athletic performance. (Common sense, right?)

American black = all parents and grandparents are/were black? So let's just toss out Jason Kidd, Tiger Woods, various others. It won't make much difference on the whole.




Greater willingness to make basketball a career is an obvious one.

Ha! That is rich. In order to explain away the vast percentage differences, you have to find a whole, whole lot of potential white NBA players and wide receivers who simply opted out of the sport, despite their prodigious talent. You don't actually believe this, do you?


If there's no way to prove it, then it is not valid to make generalizations about it.

I doubt that it's unprovable, though. The sports science field is getting ever more experienced in learning exactly why the human body is able to perform at a high level.

Of course it's valid to generalize. We all generalize, all the time, about any number of things. I can't prove that my girlfriend responds favorably to a night of drinking and dancing because drinking and dancing per se, but you can god damn bet I've benefited from that generalization. In the context of casual, non-scientific (as I've made clear) conversation -- as our argument is -- it's entirely valid.


Slavery-as-selective-breeding is tenuous, and the "test period" is not long-term enough to make a great difference anyway. 100-150 years? Most "racial" differences took a lot longer than that to form...and that's assuming that every slave owner was a brilliant eugenicist--which they weren't--and that they were all doing it in the first place.

Tenuous, sure, but not out of the question. This obviously has nothing to do with evolution, and deals with blue eyes + blue eyes = blue eyes. I have misgivings about this as well, though, but I mentioned it because it pops up in these discussions from time to time by people who have researched that area heavily.




"Latinos and other imports" as you put it are not black. They are a relatively poorer minority with a cultural affinity for the sports they do well in. Like the Irish, the Jewish, the Italians of yesteryear. Like African American athletes for much of their existence. Like the Eastern Europeans in comparison to most of the Western world. Middle Easterners in European sports are yet another example. In another fifty years I'm sure people will be saying that Indian and Indonesian athletes are racially superior. :patsch

Come on, Crosstrainer. Don't be obtuse. I didn't refer to Latinos that way to be derogatory, and yes I realize they are not black. I was merely completing a thought on baseball that is not directly related to our argument, which is why I offset it in parentheses.

Again, if basketball participation does not skew toward black folks at a much greater rate than it does for whites, your paragraph above -- and in particular, the bit about "cultural affinity for the sports they do well" -- is shot to shit.

If everyone plays but one minority is way, way better at that sport and other sports -- and positions within sports -- that prioritize the same attributes (explosive athleticism) than the majority, you need a much better explanation than the one based on cultural dynamic.


And only a start. Legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals, preferably in sports science, would be vastly preferable. Books like the one you mentioned, "The Mismeasure of Man", and "The Bell Curve" all show the limits when we try to use one or two "genetic" factors to explain away complex trends in human performance...which is why they are so controversial.

Fair enough here. I'm going to bed now and am not sure how much time I'll be able to post for the rest of the week, but I've enjoyed this thread a great deal. Thanks for participating. I certainly do respect your opinion.

[Mob]

This might be one of the stupidest threads I have ever seen.

If a guy the size of Wlad, with the athleticism and skills and speed and power existed back in the days of 'ole John L Sully........he would have been undefeated in 400 fights with 400 KOs.

Good GOD people.:patsch

[Bad_Intentions]

wlad klitschko KO 2nd Round.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[MSTR]

wlad klitschko KO 2nd Round.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
What is Wlad doing for the first round then?

[Bad_Intentions]

What is Wlad doing for the first round then?toy around with sullivan. :good

[cross_trainer]

That's bunk. Intelligence is a far trickier construct to pin down than inherent quickness. The two issues are not even kissing cousins. You keep repeating that black dominance is due to social factors, yet you don't offer any rebuttal to basketball's tremendous popularity and inclusive nature. The rich kids play it, the poor kids play it, and so do all the blacks and whites. It's there for everyone, yet a particular subset dominates.

I'm looking at it superficially because it cuts across very clear, superficial lines. If there's a deeper reason for that, I haven't seen it. Lots of science folks (and I certainly appreciate science) argue that race is not a satisfactory explanation, then toss out the generic "social factors" -- just as you have -- as a (non) basis for the discrepancy.
They point to social factors because (like all good scientists) they realize that the "social sciences" lack the ability to put sufficient controls on the data. They also recognize the striking success of many minority groups in sports--it's unlikely that they're all racially superior.


And this isn't just about basketball. Take the speed positions in football: running back, wide receiver, and cornerback. Guess who fills the overwhelming majority of these spots in the NFL.



I won't argue with you here about the prowess of those athletes during those timeframes, but I feel this parallel is dubious. You need to show that the participation rates are universal as they are for basketball. Additionally, we now have two sports dominated by blacks -- not to mention the sprinting track and field events -- included in the mix.
The Irish are a perfect example.

Participation rates in England, the United States, and Ireland were very high during the period in question--most universities included them in their curriculum, so the "amateurs" in every country had a chance. Add to that the much greater number of total Anglo-Saxon students, and their passion for amateur sports during the late 19th and early 20th century as proof of the superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race".

Moreover, Ireland's dominance in boxing and track-and-field cut across national lines. American Irish were just as likely to succeed as Irish born in Ireland. With a population a fraction the size of England and the United States' total "Anglo-Saxons", world records were held in the long jump, high jump, hammer throw, shot put, and three boxing world championships in a row were held by the Irish. They also had a disproportionate number of world title challengers and champions during the period of English supremacy in the bareknuckle days. They were so dominant in track and field (the only measurable sport with widespread popularity) that the English--like you are doing for black athletes--attributed it to racial characteristics. Longer legs, or something like that.

As the Irish became absorbed into the mainstream, there was less need for them to express themselves athletically as opposed to academically. Just as importantly, their culture shifted in its emphasis on athletic performance in T&F and boxing events.




Now, let's say for a moment that the Irish WERE genetically superior. If this is the case, it still throws a wrench in the idea that "white" athletes are inferior to "black"--it highlights that there are huge variations between individuals in the white and black community. Drawing general rules for "white" athletes is silly, since the term encompasses very different groups of people. With "black", you're getting everything from 7'0" Watusi (who would probably have an advantage in basketball) to pygmy tribes...and those are just two examples of diverse genetic heritage in Africa.



Remember, I'm asserting that *all* sports and positions within sports that rely primarily on explosive athleticism are subject to American black domination, given the interest and access.



Don't forget curling for whoever wins curling. Not at all related to my argument for reasons I'm sure you can understand, once again based largely on participation rates.

You're comparing curling to the Olympic games AND combat sports as a whole? Come on--that's asinine.


I would say that's better than a "decent" start, once they get that narrowed down, given the relationship between muscles and explosive athletic performance. (Common sense, right?)
Except that sports performance, like intelligence (which, incidentally, it includes), IS more complex than you're making it out to be.


American black = all parents and grandparents are/were black? So let's just toss out Jason Kidd, Tiger Woods, various others. It won't make much difference on the whole.
You'd have to go back further than two generations. There was significant racial genetic cross-over during the slavery era.





Ha! That is rich. In order to explain away the vast percentage differences, you have to find a whole, whole lot of potential white NBA players and wide receivers who simply opted out of the sport, despite their prodigious talent. You don't actually believe this, do you?
I would have thought it's obvious. White workers occupy the higher levels of businesses, academia, and many other fields disproportionately compared to black workers precisely because they don't take up careers elsewhere. The reasons are varied--and often sheer racism is cited as one--but the fact is that they're not going to pursue a career in athletics when they have much more likely prospects in business.




Of course it's valid to generalize. We all generalize, all the time, about any number of things. I can't prove that my girlfriend responds favorably to a night of drinking and dancing because drinking and dancing per se, but you can god damn bet I've benefited from that generalization. In the context of casual, non-scientific (as I've made clear) conversation -- as our argument is -- it's entirely valid.
Just saying it's a non-scientific argument doesn't make it so. Again, you need to provide scientific backing for what is (assertions to the contrary aside) a claim that requires scientific validation. Your girlfriend is one person--you're talking about the genetic inheritance of two billion people on the basis of football/basketball performance.



Tenuous, sure, but not out of the question. This obviously has nothing to do with evolution, and deals with blue eyes + blue eyes = blue eyes. I have misgivings about this as well, though, but I mentioned it because it pops up in these discussions from time to time by people who have researched that area heavily.
Since we both agree that it is tenuous, let's leave it aside for the time being. I doubt that the "gentlemen (ha!) of the South" had enough consistency or aptitude to produce this sort of breeding program.


Come on, Crosstrainer. Don't be obtuse. I didn't refer to Latinos that way to be derogatory, and yes I realize they are not black. I was merely completing a thought on baseball that is not directly related to our argument, which is why I offset it in parentheses.

Again, if basketball participation does not skew toward black folks at a much greater rate than it does for whites, your paragraph above -- and in particular, the bit about "cultural affinity for the sports they do well" -- is shot to shit.
But ironically, your Latino example DOES prove my point. Are we to conclude they have a racial affinity for baseball and (due to World Cup results) soccer/futbol? How about boxing, where they consistently dominate the lower weights, and increasingly the higher ones as the average diet improves? Both of these are widely played--with soccer being the #1 sport in the world.

Arguing that on the basis of a single sport (or even two sports) is absurd in such a wide-ranging discussion as this one. I could equally refer to weightlifting/powerlifting/strongman--weight training is far more widespread than basketball throughout the world, and the top performers have generally been white. Are we to conclude that weightlifting--which requires much of the same fiber balance as speed positions--is a racial talent for "white" people? Heck, the decathlon (considered the best test of overall athleticism at the moment) is disproportionately controlled by Eastern European white athletes.

In fact, I can make a similar argument about "white" athletes being stronger--every single strength sport (from wrestling to every type of weightlifting) is disproportionately weighted toward white athletes. Given the extensive participation in weight training and weight lifting around the world, they MUST have a natural aptitude. (they don't)

Exposure does not equal willingness to compete, or an equal work ethic, which is the moral here.




Fair enough here. I'm going to bed now and am not sure how much time I'll be able to post for the rest of the week, but I've enjoyed this thread a great deal. Thanks for participating. I certainly do respect your opinion.
Thank you, and my apologies for getting a bit irritated. This is a subject that I had hoped was buried in the 1930's and 40's.

[cross_trainer]

The fact that he used the Bell Curve......tells me a lot about him and his ability to critically think.

He used another source. My point is that it's similar in approach to the other two.