Is Boxing the only sport....

[crippet]

Where many fans claim that the ability of fighters has not improved for 70 years plus. Where old time fighters from the black and white era are often regarded as more skillful as current fighters.
Does this then mean that boxers and trainers are the dumbest athletes as they can't learn and improve upon a hundred years of documented history.

Or are the folk championing the Black and white era more likely to claim that Jesse Jackson or Carl Lewis would whup Ussain Bolt IF they did not have the physical, undeniable proof of timer records.

Is boxing like religion where people cherry pick selective moments to support their argument and disregard everything that doesn't suit them?

Food for Thought

[GPater11093]

Usain Bolt is faster than Carl Lewis

On film i can see Ray Robinson is better than Kelly Pavlik

[janitor]

Where many fans claim that the ability of fighters has not improved for 70 years plus. Where old time fighters from the black and white era are often regarded as more skillful as current fighters.
Does this then mean that boxers and trainers are the dumbest athletes as they can't learn and improve upon a hundred years of documented history.

Or are the folk championing the Black and white era more likely to claim that Jesse Jackson or Carl Lewis would whup Ussain Bolt IF they did not have the physical, undeniable proof of timer records.

Is boxing like religion where people cherry pick selective moments to support their argument and disregard everything that doesn't suit them?

Food for Thought

I think that it comes down to the fact that boxing is simply not a sport that is decided on pure athletic ability.

While some great fighters of the past have been great athletes many have only been average athletes.

Wladamir Klitschko would not have a chance against Jim Jeffries in 100 meter sprint and Michael Grant is a much better all round athlete than Muhamad Ali.

Boxing is 50% technique, 40% god given and 10% pure athleticism. A punch on the chin is always going to be a punch on the chin.

[Flea Man]

I think technique took a serious upturn from Louis onwards, no doubt spurned on and influenced by the likes of Leonard, Tunney, Dempsey, Langford, greb etc etc etc

[Bill1234]

It truly hasn't improved much since the late 1930's, early 1940's technique wise. Or in anything much for that matter. There is a reason the heavyweights of today are considered garbage and the worst the division has ever been.

[janitor]

Usain Bolt is faster than Carl Lewis


Usain Bolt is just a physical freak. This might just be the era of track and field when Ray Robinson happened to come allong.

Even so it must be noted that a lot of the advances in track records are atributable to improvments in equipment. Jesse Owens ran in spiked running shoes on a cinder track and dug his own starting blocks.

I currently work for Hugh Brasher who is the son of Chris Brasher who won the gold medal in the 300 meter steeplechase at the 1956 olympics. He also paced Roger Banister for the first four minute mile. Chris Brasher went into the event as a masive underdog. There were three British competitors taking part and he was seen as the third best. The radio comentry pointed out that he was visibly out of shape.

Chris Brasher made his own running shoes out of kangaroo skin using titanium to make the spikes. They were only a couple of ounces heavier than Michael Johnsons golden shoes that weighed less than the golden chain around his neck. The original shoes were lost but Hugh was kind enough to show me an identicle pair that Chris Brasher used for training and trust me they are incredibly light.

Chris Brasher was not only an athlete but an inovator of running gear and his win in the 1956 olympics might be a triumph of equipment and tactics over pure athleticism.

[djanders]

Where many fans claim that the ability of fighters has not improved for 70 years plus. Where old time fighters from the black and white era are often regarded as more skillful as current fighters.
Does this then mean that boxers and trainers are the dumbest athletes as they can't learn and improve upon a hundred years of documented history.

Or are the folk championing the Black and white era more likely to claim that Jesse Jackson or Carl Lewis would whup Ussain Bolt IF they did not have the physical, undeniable proof of timer records.

Is boxing like religion where people cherry pick selective moments to support their argument and disregard everything that doesn't suit them?

Food for Thought

I say that, not only haven't boxers improved in 70 plus years, but, in general, runners haven't either. Timers and records do not impress me to think differently.

I say, if you could take the same record setting runner and somehow keep him in his prime for 70 plus years, he would keep breaking his own records. And, if modern people didn't know he was the same runner, they would swear that he was greater than his prime self from 70 plus years earlier...when, in reality, he would be the same man, in the same prime of life, running on the same two legs he had before.

[TBooze]

Lets see Lil Floyd fight at least thirty times in one year; defending and winning four generally accepted World Championships (of the classic eight; and not mere titles), and if Lil comes out 30-0 (29), then I would concede boxing has improved over the last 70 years....

But the reality is, boxing lacks the structures at the moment to improve on a Robinson or Armstrong, who did better in one year, than 99.999% of world class fighters do today in an entire career.

[McGrain]

Yes, it is. It is the only sport where fans claim that. Boxing is that special. It's that different.

Janitor makes some sound points, and his break down of boxing's percentages of importance is fine - if we're talking about what comprises the 50% of boxing that isn't about heart and balls.

[Jaws]

Boxing is definitely one of the most "pure" sports. There isn't much involved besides two human bodies.

So as long as humans are humans, things aren't going to change much.

[Stonehands89]

Boxing is a character sport first.
And a skills sport second. Skills seasoned by experience of course.
After that you have athleticism.... and luck.

[Bad_Intentions]

I think that it comes down to the fact that boxing is simply not a sport that is decided on pure athletic ability.

While some great fighters of the past have been great athletes many have only been average athletes.

Wladamir Klitschko would not have a chance against Jim Jeffries in 100 meter sprint and Michael Grant is a much better all round athlete than Muhamad Ali.

Boxing is 50% technique, 40% god given and 10% pure athleticism. A punch on the chin is always going to be a punch on the chin.


Good post janitor :good.

[sugarsean]

I personanly think that the 80's and 70's were the best in boxing history with fighters like Leonard, Hagler, Duran, Hearns, Pryor, Sanchez, Arguello, Holyfield,Tyson, Monzon Ali, Fraizer, Foreman, Holme's, to name but a few.

I also think the 50's was a great era with the likes of Robinson, LaMotta, Charles, Walcott, Gavilan and many more.

[Sweet Pea]

Boxing is a character sport first.
And a skills sport second. Skills seasoned by experience of course.
After that you have athleticism.... and luck.On point as always.:good

Not that it'll matter to the thread starter, who'll likely miss the significance of your post.

[Seamus]

There is a reason the heavyweights of today are considered garbage and the worst the division has ever been.

This is often said, even during stellar eras. It is, as always, a load of shit.

As long as huge sums of money are being offered, there will be great fighters going for it. The problem is that current match-making is not allowing us to see the greatness in many of these fighters. Also, it does not help that two brothers are controlling the division and that they absolutely refuse to fight one another.

[Bill1234]

This is often said, even during stellar eras. It is, as always, a load of shit.

As long as huge sums of money are being offered, there will be great fighters going for it. The problem is that current match-making is not allowing us to see the greatness in many of these fighters. Also, it does not help that two brothers are controlling the division and that they absolutely refuse to fight one another.

You going to tell me that this is a good era? Other eras at least captured the public's attention with great fights and the fighters could go 12 rounds without hugging. I have yet to see a heavyweight of the current crop do that.

[Seamus]

You going to tell me that this is a good era? Other eras at least captured the public's attention with great fights and the fighters could go 12 rounds without hugging. I have yet to see a heavyweight of the current crop do that.

Which public? The American public? No, because America has horrible heavyweights at this time. The German, East Europe and at times the British public? Different story.

By the way, watch most Ali fights from the 70's and count the hugging, grabbing of the neck, grabbing of the rope, general stalling tactics and honestly tell me that shit- minus nostalgia- was engaging boxing.

[Bill1234]

Which public? The American public? No, because America has horrible heavyweights at this time. The German, East Europe and at times the British public? Different story.

By the way, watch most Ali fights from the 70's and count the hugging, grabbing of the neck, grabbing of the rope, general stalling tactics and honestly tell me that shit- minus nostalgia- was engaging boxing.

Ali was a known hugger in the 70's, but he would also throw punches too. The Vitali Klitschko-Juan Carlos Gomez fight was just horrible.

[Stonehands89]

On point as always.:good

Not that it'll matter to the thread starter, who'll likely miss the significance of your post.
Your thinking highly of it is more than enough, my friend.

[Boilermaker]

Yes, it is. It is the only sport where fans claim that. Boxing is that special. It's that different.

.

Wrong.

Billiards is a game where skills can be measured objectionably. Just like running, Swimming etc. Why is it that Walter Lindrum from the 1920s (Dempseys era) has records which modern athletes cannot match?

The answer is simple. It is because unlike the usual sports, like running etc. boxing is the only sport where training (and even no of fights) was taken more seriously. Nowadays, fighters rarely fight, nearly always have hand picked opponents and dont train as hard and as often as the older fighters. What chance do we have of getting a talented freak. Occassionally a Tyson, Jones Jr etc will pop their head, but very rarely. How much better would say a David Tua be today, if when he started his career, he fought every single month, trained every single day without periods off that made his weight balloon. Isnt there a chance that he might have actually kept his weight down, learned an awful lot more and generally became a much better fighter than what he is now. Particularly if there was only one champion, and he could actually fight the best fighters instead of taking the easy road. Like any sport, boxers will only improve when they regularly box the very best fighters.

[Jaws]

On point as always.:good

Not that it'll matter to the thread starter, who'll likely miss the significance of your post.

Why do you dog on the original poster?

[Jaws]

This is often said, even during stellar eras. It is, as always, a load of shit.

As long as huge sums of money are being offered, there will be great fighters going for it. The problem is that current match-making is not allowing us to see the greatness in many of these fighters. Also, it does not help that two brothers are controlling the division and that they absolutely refuse to fight one another.

Normally I would agree with you. But right now truly is a weak era....in the heavyweight division anyway. Even if the Klits were to fight, it wouldn't suddenly make the heavyweight division exciting again. The heavyweight fights have been horrible across the board. Valuev? A title holder? Seriously? It's a joke. The man can't even BOX in the true sense of the word. Wlad's fight against Ibragimov was embarrassing. I mean, just look at how old these top contenders are. The proof is right there. There is no way these geezers would be competitive in a different decade. Guys used to have to be in their prime to compete at the top. I do think Wlad and a couple others are talented, but other than that it's a barren wasteland.

[Sweet Pea]

Why do you dog on the original poster?Because he's trying to convince us of the same old bullshit we've heard a hundred times over in the General Forum by simpletons with no understanding of the sport. And no, he wasn't just asking a question.

[young griffo]

Where many fans claim that the ability of fighters has not improved for 70 years plus. Where old time fighters from the black and white era are often regarded as more skillful as current fighters.
Does this then mean that boxers and trainers are the dumbest athletes as they can't learn and improve upon a hundred years of documented history.

Or are the folk championing the Black and white era more likely to claim that Jesse Jackson or Carl Lewis would whup Ussain Bolt IF they did not have the physical, undeniable proof of timer records.

Is boxing like religion where people cherry pick selective moments to support their argument and disregard everything that doesn't suit them?

Food for Thought
Ussain Bolt probably would whup Jesse Jackson over 100 metres and he'd likely leave Dr King and Malcolm X in his wake as well.:thumbsup

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

I say that, not only haven't boxers improved in 70 plus years, but, in general, runners haven't either. Timers and records do not impress me to think differently.

I say, if you could take the same record setting runner and somehow keep him in his prime for 70 plus years, he would keep breaking his own records. And, if modern people didn't know he was the same runner, they would swear that he was greater than his prime self from 70 plus years earlier...when, in reality, he would be the same man, in the same prime of life, running on the same two legs he had before.

Agree with you that an old time runner would improve if you bought them into today's better training methods, better diet etc environment. The killer though is that people just keep getting bigger every generation and that's one of the main reasons why times, heights and distances achieved keep improving.

In boxing the major advantage the Klits have is their height, reach and power - are all human evolutionary advantages - and why small statue heavyweights of the past would struggle against them.

In the lower divisions this advantage is controlled to a degree by weight limits.

[ChrisPontius]

Billiards is a game where skills can be measured objectionably. Just like running, Swimming etc. Why is it that Walter Lindrum from the 1920s (Dempseys era) has records which modern athletes cannot match?


This is interesting, could you explain a bit more? I don't know Lindrum.



In addition to the points made about athleticism being just a smaller part of the huge list of demands that a boxer must subscribe to, there are two more to take into account:

1. The rules have seen a tremendous change over the last 100 years that select different athletic talents. For instance, i don't think Jeffries would be able to make it past contender status under today's rules, and vice versa, Wlad would not have much success under Jeffries' rules where stamina and endurance had a way bigger emphasis.


2. Weight limits. Nutrition and health care have improved a lot over the last 50 years, and one can see that the heavyweights have grown from 185-195lbs on average to 205-220lbs. Of course, there are still plenty of 185-195lbs boxers; in fact, much more than the ones mentioned above 200lbs. However, it became more and more clear that they had become too small to compete with their bigger counterparts, who now had a good amount of athletic talent as well, contrary to most of the big heavyweights before the 60's. Hence, introduction of the cruiserweight division to make things more fair.

So, in that sense, i do think there is a definitive athletic acceleration in that heavyweights now are bigger but still well coordinated. For instance:

Tunney/Corbett - 6'0, 185lbs ====== Ali/Holmes - 6'3, 215lbs
Jack Dempsey - 6'1, 190lbs ======= Mike Tyson 5'11 1/2, 215lbs
Joe Louis - 6'2, 204lbs ======== Lennox Lewis - 6'5, 245lbs

If that's not athletic progress, then i don't know what is.

[Unforgiven]

The cruiserweight division was introduced to make more minor titles, more championships, more TV money, more sanctioning fees, more promotional opportunities. It wasn't strictly a necessity.
Many fighters who can make cruiserweight choose to fight as heavyweights because the money is better. Eddie Chambers admits there are too many good fighters at cruiserweight for it to make sense financially, he said he'd rather fight a rated 6'6" heavyweight than go down and compete against guys like himself. He's just one example.
Also, with 24-48 hour intervals between weigh-in and fights these days, we have some genuinely big 215 - 220 pound cruiserweights competing in the same division as genuine 185 pounders.
There is always room for another division, but they are never necessary. However many divisions we introduced there will always be people manipulating it, and bigger isn't necessarily better anyway - and I dont assume weight equates to real size and strength, nevermind ability.

[mcvey]

Usain Bolt is just a physical freak. This might just be the era of track and field when Ray Robinson happened to come allong.

Even so it must be noted that a lot of the advances in track records are atributable to improvments in equipment. Jesse Owens ran in spiked running shoes on a cinder track and dug his own starting blocks.

I currently work for Hugh Brasher who is the son of Chris Brasher who won the gold medal in the 300 meter steeplechase at the 1956 olympics. He also paced Roger Banister for the first four minute mile. Chris Brasher went into the event as a masive underdog. There were three British competitors taking part and he was seen as the third best. The radio comentry pointed out that he was visibly out of shape.

Chris Brasher made his own running shoes out of kangaroo skin using titanium to make the spikes. They were only a couple of ounces heavier than Michael Johnsons golden shoes that weighed less than the golden chain around his neck. The original shoes were lost but Hugh was kind enough to show me an identicle pair that Chris Brasher used for training and trust me they are incredibly light.

Chris Brasher was not only an athlete but an inovator of running gear and his win in the 1956 olympics might be a triumph of equipment and tactics over pure athleticism.

Interesting stuff:good

[red cobra]

I believe that the 70's were the high watermark years foor the sport of boxing.

[JimmyShimmy]

That's the problem. These folks, "well look at sprinters, they're always improving" ...how F-ing well different is boxing to running in a line?

All these peeps who gorp at muscles, love skipping about and proclaiming their 'the best baby' have not got the fiddliest.

[dmille]

If that's not athletic progress, then i don't know what is.

It is economic and scientific (nutritional) progress...

Many NBA players are huge today, but give me Bill Russell for my pick-up game before any of them...

Lennox had five fights in a row where his weight was in the 220s. What do his losses to McCall & Rahman along with his struggle against Vitali have in common? They were at the time the highest weights of his career...

[Shake]

Boxers being better in the days of Robinson makes sense to me. They fought so often. Boxers nowadays are, on average, more athletic, but they should be, as they prepare for months to peak on one day.

I think if you take a well-conditioned guy like Wladimir Klitschko and make him fight as often as was par for the course in those days and he'd be hard-pressed to be as successful.

And then there's the George Foreman comeback -- lot's of smoke and mirrors, but still a landmark in the history of the sport and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that twenty years does not change as much as people think it might. Foreman was sloppy and a shoddy technician in any era -- but we saw how well he did.

Many of my friends have pointed out that if Ali stood in the corner vs Tyson as he did against Frazier he would get killed in a matter of minutes -- and I'm not convinced.

Also throwbacks like Joe Calzaghe --stamina, determination, ad******g mid-fight, pressure. I think if you film Calzaghe and his arm-punches in black and white without close-ups and you don't really see what exactly he is doing, he'd look worse than Greb in that sparring footage. The subtle feints, the in-and-out, the fact that between five pitter-patter punches, there is one loaded bullet, and one of the pitter-patter punches had the explicit use of blinding the opponent or concentrate his defense on a specific point. It's not technique -- but it is craft.

When McGrain posted the close-up material of Liston vs Patterson I saw many things I hadn't before.

Well, it's always an interesting discussion -- but I'm not sure why it's really relevant. People want to say their current heroes are the best of all-time I suppose -- but does it diminish Marvin Hagler that Monzon came before him? Should I have more respect for Hagler if Monzon had been a carpenter instead of a boxer?

Men should be judged on their own merits. Comparisons are fun and games, but should not be used to discredit the accomplishments of other men unfairly.

[junior-soprano]

Where many fans claim that the ability of fighters has not improved for 70 years plus. Where old time fighters from the black and white era are often regarded as more skillful as current fighters.
Does this then mean that boxers and trainers are the dumbest athletes as they can't learn and improve upon a hundred years of documented history.

Or are the folk championing the Black and white era more likely to claim that Jesse Jackson or Carl Lewis would whup Ussain Bolt IF they did not have the physical, undeniable proof of timer records.

Is boxing like religion where people cherry pick selective moments to support their argument and disregard everything that doesn't suit them?

Food for Thought

no it isn't the only sport. cycling also. i know in america it ain't a big thing maybe since lance armstrong won the tour de france 7 times it lived up a little but overhere in europe it is a big sport. and the oldtime champs are also regarded better then the modern champs. probably cause in the old times it was more heroic. the roads where not as good as today and not as safe sometimes when they cycled in the mountains and they went downhill with a speed of 80 km an hour they fell into a caynon and some died. in cycling the greatest champs (most people believe) come from the 1950ties untill the late 1970ties. and just like boxing those guys had magnifcent nicknames. like fredrico bahamontes who was called : the eagle of toledo. or eddy merckx who was called : the cannibal or bernard hinault aka : the badger. also cause in the old days the distances where longer and the challenges where harder. same as boxing it has become saver (less rounds and so on) so also less heroic
and even soccer has it if you ask someone who the greatest soccerplayers of al time are.. mostly people say : pele, cruiff, best, beckenbauer, puskas, eusebio..all gus from the 50ties 60ties and 70ties. only exception is maradona (alltough his glorydays where in the 80ties)

[Unforgiven]

Track and Field Athletics was strictly amateur back in the days of Jesse Owens, and even into the 1970s and 80s. Even the full-time state-sponsored "amateurs" of the Socialist Bloc countries weren't being invested in like modern professionals until maybe the 1960s and 70s.
The old athletes of the 1930s and 1940s were mostly part-timers and were amateurs in the truest sense. They made no money from the sport and were forbidden from doing so. Therefore, they were fanatical hobbyists at best.

Boxing, on the other hand, or "Prizefighting" as it is also called, was so blatantly professional that it's development and progress compared to that of Track & Field athletics is a stark contrast.
The earliest champions had patrons and backers. Purse money and promotional syndicates (often "sporting clubs" of wealthy "gentleman") were involved in this sport from the onset of the Queensberry rules, AND further back than that. Gamblers had a massive interest in the game. Champions and challengers were motivated by money, shrewdly so and ruthlessly so, and the best ones had sparring partners, entourages, trainers, training camps.
Just as now, of course, many boxers back then earned a living through other jobs too, but the boxing was never a part-time "hobby". It was a serious business for the serious boxer and it had its own ecomony, people and groups of people who had an interest in these men becoming fighting machines.

Boxing was a century in front of Track & Field in terms of professionalism, and that has to be acknowledged before we say anything more on the subject of progress.

[janitor]

Track and Field Athletics was strictly amateur back in the days of Jesse Owens, and even into the 1970s and 80s. Even the full-time state-sponsored "amateurs" of the Socialist Bloc countries weren't being invested in like modern professionals until maybe the 1960s and 70s.
The old athletes of the 1930s and 1940s were mostly part-timers and were amateurs in the truest sense. They made no money from the sport and were forbidden from doing so. Therefore, they were fanatical hobbyists at best.


Even so I find many of the early track and field stars as impresive as those today because of the length of time and advances in sports science that it took for their records to be beaten.

[PowerPuncher]

Technique has largely deteriated, but what Classic forum fans dont want to admit is physical ability on average has increased massively in 70 years.

[Unforgiven]

Even so I find many of the early track and field stars as impresive as those today because of the length of time and advances in sports science that it took for their records to be beaten.

They were impressive athletes. Absolutely.

[janitor]

They were impressive athletes. Absolutely.

Two interesting statistics.

Charles Paddock broke the record for the 100 meter sprint in 1921 by a masive 0.2 seconds. This is the biggest margin it was ever broken by.

Jesse Owens record stood for an incredible 20 years.

These could be held up as measures of athletic achievment as much as the overall times for the sprint.

[Boilermaker]

This is interesting, could you explain a bit more? I don't know Lindrum.


I am not really knowledgeable of the billiards world, but Lindrum is probably the most astonishing sportsmen ever in terms of being ahead of his piers. according to a website I just wrote, he broke 57 world records , none of which have ever been broken by anyone except himself! His world record break is over 4000. I am not sure how much ahead of the field this places him, but according to my quick internet skills, there is a break by Joe Davis which was 2501 which was in 1907. Interestingly, i also saw a supposed World Record break by some modern player - Peter Gilchrist - It was 1346. I am not sure what the real modern world record is, but either way, it seems that billiards is one sport where the modern boys coudl nt compete with Lindrum. Incidentally, like old boxers, Lindrums training was phenomenal and almost certainly will never be seen again. ONe of the amazing things about him is that he was a natural right hander, but had to play left handed due to an accident on his right index finger! Now even the hardest modern evolution theorist has to find it hard to deny Walter Lindrum.



In addition to the points made about athleticism being just a smaller part of the huge list of demands that a boxer must subscribe to, there are two more to take into account:

1. The rules have seen a tremendous change over the last 100 years that select different athletic talents. For instance, i don't think Jeffries would be able to make it past contender status under today's rules, and vice versa, Wlad would not have much success under Jeffries' rules where stamina and endurance had a way bigger emphasis.

I agree with the point, but i am not so certain of the effect on the two examples you picked. Under old rules, Vlad would have learned to clinch and wrestle and wear down. I think he could have taken his time a little bit more. I think he would like the extra rounds and the emphasis on the clinch, particularly if his opponents were smaller.

Likewise, Jeffries despite his style could still hit, and could still dominate opponents. In fact, over 12 rounds, and with a 10 pt must system, i think that he might have still been very hard to beat. I think he would be a contender under any rules. I think it is a very good point though.

2. Weight limits. Nutrition and health care have improved a lot over the last 50 years, and one can see that the heavyweights have grown from 185-195lbs on average to 205-220lbs. Of course, there are still plenty of 185-195lbs boxers; in fact, much more than the ones mentioned above 200lbs. However, it became more and more clear that they had become too small to compete with their bigger counterparts, who now had a good amount of athletic talent as well, contrary to most of the big heavyweights before the 60's. Hence, introduction of the cruiserweight division to make things more fair.


I am not as certain that it is nutrition that is the advance. Leaving aside the Steroid argument, i think there are two things that have added to the natural bulkup argument. Firstly, because there are less and less fights being taken, fighters tend to train hard for a fight, stop training and fighting balloon up, then have to train down. As opposed to older days when fighters stayed in shape. With a guy like say Hopkins, he could have easily become the same size as Toney by now, or Byrd or others but he is always in shape. I think that one reason for this is that fighters dont stay in as good a shape as they used to. And when they do, they seem to concentrate more on weight lifting and power than any other feature.

Secondly, i think that modern fast foods is another factor. These never really existed in the old days. I am not sure whether these things can really be seen as nutritional advances. I know that some fighters do still go off fast food when they train for fights, but when not in training camps, it would seem that most seem to break for fast foods quite a bit. It is only natural nowadays, and i think that while it may help put on weight, it is hardly an advantage.


So, in that sense, i do think there is a definitive athletic acceleration in that heavyweights now are bigger but still well coordinated. For instance:

Tunney/Corbett - 6'0, 185lbs ====== Ali/Holmes - 6'3, 215lbs
Jack Dempsey - 6'1, 190lbs ======= Mike Tyson 5'11 1/2, 215lbs
Joe Louis - 6'2, 204lbs ======== Lennox Lewis - 6'5, 245lbs

If that's not athletic progress, then i don't know what is.

I think that the height comparisons are probably more relevant. Lewis is not much bigger than Willard or Carnera. Foreman, Ali and holmes are about the same size as Jeffries. Tyson is listed as shorter than Dempsey. If the modern fighters ran as much as the older fighters (and weight lifted like older fighters) then i think weights would still be comparable. It seems to be a common thread that the weakest eras have the biggest champions. Maybe this is why our current crop is considered so bad?

One thing is for sure, this idea of big skilled superheavys and evolution of the sport was not a common view in the not too distant past when light heavy spinks was our champion, or where the relatively speaking small Iron Mike Tyson was champ. In fact, it probably only really started when the Cruiserweight Evander Holyfield struggled with the size of Riddick Bowe and when Lennox Lewis emerged as the champ of the 90s.

[PowerPuncher]

Two interesting statistics.

Charles Paddock broke the record for the 100 meter sprint in 1921 by a masive 0.2 seconds. This is the biggest margin it was ever broken by.

Jesse Owens record stood for an incredible 20 years.

These could be held up as measures of athletic achievment as much as the overall times for the sprint.

No they couldn't given if Paddock raced Bolt he would be 10metres behind him

Jesse Owens 100m record was equaled 5years later, back then you had to beat a record by 0.1 of a second, which is harder, now you only have to break it by 0.01 of second

[Flea Man]

Boxers being better in the days of Robinson makes sense to me. They fought so often. Boxers nowadays are, on average, more athletic, but they should be, as they prepare for months to peak on one day.

I think if you take a well-conditioned guy like Wladimir Klitschko and make him fight as often as was par for the course in those days and he'd be hard-pressed to be as successful.

And then there's the George Foreman comeback -- lot's of smoke and mirrors, but still a landmark in the history of the sport and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that twenty years does not change as much as people think it might. Foreman was sloppy and a shoddy technician in any era -- but we saw how well he did.

Many of my friends have pointed out that if Ali stood in the corner vs Tyson as he did against Frazier he would get killed in a matter of minutes -- and I'm not convinced.

Also throwbacks like Joe Calzaghe --stamina, determination, ad******g mid-fight, pressure. I think if you film Calzaghe and his arm-punches in black and white without close-ups and you don't really see what exactly he is doing, he'd look worse than Greb in that sparring footage. The subtle feints, the in-and-out, the fact that between five pitter-patter punches, there is one loaded bullet, and one of the pitter-patter punches had the explicit use of blinding the opponent or concentrate his defense on a specific point. It's not technique -- but it is craft.

When McGrain posted the close-up material of Liston vs Patterson I saw many things I hadn't before.

Well, it's always an interesting discussion -- but I'm not sure why it's really relevant. People want to say their current heroes are the best of all-time I suppose -- but does it diminish Marvin Hagler that Monzon came before him? Should I have more respect for Hagler if Monzon had been a carpenter instead of a boxer?

Men should be judged on their own merits. Comparisons are fun and games, but should not be used to discredit the accomplishments of other men unfairly.

:good

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4794633]No they couldn't given if Paddock raced Bolt he would be 10metres behind him


That is conceeding Bolt every advantage of modern equipment tracks and nutrition.

Guys like Paddock had to work with the equipment tracks and nutrition that was available at the time and hence their records were considerable acomplishments.

Jesse Owens 100m record was equaled 5years later, back then you had to beat a record by 0.1 of a second, which is harder, now you only have to break it by 0.01 of second

Either way the record basicaly stood untill technological advances beat it down. The big advances came in the 50s and later the 80s and it is probably no coincidence that this is when the two longest standing records fell.

How long would it have stood for if the technology had been frozen at that point?

[PowerPuncher]

I read the other day that average height has increased by 4 inches since 1900, Jack Johnson was considered a 'Giant' at 6'1, today he's small by heavyweight standards

[janitor]

I read the other day that average height has increased by 4 inches since 1900, Jack Johnson was considered a 'Giant' at 6'1, today he's small by heavyweight standards

While Johnson was considered a giant next to the average man in the street he was not exceptionaly tall for a heavyweight even then.

Most of the early light heavyweight champions were around 6' 0''

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. That is conceeding Bolt every advantage of modern equipment tracks and nutrition.

Guys like Paddock had to work with the equipment tracks and nutrition that was available at the time and hence their records were considerable acomplishments.


2. Either way the record basicaly stood untill technological advances beat it down. The big advances came in the 50s and later the 80s and it is probably no coincidence that this is when the two longest standing records fell.

3. How long would it have stood for if the technology had been frozen at that point?

1. Give him a better track, he probably knocks 1/10th of a second off his best, he's still miles behind in 100m terms. Not only nutrition but the training and talent pool has increased/improved significantly

2. No they didnt the 100m record was equaled and likely bettered 5 years after he set it. They were good for the time but not as amazing as they are made out. You also have to bare in mind WW2 stopped most athletics competitions and athletics training.

3. Owens record would have lasted 5years if they had computerised 100th second timing then, its likely 1 of them men who equaled his record actually bettered it by 1/100th of a second or more

[PowerPuncher]

While Johnson was considered a giant next to the average man in the street he was not exceptionaly tall for a heavyweight even then.

Most of the early light heavyweight champions were around 6' 0''

Regardless take the average of top 10contenders in Johnson/Jeffries day and take the average heavyweight today and you'll see an average increase of 4 inches in the HWs height. Thats the effect of more people having better standards of living and better nutrition from a young age

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4794697][quote=janitor;4794655]

1. Give him a better track, he probably knocks 1/10th of a second off his best, he's still miles behind in 100m terms. Not only nutrition but the training and talent pool has increased/improved significantly


I have spoke to a couple of people with sports science degrees and they think that 80% of the advances in track records are down to nutrition.

One of them went further and said that you could vitualy take a man off the street and get him up to world level with modern nutrition and traing programes.


2. No they didnt the 100m record was equaled and likely bettered 5 years after he set it. They were good for the time but not as amazing as they are made out. You also have to bare in mind WW2 stopped most athletics competitions and athletics training.

3. Owens record would have lasted 5years if they had computerised 100th second timing then, its likely 1 of them men who equaled his record actually bettered it by 1/100th of a second or more


You arer asuming that the more sophisticated timing device would favour the person who equaled the record rather than Owens.

It could just as easily put the guy who equaled it 1/100 th of a second behind him.

[janitor]

Regardless take the average of top 10contenders in Johnson/Jeffries day and take the average heavyweight today and you'll see an average increase of 4 inches in the HWs height. Thats the effect of more people having better standards of living and better nutrition from a young age

A few years back one authour actualy compared the average height and reach of the top contenders of the 20s to those today (compared as oposed to assuming like you).

The findings?

He found that the averge contender of the 20s was 1'' shorted and had 1'' more reach. Both differences were within the margin of error of the study.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
[quote=PowerPuncher;4794697]
1. I have spoke to a couple of people with sports science degrees and they think that 80% of the advances in track records are down to nutrition.

One of them went further and said that you could vitualy take a man off the street and get him up to world level with modern nutrition and traing programes.

2. You arer asuming that the more sophisticated timing device would favour the person who equaled the record rather than Owens.

It could just as easily put the guy who equaled it 1/100 th of a second behind him.

1. Then they probably got lower seconds at best :lol: Nutrition is a massive benefit, so is incorporating olympic and power lifts, so is incorporating plyometrics correctly, so is the proper use of interval training, etc, etc, etc and guess what all those aspects have improved 10 fold

2. Multiple people equaled the record, yes I would assume 1 was fractionally because statistically its likely

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4794757][quote=janitor;4794727][quote]
1. Then they probably got lower seconds at best :lol:


Well one of them works as a sports injury adviser for a major football team but you always have had a knack of dismissing the most compelling testimoiny when it disagrees with your preconceptions.

Nutrition is a massive benefit, so is incorporating olympic and power lifts, so is incorporating plyometrics correctly, so is the proper use of interval training, etc, etc, etc and guess what all those aspects have improved 10 fold

Then it is rather silly to dismiss the acomplishments of earlier athletes who did not have acess to these advantages.

2. Multiple people equaled the record, yes I would assume 1 was fractionally because statistically its likely

So exactly who equaled it and when?

[PowerPuncher]

1. Well one of them works as a sports injury adviser for a major football team but you always have had a knack of dismissing the most compelling testimoiny when it disagrees with your preconceptions.

2. Then it is rather silly to dismiss the acomplishments of earlier athletes who did not have acess to these advantages.

3. So exactly who equaled it and when?

1. The statement 'only nutrition has moved on and not training' is bullshit, if he said they're ignorant on the matter. The fact he has a job as a physio, a job that certainly doesn't make you an expert on sports performance, is neither here or there, the statement is bullshit

2. So now you're agreeing with me improved training science has progressed? They didn't manage to take the sport to the same levels and I'd be suprised if they trained as hard, it takes allot to move those records forward so much. They were great for their time but they've been surpassed. Who knows I'm sure Owens for 1 would be competitive today if he got modern training and nutrition, although he still wouldnt be on the same page as Bolt

3. All of the following:

10.21.2Jesse Owens ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Chicago ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJune 20, 1936[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-0.9Harold Davis ([Only registered and activated users can see links](runner)&action=edit&redlink=1)[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Compton ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJune 6, 1941[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.7Lloyd LaBeach ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] Panama ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Fresno ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAMay 15, 1948[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)10.35Barney Ewell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Evanston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJuly 9, 1948[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.0Emmanuel McDonald Bailey ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] Great Britain ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Belgrade ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Yugoslavia ([Only registered and activated users can see links])August 25, 1951[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)1.1Heinz Fütterer ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] West Germany ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Yokohama ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), JapanOctober 31, 1954[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.9Bobby Joe Morrow ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Houston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAMay 19, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-1.0Ira Murchison ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Compton, USAJune 1, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.0Bobby Joe Morrow[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Bakersfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJune 22, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-1.3Ira Murchison[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Los Angeles, USAJune 29, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-0.4Bobby Joe Morrow[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4794987]1. The statement 'only nutrition has moved on and not training' is bullshit, if he said they're ignorant on the matter.

They did not say that "only nutrition" has moved on, they said that nutrition was behind 80% of the advances and that the periods of greatest advance corelate with developments in nutrition.


The fact he has a job as a physio, a job that certainly doesn't make you an expert on sports performance, is neither here or there, the statement is bullshit


You should know that there is a lot more to being a sports injury specialist than being a physio. That is only one small part of it.


2. They didn't manage to take the sport to the same levels and I'd be suprised if they trained as hard, it takes allot to move those records forward so much. They were great for their time but they've been surpassed


You seem to be implying that they could have taken records to their curent levels with what they had at their disposal if they had only trained a bit harder.

That after having previously emphasised how important the major advances in sports science were.

You can't have it both ways.

If nutrition training etc have advanced then the early athletes acomplishments have to be taken in light of what they had available.

If the advances have taken place because modern athletes train harder and the earlier athletes were lazy then the idea that methods have advanced is a myth and there is no reason to think that modern boxers are better conditioned.


3. 10.21.2Jesse Owens ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Chicago ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJune 20, 1936[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)
-0.9Harold Davis ([Only registered and activated users can see links](runner)&action=edit&redlink=1)[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Compton ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJune 6, 1941[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)
0.7Lloyd LaBeach ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] Panama ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Fresno ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAMay 15, 1948[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)10.35Barney Ewell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Evanston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJuly 9, 1948[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.0Emmanuel McDonald Bailey ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] Great Britain ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Belgrade ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Yugoslavia ([Only registered and activated users can see links])August 25, 1951[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)1.1Heinz Fütterer ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] West Germany ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Yokohama ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), JapanOctober 31, 1954[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.9Bobby Joe Morrow ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Houston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAMay 19, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-1.0Ira Murchison ([Only registered and activated users can see links])[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Compton, USAJune 1, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)0.0Bobby Joe Morrow[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Bakersfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), USAJune 22, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-1.3Ira Murchison[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Los Angeles, USAJune 29, 1956[1] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]_note-iaaf-0)-0.4Bobby Joe Morrow[Only registered and activated users can see links] United States ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


This dosn't actualy tell us verry much.

Can you list the key dates when the record was equaled and times recorded and then we might have a proper perspective.

[fists of fury]

Boxing is a character sport first.
And a skills sport second. Skills seasoned by experience of course.
After that you have athleticism.... and luck.

Bingo.

I wouldn't say old-timers were more skillful, but they were tougher, imo.

[GDG]

It is the ONLY sport that I can think of.

But there is evidence to prove this. To my friends I always give the example chain of past prime Ali KOing Foreman.........old man Foreman beating the conqueror of Holyfield (Moorer).....Holyfield beating Valuev (though the judges didn't agree!!)

Yes styles make fights etc, but when you factor in the dates and particularly how much worse comeback Foreman was, it's a pretty compelling argument!!!!

[Unforgiven]

I read a lot of sports training science articles and studies and it's fairly clear much of the area is ongoing experimental and full of competing claims and theories. That's how sports scientists and coaches get careers. They get ahead by having different slants on the same basic stuff or by having a unique method or bashing another theory. All have studies and statistics to back up their claims. And with the right athletes all flexible training models will produce good results.

A lot of elite athletes and coaches stick to some pretty basic and very old-fashioned stuff, truth be told. It really depends on the athlete.
Just because there's a wealth of science and writing out there and there's a whole academic area of interest and a popularized culture of scientifically-aware amateur hobby "trainees", doesn't mean all this stuff is practically applicable, necessary or beneficial to every elite athlete.

Training is basic.

The drugs definitely put the modern athletes at an advantage in terms of how strong and powerful they can become.

[ChrisPontius]

It is economic and scientific (nutritional) progress...

Many NBA players are huge today, but give me Bill Russell for my pick-up game before any of them...

Lennox had five fights in a row where his weight was in the 220s. What do his losses to McCall & Rahman along with his struggle against Vitali have in common? They were at the time the highest weights of his career...

Those losses have in common that Lewis was out of shape and not training as well as he should have; nothing more and nothing less. I'm not advocating that out of shape athletes are better because they weigh more. What i'm saying is that today, athletes (and boxers) can be in shape and still bigger than they used to be.

Track and Field Athletics was strictly amateur back in the days of Jesse Owens, and even into the 1970s and 80s. Even the full-time state-sponsored "amateurs" of the Socialist Bloc countries weren't being invested in like modern professionals until maybe the 1960s and 70s.
The old athletes of the 1930s and 1940s were mostly part-timers and were amateurs in the truest sense. They made no money from the sport and were forbidden from doing so. Therefore, they were fanatical hobbyists at best.

Boxing, on the other hand, or "Prizefighting" as it is also called, was so blatantly professional that it's development and progress compared to that of Track & Field athletics is a stark contrast.
The earliest champions had patrons and backers. Purse money and promotional syndicates (often "sporting clubs" of wealthy "gentleman") were involved in this sport from the onset of the Queensberry rules, AND further back than that. Gamblers had a massive interest in the game. Champions and challengers were motivated by money, shrewdly so and ruthlessly so, and the best ones had sparring partners, entourages, trainers, training camps.
Just as now, of course, many boxers back then earned a living through other jobs too, but the boxing was never a part-time "hobby". It was a serious business for the serious boxer and it had its own ecomony, people and groups of people who had an interest in these men becoming fighting machines.

Boxing was a century in front of Track & Field in terms of professionalism, and that has to be acknowledged before we say anything more on the subject of progress.

Great point.



I agree with the point, but i am not so certain of the effect on the two examples you picked. Under old rules, Vlad would have learned to clinch and wrestle and wear down. I think he could have taken his time a little bit more. I think he would like the extra rounds and the emphasis on the clinch, particularly if his opponents were smaller.

Likewise, Jeffries despite his style could still hit, and could still dominate opponents. In fact, over 12 rounds, and with a 10 pt must system, i think that he might have still been very hard to beat. I think he would be a contender under any rules. I think it is a very good point though.


Maybe, maybe not... certainly, a different training regime would result in different fighters, but in the end, you cannot turn a great sprinter into great marathon runner, and vice versa. For the same reason, i'm not sure if Jeffries could be effective enough over 12 rounds, where his stamina and durability only get to show for perhaps 4 rounds. And although Wlad's stamina has improved lately, i doubt that he'd be effective beyond 15 rounds, unless he manages to badly tire his opponent in the clinches.


But in the end, these examples don't really matter; you get the point.


I am not as certain that it is nutrition that is the advance. Leaving aside the Steroid argument, i think there are two things that have added to the natural bulkup argument. Firstly, because there are less and less fights being taken, fighters tend to train hard for a fight, stop training and fighting balloon up, then have to train down. As opposed to older days when fighters stayed in shape. With a guy like say Hopkins, he could have easily become the same size as Toney by now, or Byrd or others but he is always in shape. I think that one reason for this is that fighters dont stay in as good a shape as they used to. And when they do, they seem to concentrate more on weight lifting and power than any other feature.


I don't think ballooning down is that much of a factor. For instance, Dempsey (and many other champs of that day) probably gained quite a bit of weight when he fought less than once a year as a champion, including a full 3-year break. But he didn't bulk up a single bit more than you'd expect someone getting into his 30's to do.

Ballooning up and down alone doesn't bulk you up. Toney was still making 160lbs when he did it; it's only later that he bulked (+fatted) up.




Secondly, i think that modern fast foods is another factor. These never really existed in the old days. I am not sure whether these things can really be seen as nutritional advances. I know that some fighters do still go off fast food when they train for fights, but when not in training camps, it would seem that most seem to break for fast foods quite a bit. It is only natural nowadays, and i think that while it may help put on weight, it is hardly an advantage.


That may well be. Girls these days are having their first periods around their 10th-12th birthdays, while this used to be at 12+. This is only anecdotal evidence though; i've never seen an official research on this, but i heard that this could be induced by the hormone fed cattle we eat.

Be that as it may, in the end it still falls under the category "nutrition".



I think that the height comparisons are probably more relevant. Lewis is not much bigger than Willard or Carnera. Foreman, Ali and holmes are about the same size as Jeffries. Tyson is listed as shorter than Dempsey. If the modern fighters ran as much as the older fighters (and weight lifted like older fighters) then i think weights would still be comparable. It seems to be a common thread that the weakest eras have the biggest champions. Maybe this is why our current crop is considered so bad?


It's a well established fact that people have grown 2-3 inches taller over the last century, depending on which ethnic background you look at. Like PP said, Jack Johnson at 6'1" was named a giant. I'm 6'0 and considered a bit below average for my generation.

But i disagree that height is the key factor. Weight is more important: there are weight categories for a reason, and not height categories. A guy like Tyson who is incredibly big but also fast, light on his feet and retaining good stamina, is absolutely unprecedented and Dempsey or Marciano, as much as i like them, standing next to them would literally look like they're from a different weight class. And in way, they are.

Ali and Holmes were around Jeffries' size, but Foreman clearly was bigger. However, Jeffries was considered huge in his time, and he wasn't a boxing type of guy who was light on his feet. Fighters of that type, for instance Corbett and Tunney, weighed around 185lbs. The cruisers that depend on speed are always lighter than the battleships. Yet, the cruisers of the 70's are as big as the battleships from the 1900's. This is undeniable.



One thing is for sure, this idea of big skilled superheavys and evolution of the sport was not a common view in the not too distant past when light heavy spinks was our champion, or where the relatively speaking small Iron Mike Tyson was champ. In fact, it probably only really started when the Cruiserweight Evander Holyfield struggled with the size of Riddick Bowe and when Lennox Lewis emerged as the champ of the 90s.

You mention Spinks being champion, but it should be mentioned that when he faced a "modern" sized heavyweight in his prime, he was annihilated like nothing in 91 seconds; and he isn't just any lightheavyweight, but one that ranks in people's top5 consistently. He did beat an aging and way out of shape Holmes fair and square, but should have lost the rematch if we're honest about it.

Furthermore, i'm not really arguing specifically about superheavyweights, but just 210+lbs heavyweight in general.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. They did not say that "only nutrition" has moved on, they said that nutrition was behind 80% of the advances and that the periods of greatest advance corelate with developments in nutrition.

2. You should know that there is a lot more to being a sports injury specialist than being a physio. That is only one small part of it.

3. You seem to be implying that they could have taken records to their curent levels with what they had at their disposal if they had only trained a bit harder.

That after having previously emphasised how important the major advances in sports science were.

You can't have it both ways.

If nutrition training etc have advanced then the early athletes acomplishments have to be taken in light of what they had available.

4. If the advances have taken place because modern athletes train harder and the earlier athletes were lazy then the idea that methods have advanced is a myth and there is no reason to think that modern boxers are better conditioned.

5. This dosn't actualy tell us verry much.

Can you list the key dates when the record was equaled and times recorded and then we might have a proper perspective.

1. The percentage each factor contributes is debatable, but training has moved forward leaps and bounds in athletics, look at the Sports Science Progression the Soviets made, backed by science.

2. AND, I'm not going to list my credentials but I've spoke with sport Science experts like Fred Hattfield, John Smith amongst others, training has moved forward massively. Those are true experts in performance science working with the best sports people in the world, an injury specialist isn't especially 1 who said he could 'take a man off the street and make him a champion', which is frankly BS

3. No they couldn't take records to current levels because they don't have Bolt's genetics. They could improve vastly though, but in the 100m 0.1 of a second is a year

4. How about many aspects improve? Training, Diet and yes work ethic. It takes far more to run 9.7 than it does 10.2, thats a HUGE difference. Teh standards then were simply lower

5. It tells us everything, they all ran 10.2, the years/dates are all there, look carefully :D

[OLD FOGEY]

Where many fans claim that the ability of fighters has not improved for 70 years plus. Where old time fighters from the black and white era are often regarded as more skillful as current fighters.
Does this then mean that boxers and trainers are the dumbest athletes as they can't learn and improve upon a hundred years of documented history.

Or are the folk championing the Black and white era more likely to claim that Jesse Jackson or Carl Lewis would whup Ussain Bolt IF they did not have the physical, undeniable proof of timer records.

Is boxing like religion where people cherry pick selective moments to support their argument and disregard everything that doesn't suit them?

Food for Thought

Not in the United States.


Here is an up to date poll of the best baseball players and the years they were active as chosen by the general public:

1-----Babe Ruth (1914-1935)

2-----Ted Williams (1939-1960)

3-----Lou Gehrig (1923-1939)

4-----Willie Mays (1951-1973)

5-----Mickey Mantle (1951-1968)

The best gridiron football players:

1-----Barry Sanders (1980s-1990s)

2-----Walter Payton (1970s-1980s)

3-----John Elway (1980s-1990s)

4-----Jim Brown (1957-1965)

5-----Jerry Rice (1980s-2000s)

The best basketball players:

1-----Michael Jordan (1985-2001)

2-----Bill Russell (1956-1969)

3-----Magic Johnson (1980-1995)

4-----Oscar Robertson (1960-1974)

5-----Wilt Chamberlain (1959-1974)

The best boxers:

1-----Muhammad Ali (1960-1981)

2-----Rocky Marciano (1947-1955)

3-----Joe Louis (1934-1951)

4-----Sugar Ray Robinson (1940-1965)

5-----Roberto Duran (1967-2001)


Baseball has the most retro look for its greatest players as picked by the general public in the United States.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4795309][quote=janitor;4795029]
1. The percentage each factor contributes is debatable, but training has moved forward leaps and bounds in athletics, look at the Sports Science Progression the Soviets made, backed by science.


OK but dosn't that suport my contention that the track records of these early sprinters and the advances they made represent considerable advances given what they had available at the time?


2. AND, I'm not going to list my credentials but I've spoke with sport Science experts like Fred Hattfield, John Smith amongst others, training has moved forward massively. Those are true experts in performance science working with the best sports people in the world, an injury specialist isn't especially 1 who said he could 'take a man off the street and make him a champion', which is frankly BS


My coleague did not claim that they could make sombody world champion just that it would be possible to get them to world level given 24/7 control of their daily regime to aply current sports science.

3. No they couldn't take records to current levels because they don't have Bolt's genetics.

How exactly are Bolts genetics any different to those of any previous genaration?

By what mechanism would his genetics be better than those of a sprinter from the 1920s?

Please don't say evolution because the only evolutionary changes taking place in human populations today are that genetic defects such as colour blindness are becoming more common because they are not eliminated.


4. How about many aspects improve? Training, Diet and yes work ethic. It takes far more to run 9.7 than it does 10.2, thats a HUGE difference. Teh standards then were simply lower


Acording to what you have said previously these athlets would never have been able to do it in 9.7 because the sports science simply wasnt there.

In that case why should you considder their work ethic any lower than that of a modern sprinter?

5. It tells us everything, they all ran 10.2, the years/dates are all there, look carefully :D

O.K so it was matched in 1941 and then not untill 1948. This means that unless we can establish that the 1941 effort beat it by a clear 100th of a second then it stood for at least 12 years.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
[quote=PowerPuncher;4795309]
1. OK but dosn't that suport my contention that the track records of these early sprinters and the advances they made represent considerable advances given what they had available at the time?

2. My coleague did not claim that they could make sombody world champion just that it would be possible to get them to world level given 24/7 control of their daily regime to aply current sports science.

3. How exactly are Bolts genetics any different to those of any previous genaration? By what mechanism would his genetics be better than those of a sprinter from the 1920s?

4. Please don't say evolution because the only evolutionary changes taking place in human populations today are that genetic defects such as colour blindness are becoming more common because they are not eliminated.

5. Acording to what you have said previously these athlets would never have been able to do it in 9.7 because the sports science simply wasnt there.

6. In that case why should you considder their work ethic any lower than that of a modern sprinter?

7. O.K so it was matched in 1941 and then not untill 1948. This means that unless we can establish that the 1941 effort beat it by a clear 100th of a second then it stood for at least 12 years.

1. Owens YES, Paddock, NO, I believe they were only recording records for 9years when Paddock came along. A decent athlete was bound to smash a record that was only around 9 years.

Evidence suggests its harder to make it these days to make it, more competitions, more people competing, more financial incentive to become world class and ofcourse higher standards

2. This isnt possible because genetics play a big role, especially in athletics, try to make an East African (Kenya/Ethiopia) a world class sprinter, it wont happen they have the wrong genetical make up for sprinting. Not to mention it takes many years of training to become world class

3. His limb length is freaky and the fact his footspeed is still remarkably fast. Basically hes a freak of nature and thats not an era thing. Era wise though this era has more competition and more people who want to be world class and higher standards

4. We agree, no evolution at all, but Bolt has better genetics than Owens.

5. Yes but could they get to 9.7 if the science was there? I'd say no

6. Because the standards were simply lower then. They didnt have to do as much to be world class

7. We can't establish that, what we know is it took 20years to go from Owens 10.2 to 10.1. HOWEVER it took 23 years to go from Hines 9.9 for them to legally go into the 9.8s.

[Unforgiven]

It's a well established fact that people have grown 2-3 inches taller over the last century, depending on which ethnic background you look at.

What data is this fact based on ?

Like PP said, Jack Johnson at 6'1" was named a giant. I'm 6'0 and considered a bit below average for my generation.

Maybe that's peculiar to your locality. I think the average in the USA is probably still somewhere under 6 foot.


But i disagree that height is the key factor. Weight is more important: there are weight categories for a reason, and not height categories. A guy like Tyson who is incredibly big but also fast, light on his feet and retaining good stamina, is absolutely unprecedented and Dempsey or Marciano, as much as i like them, standing next to them would literally look like they're from a different weight class. And in way, they are.


Tyson was a phenomenal athlete. It could equally be argued that his hand speed and accuracy and overall athleticism is hard to find in boxers of much lower body weight too.
There were fighters of his build or close to it in earlier eras (Sam McVey, for example), and we have no weigh or knowing how impressive they were in speed or agility, athleticism, compared to a guy that we see on TV footage.
It's wrong to reason "Oh, they cant have been like as great and as phenomenal as Tyson, so they must have been like slow flat-footed plodders", because that's just lazy stereotyping. There's a whole spectrum to consider, and we just dont know.

Ali and Holmes were around Jeffries' size, but Foreman clearly was bigger. However, Jeffries was considered huge in his time, and he wasn't a boxing type of guy who was light on his feet. Fighters of that type, for instance Corbett and Tunney, weighed around 185lbs. The cruisers that depend on speed are always lighter than the battleships. Yet, the cruisers of the 70's are as big as the battleships from the 1900's. This is undeniable.

You are generalizing about "types" based on selected examples of unique individuals, some of whom we haven't really got the footage to know their style or attributes in any detail.

Heavyweights have gotten bigger, that's true. But the claim that 215 pounder boxers of 1900s were inherently less athletic, or agile or fast, or light on their feet than the same size boxer of 1970s is at best a theory, possibly just a prejudice.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4795602][quote=janitor;4795433][quote]
1. Owens YES, Paddock, NO, I believe they were only recording records for 9years when Paddock came along. A decent athlete was bound to smash a record that was only around 9 years.

Evidence suggests its harder to make it these days to make it, more competitions, more people competing, more financial incentive to become world class and ofcourse higher standards


What you are saying here sounds plausible but is there any data to suport it?

In boxing we can make a ballpark estimate of the number of profesional fighters in a given year based on the number of liscenced boxing clubs and the number of boxing shows. We can inferr from this that there were more profesional boxers in the 1920s than there are today despite the smaller purses.

Foot races had a big following in the UK in the late 19th century (called pedestrianism then) and large amounts were wagered on the outcomes.

3. His limb length is freaky and the fact his footspeed is still remarkably fast. Basically hes a freak of nature and thats not an era thing.

Here I agree.

Bolt would obviously have been a phenomenon whenever he had come allong.


5. Yes but could they get to 9.7 if the science was there? I'd say no


The obvious experiment would be to get an elite level modern sprinter to atempt the 100m sprint in spiked running shoes on a cinder track.

That would constrain the relevant factors down a bit.

7. We can't establish that, what we know is it took 20years to go from Owens 10.2 to 10.1. HOWEVER it took 23 years to go from Hines 9.9 for them to legally go into the 9.8s.

So could we make a case for Hines being the greatest sprinter ever based on how far he raised the bar?

[ChrisPontius]

What data is this fact based on ?


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



Tyson was a phenomenal athlete. It could equally be argued that his hand speed and accuracy and overall athleticism is hard to find in boxers of much lower body weight too.
There were fighters of his build or close to it in earlier eras (Sam McVey, for example), and we have no weigh or knowing how impressive they were in speed or agility, athleticism, compared to a guy that we see on TV footage.
It's wrong to reason "Oh, they cant have been like as great and as phenomenal as Tyson, so they must have been like slow flat-footed plodders", because that's just lazy stereotyping. There's a whole spectrum to consider, and we just dont know.


Maybe that's lazy stereotyping, but i don't see a Tyson when i look at the, admittedly shitty, footage available. And certainly his record doesn't come close to Tyson's.



You are generalizing about "types" based on selected examples of unique individuals, some of whom we haven't really got the footage to know their style or attributes in any detail.


Sorry, but i think you're reaching there.

If the subject was any other, then no one would have any objection with saying that Corbett and Tunney are the great predecessors of Ali and Holmes. And like i said, the leap in size is big.




Heavyweights have gotten bigger, that's true. But the claim that 215 pounder boxers of 1900s were inherently less athletic, or agile or fast, or light on their feet than the same size boxer of 1970s is at best a theory, possibly just a prejudice.

Well, follow me here:

Heavyweights have gotten bigger, you admit that.
That means there has been an explosion of 210+lbs boxers. Given that men that weight (in shape) were relatively rare, you see an exponential increase in available talent at that weight. The consequence? We've not seen a 185lbs heavyweight champion who could hold the title for more than one defence over damn near fifty years; that's two entire generations. I mean, why have we never seen a Mexican heavyweight champion, despite a plethora of Mexican fighters in general? It's simply because they rarely scale over 170lbs. The ones that are 200lbs or more are to few in numbers to generate the talent needed to compete there, although there will always be random exceptions, like Ramos or Arreola.

[Unforgiven]

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




Interesting.
But what research and method was the data collected ?


Maybe that's lazy stereotyping, but i don't see a Tyson when i look at the, admittedly shitty, footage available. And certainly his record doesn't come close to Tyson's.

I'm not saying a McVey is a Tyson. But Tyson was a phenomenal athlete for his build, and I'm not convinced we'll see any others coming through in this modern era. Tyson's actually becoming a "yesterday" fighter with every passing year. I dont see how he's representative of any trend. My point was that if MCvey's no Tyson that doesn't mean he was just a slow plodding bruiser. There are thousands of degrees between.


Sorry, but i think you're reaching there.

If the subject was any other, then no one would have any objection with saying that Corbett and Tunney are the great predecessors of Ali and Holmes. And like i said, the leap in size is big.


Benny Leonard or Willie Pep can be the great predecessors of Ali and Holmes if you like.
I could say Jack Johnson and Harry Wills were early prototypes of Larry Holmes, and they were about the same size. It's almost meaningless to generalize like that.


Well, follow me here:

Heavyweights have gotten bigger, you admit that.

Yes, but I'm only assuming so. I dont know for sure. But I assume the numbers of 210+ men taking part in heavyweight boxing contests is more now than in the days of Corbett and Tunney, for instance.

That means there has been an explosion of 210+lbs boxers. Given that men that weight (in shape) were relatively rare, you see an exponential increase in available talent at that weight.

There should be more "available talent" of men of 210+ pounds, yes, if our assumptions are correct.

The consequence? We've not seen a 185lbs heavyweight champion who could hold the title for more than one defence over damn near fifty years; that's two entire generations

There has always been a perception that fighters who give away a lot of weight are badly outmatched. It's always been a concern for promoters and for the sport in general. The general public dont want to see a big guy kill a small guy. But when the fighters are good that rarely happens, and often the smaller guy can beat the bigger guy or at least give him a better fight than many of the other big guys can. Occasionally though, the big guy does destroys the small guy in a mismatch and maybe injures or kills him and it's blamed entirely on the size difference.

Boxers themselves share the perception, or at least many of them see an adavantage in putting on a bit of LEAN weight and strength, it certainly helps in the clinches and for some fighters help them in other areas too. But that's an individual thing. Some fighters dont actually perform better when they get bigger, some perform worse, and some are no better and no worse.

In recent years, the tendecy among heavyweights is to carry extra fat weight too. A big heavyweight can carry an extra 15 or 20 pounds of body fat and perhaps not even look bad. Some others are just shameless and look damn fat.

There's a cruiserweight division for what would have been "good smaller heavyweights" in the past, so that the best can be called "world champions" if they are only good enough to be "contenders" at heavyweight. Anyone of them who thinks he's good enough to be heavyweight champion or would rather be a heavyweight contender than a cruiserweight will weigh in over the cruiser limit, and they need to because sanctioning bodies and promoters dont want to match a 193 pound guy against a 226 pound guy (the weights for Jones v. Ruiz a few months before the cruiser limit was raised from 190 to 200 !).
But nowadays, with 24 to 48 hours before weigh-ins, we have some cruisers fighting at a genuine 215+ going against genuine 185-190 pounders. If weight mismatches was the reason for the cruiser division it seems it's still in the same state.

Anyway, we wont see any 185 pound heavyweight champions for all the above reasons. And we dont need to see them.
That doesn't preclude the possibility that any certain times there may be an active sub-200 fighter (and you can take that all the way down to super-middleweights) who is capable of beating the heavyweight champion. And it definitely doesn't preclude the possibility that 185 pound heavyweights of the past (for example. ones who beat bigger men) would be competitive with bigger men who happen to fight in later eras.

.I mean, why have we never seen a Mexican heavyweight champion, despite a plethora of Mexican fighters in general? It's simply because they rarely scale over 170lbs. The ones that are 200lbs or more are to few in numbers to generate the talent needed to compete there, although there will always be random exceptions, like Ramos or Arreola.

Well, Arreola's just a fat guy.

[McGrain]

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



I wonder why asians got shorter in 1975? :think

[Unforgiven]

I wonder why asians got shorter in 1975? :think

Pol Pot ?

[crippet]

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




If the subject was any other, then no one would have any objection with saying that Corbett and Tunney are the great predecessors of Ali and Holmes. And like i said, the leap in size is big.






This is quite telling, terming latter day fighters as predecessors to more modern fighters.
Does this signify that modern fighters are superior, more honed versions of latter day fighters. It certainly suggests an evolution to a superior style.

If a graph [similer to the height graph] was plotted for the skills of boxers 1910 to 2010 would it ascend , would it descend of would it just be peaks and troughs - if so when are the peaks and when are the troughs??



.

[ChrisPontius]

Interesting.
But what research and method was the data collected ?


Have a look, page 11:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




Benny Leonard or Willie Pep can be the great predecessors of Ali and Holmes if you like.
I could say Jack Johnson and Harry Wills were early prototypes of Larry Holmes, and they were about the same size. It's almost meaningless to generalize like that.


I was only talking heavyweights, because they show the increase in size.

No one has seen film of a prime Wills, but i don't think he compares to Holmes nor does Johnson. He only does in the sense that he was very skilled for that time, but Johnson was very much a physical fighter who wrestled his opponents as much or more than he threw punches.




There has always been a perception that fighters who give away a lot of weight are badly outmatched. It's always been a concern for promoters and for the sport in general. The general public dont want to see a big guy kill a small guy. But when the fighters are good that rarely happens, and often the smaller guy can beat the bigger guy or at least give him a better fight than many of the other big guys can. Occasionally though, the big guy does destroys the small guy in a mismatch and maybe injures or kills him and it's blamed entirely on the size difference.


That's because people KNOW a good big guy beats a good small guy. They don't like to see a big guy outmatch a smaller one, but they love nothing more than seeing the small guy win (the underdog story), so these kind of matches make sense from a promotional point of view, anyway.




Boxers themselves share the perception, or at least many of them see an adavantage in putting on a bit of LEAN weight and strength, it certainly helps in the clinches and for some fighters help them in other areas too. But that's an individual thing. Some fighters dont actually perform better when they get bigger, some perform worse, and some are no better and no worse.

In recent years, the tendecy among heavyweights is to carry extra fat weight too. A big heavyweight can carry an extra 15 or 20 pounds of body fat and perhaps not even look bad. Some others are just shameless and look damn fat.

There's a cruiserweight division for what would have been "good smaller heavyweights" in the past, so that the best can be called "world champions" if they are only good enough to be "contenders" at heavyweight. Anyone of them who thinks he's good enough to be heavyweight champion or would rather be a heavyweight contender than a cruiserweight will weigh in over the cruiser limit, and they need to because sanctioning bodies and promoters dont want to match a 193 pound guy against a 226 pound guy (the weights for Jones v. Ruiz a few months before the cruiser limit was raised from 190 to 200 !).
But nowadays, with 24 to 48 hours before weigh-ins, we have some cruisers fighting at a genuine 215+ going against genuine 185-190 pounders. If weight mismatches was the reason for the cruiser division it seems it's still in the same state.


Not really, all lightheavyweights of today weigh around 185-190lbs by fight night; the classic heavyweights, if you will. The cruisers weigh around 210-215lbs, which is about Ali's size. That's why i don't understand why people say Haye is "too small" for Wlad.


Anyway, we wont see any 185 pound heavyweight champions for all the above reasons. And we dont need to see them.


Sorry, but i fail to see what the exact reason is you gave. I saw a large, general description, but you didn't refute my arguments as the cause of the increase in size and why we're not seeing 185lbs champions anymore. It has fuck all to do with sanctioning bodies; they'll comply easily, when they can promote a big fight. Catchweight bouts are about as common as normal matches these days, in big fights. It's not like Jones had a problem with it.

[ChrisPontius]

This is quite telling, terming latter day fighters as predecessors to more modern fighters.
Does this signify that modern fighters are superior, more honed versions of latter day fighters. It certainly suggests an evolution to a superior style.

If a graph [similer to the height graph] was plotted for the skills of boxers 1910 to 2010 would it ascend , would it descend of would it just be peaks and troughs - if so when are the peaks and when are the troughs??



Skill is mot an objective, measurable quantity like height is. On top of that, it's relative to the ruleset of the day. Johnson would rank at the top, but it's well possible that he'd be befuddled by a "modern" opponent who knows how to throw a jab or box off the backfoot, and vice versa.

[Boilermaker]

This graph is interesting.

If it is correct, then Jess Willard would be over 7ft today?

Fitz would probably about 6"2 or 3?

I wonder how big (height and weight Jeffries would come to?) Might still enjoy a decent size advantage over most of his main opponents today?

In relation to the plotting of skills, I think that it would be relevant to the country. Australia for example must have definitely dropped markedly. USA must have dropped massively in the last 10 years. Russia and Soviet countries would have certainly increased massively recently. British levels, particularly Irish must have dropped since older days. I think it would be a bit of a mess actually.

[PowerPuncher]

This graph is interesting.

If it is correct, then Jess Willard would be over 7ft today?

Fitz would probably about 6"2 or 3?

I wonder how big (height and weight Jeffries would come to?) Might still enjoy a decent size advantage over most of his main opponents today?
.

It doesn't work like that, nutrition and living standards have increased massively on average. Willard/Jeffires may have had adequate diet to reach their maximal height potential anyway, it can't be guessed like that but they may well have been taller/bigger

[ChrisPontius]

This graph is interesting.

If it is correct, then Jess Willard would be over 7ft today?

Fitz would probably about 6"2 or 3?

I wonder how big (height and weight Jeffries would come to?) Might still enjoy a decent size advantage over most of his main opponents today?

In relation to the plotting of skills, I think that it would be relevant to the country. Australia for example must have definitely dropped markedly. USA must have dropped massively in the last 10 years. Russia and Soviet countries would have certainly increased massively recently. British levels, particularly Irish must have dropped since older days. I think it would be a bit of a mess actually.

Obviously it's impossible to say how a person with Willard's genes would develop today, but it is fair to say that the 6'6" boxers of his day, are 7 foot today. I think there are quite a few similarities between him and Valuev.

Indeed, Jeffries would be the equivalent of a 6'6 245lbs Wlad Klitschko or Lennox Lewis: a superheavyweight in his day with top end athleticism to go with it.

As for Fitz.... let's not forget he was little more than a middleweight back then, al be it a tall one. He might compare to a guy like Mikkel Kessler, who is 6'0-6'1 180lbs.

[Unforgiven]

Not really, all lightheavyweights of today weigh around 185-190lbs by fight night; the classic heavyweights, if you will. The cruisers weigh around 210-215lbs, which is about Ali's size.

I see several cruiserweights weighing in at 189 - 195 still, and some even lighter, when the limit is now 200 pounds.
So, they cant be 210+ pounds on fight night, it would make no sense to make 200 by a clear 5 or 10 pounds.
Therefore, they must be genuinely well within the limit. And, yes, the guys coming in at about 199 pounds may be manipulating their weight to get there, and they are genuine 215 pounders.


That's why i don't understand why people say Haye is "too small" for Wlad.

I agree.
It depends what they mean though.
It's like saying Gene Tunney is too small for Muhammad Ali.


Sorry, but i fail to see what the exact reason is you gave. I saw a large, general description, but you didn't refute my arguments as the cause of the increase in size and why we're not seeing 185lbs champions anymore.

I'm not trying to refute your arguments. I have no firm beliefs on the matter. I dont automatically go along with your theory, which is some type of "evolution of the heavyweight species", but I dont reject it or seek to refute it. It has a lot of merit and is no doubt at the very least partially correct.

I dont find some of the basis of the argument (eg. Corbett and Tunney beome Ali and Holmes, that there were no BIG ATHLETIC boxers - who are so typical nowadays - in times gone by, that we can generalize about "types" of boxers and say they are like this and not like that, ones we cant see on film) convincing or solid at all. That's all. I think there should be some doubts, because it's NOT a scientific discovery nor a rigourous scientific theory.
And I think it's perhaps a minor point to the discussion of why or if the abilities of the best boxers have progressed at all since 1940.



It has fuck all to do with sanctioning bodies; they'll comply easily, when they can promote a big fight. Catchweight bouts are about as common as normal matches these days, in big fights. It's not like Jones had a problem with it.


Roy Jones weighed in at HEAVYWEIGHT. He was 193 pounds, when the cruiser limit was 190.
What do you mean by "catchweight" ?
Most of these big fights being called "catchweight" just means the fight is being made at a weight other than a universally recognized weight division, so a middleweight and a super-middle might agree to make it at 164 or 165 instead of 160 or 168.
That's normal for as long as I've been watching the sport, it's just publicized now because "world champions" and big-namers are choosing these types of "super-fight" rather than normal alphabet championships matches, sometimes with or without a title at stake.

It's not the same as a 190 pounder saying he wants to challenge a 240 pound heavyweight without putting on weight, or without stipulating the other guy must reduce. Or a 135 pounder stepping on the scales to fight a 158 pounder.
Boxing is full of stories of promoters being anxious about perceived size match-ups and of boxers putting weights in their shoes or weighing in with clothes on or stuff in their pockets.

It's a matter of fact that welters used to fight light-heavyweights and middleweights would battle heavyweights, good fighters against good fighters.
Nowadays TV, sanctioning bodies and promoters wouldn't touch that, no matter how many people love an underdog story.

[amhlilhaus]

golf is another sport where this can be said. the old timers had shitty equipment. jack nicklaus hitting a 300 yard drive with steel shafts and a old ball is more impressive than the 370 yard drives with oversized heads, graphite shafts and aerodynamic balls.

[Manassa]

Pol Pot ?

I don't think smoking had anything to do with it :huh

[ChrisPontius]

I see several cruiserweights weighing in at 189 - 195 still, and some even lighter, when the limit is now 200 pounds.
So, they cant be 210+ pounds on fight night, it would make no sense to make 200 by a clear 5 or 10 pounds.
Therefore, they must be genuinely well within the limit. And, yes, the guys coming in at about 199 pounds may be manipulating their weight to get there, and they are genuine 215 pounders.


Maybe some, but most weigh in close to 200lbs and rehydrate to (far) above it.



I'm not trying to refute your arguments. I have no firm beliefs on the matter. I dont automatically go along with your theory, which is some type of "evolution of the heavyweight species", but I dont reject it or seek to refute it. It has a lot of merit and is no doubt at the very least partially correct.

I dont find some of the basis of the argument (eg. Corbett and Tunney beome Ali and Holmes, that there were no BIG ATHLETIC boxers - who are so typical nowadays - in times gone by, that we can generalize about "types" of boxers and say they are like this and not like that, ones we cant see on film) convincing or solid at all. That's all. I think there should be some doubts, because it's NOT a scientific discovery nor a rigourous scientific theory.
And I think it's perhaps a minor point to the discussion of why or if the abilities of the best boxers have progressed at all since 1940.


Okay.



Roy Jones weighed in at HEAVYWEIGHT. He was 193 pounds, when the cruiser limit was 190.
What do you mean by "catchweight" ?
Most of these big fights being called "catchweight" just means the fight is being made at a weight other than a universally recognized weight division, so a middleweight and a super-middle might agree to make it at 164 or 165 instead of 160 or 168.
That's normal for as long as I've been watching the sport, it's just publicized now because "world champions" and big-namers are choosing these types of "super-fight" rather than normal alphabet championships matches, sometimes with or without a title at stake.

It's not the same as a 190 pounder saying he wants to challenge a 240 pound heavyweight without putting on weight, or without stipulating the other guy must reduce. Or a 135 pounder stepping on the scales to fight a 158 pounder.
Boxing is full of stories of promoters being anxious about perceived size match-ups and of boxers putting weights in their shoes or weighing in with clothes on or stuff in their pockets.

It's a matter of fact that welters used to fight light-heavyweights and middleweights would battle heavyweights, good fighters against good fighters.
Nowadays TV, sanctioning bodies and promoters wouldn't touch that, no matter how many people love an underdog story.

Catchweight was the wrong word, but my point is: if a great smaller guy want to step up to heavyweight, there will be big money because everyone wants to see the smaller underdog upset the unwritten rules of boxing, i.e. bigger is better. Sanctioning bodies only listen to one thing, and that is money, and where there is money, they will sanction it, 187 or 193lbs, no problem.

[ChrisPontius]

I don't think smoking had anything to do with it :huh


:lol: I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not.

[djm]

I do think the nature of boxing as a profession and its progression (regression?) over the years does affect the development of its athletes.

In many other sports, seasons have become longer and the sport itself more financially rewarding, allowing more participants to compete more often at a very high level (pro baseball, football, hockey, tennis, etc. players no longer need day jobs; elite level track athletes are better supported).

In boxing, athletes now compete less (fewer fights) and the competition has become more watered down as there are fewer competitors (many better ways to make a decent living). The elite level compete less than in the past and against fewer quality opponents (it has also become more difficult to make matches between elite level opponents due to the nature of the business). Training and nutrition increases likely don't balance out against the loss in "honing of the skills".

[Boilermaker]

It doesn't work like that, nutrition and living standards have increased massively on average.

Which brand of time machine do you use that doesnt work like that :lol::admin

[Manassa]

:lol: I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not.

:yep

[Vantage_West]

The cruiserweight division was introduced to make more minor titles, more championships, more TV money, more sanctioning fees, more promotional opportunities. It wasn't strictly a necessity.
Many fighters who can make cruiserweight choose to fight as heavyweights because the money is better. Eddie Chambers admits there are too many good fighters at cruiserweight for it to make sense financially, he said he'd rather fight a rated 6'6" heavyweight than go down and compete against guys like himself. He's just one example.
Also, with 24-48 hour intervals between weigh-in and fights these days, we have some genuinely big 215 - 220 pound cruiserweights competing in the same division as genuine 185 pounders.
There is always room for another division, but they are never necessary. However many divisions we introduced there will always be people manipulating it, and bigger isn't necessarily better anyway - and I dont assume weight equates to real size and strength, nevermind ability.
we british have had cruiserwieght for years just no world sanctioning body recognized it.