ESB Essay Writing Competition: Comparing fighters from different eras

[Decebal]

Please comment on the following view in less than 250 words:


"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."

The deadline for submissions is the 3rd of August, 12:00 GMT. With your gracious permission, I, Decebal, will judge the entries and decide a winner.

[ChrisPontius]

Boxing, like society, is under influence of constant changes. In the 19th century the transition was made from bareknuckle to gloved boxing and it didn't end there. The number of rounds has been reduced, the glove size changed and a "neutral corner" rule was added to name a few.

In Jack Johnson's days, boxing consisted for a large part of wrestling and in-fighting. Today, boxing consists for a large part of fighting on the outside and putting combinations together.

Can a fight like Joe Jeannette KO49 Sam McVey be compared to Ali vs Frazier I, or Holyfield vs Bowe I ? Certainly not, but all of those are legendary fights in their own way.

Much like that, some fighters in my opinion cannot be compared in a pure head-to-head sense because of the changes in the sport. But a fighter's legacy based on who he beat and how he beat them, can certainly be compared over the years. Marciano's legendary 49-0 is still standing 50 years later as well as Joe Louis' record for number of title defenses.

Clearly, even though the rules of boxing changed, legacies can still be assessed accurately and compared with one and other.


Did i cross the 100?

[Decebal]

you almost hit 200...OK, let's make it 250 limit. I'm looking for laconic replies, not windbags.

[cross_trainer]

Clothes make the man, rules make the style, and Ruiz fights make me sick (no connection)

Ever since Ug Ugson crawled out of his cave to beat up his noisy neighbors, combat sports have been bounded by certain rules--rules that fighters figure out very quickly. There comes an equilibrium point in every sport when fighters figure out the best techniques for their ruleset. In some sports, large numbers of participants ensure that the transition is quick and painless. Others with smaller talent pools take longer. But in all cases, equilibrium is reached rather quickly. Strangely, fighters don't like to get punched in the face any more than they can help it.

"Full contact karate" went from no-contact point fighting to modern American kickboxing in less than a decade. Mixed martial arts were more or less complete in the same time frame. Judo has been the same since the 1880's. Yet modern boxing commentators would have us believe that boxing, with its massive talent pool, took seventy years to get it right.

Bosh. Boxing had thousands of tough, dedicated fighters working day in and day out to perfect their technique--and often participating in hundreds of fights. In a game where a split second of time could rob you of your senses and your meal ticket, you'd better believe that their techniques worked, pretty-looking or not. Their techniques appear look strange to us today...but how many of us have 300 professional fights?

[Decebal]

Thank you. Any other takers?

[China_hand_Joe]

-fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

-fullstop-

We have a winner.

[Decebal]

We have a winner.

Says it all, doesn't it! China_hand_Joe - what an excentric joker!:bart

[China_hand_Joe]

)

Ever since Ug Ugson crawled out of his cave to beat up his noisy neighbors, combat sports have been bounded by certain rules--rules that fighters figure out very quickly. There comes an equilibrium point in every sport when fighters figure out the best techniques for their ruleset. In some sports, large numbers of participants ensure that the transition is quick and painless. Others with smaller talent pools take longer. But in all cases, equilibrium is reached rather quickly. Strangely, fighters don't like to get punched in the face any more than they can help it.
Do you think Ug Ugson ran at all -question mark-

[cross_trainer]

Do you think Ug Ugson ran at all -question mark-
Well, there was that one time with the infamous "wildebeest incident"

[cross_trainer]

On second thought, your question seems to ask something slightly different. Here's another take. I'll use whichever entry you feel answers the question as you asked it:




Pick a famous fight. How many people predicted the outcome? How many of the thousands of commentators, professional fighters, trainers, and professional gamblers got it right? Unless it was a mismatch, not many. And remember, these are the most knowledgeable folks in the business.

We all know this, yet we still insist on rating fighters on how good we think they are, head-to-head. Most of us have never had a professional fight, trained a professional fighter, or made a living on boxing gambling, but we can say with absolute certainty that fighter X is the greatest because he would wipe the floor with fighters from every other era. Fighters in X's time, we say with a wise shake of the head, are clearly better on film.

It's an easy trap to fall into. There's just one problem--fighter X's opponents haven't proved that they're better. They only proved that they can look more impressive to observers. The real tests always come in the ring. If head-to-head hypothesizing was always correct...well, let's just say that we'd never be talking about journeymen like Marciano, LaMotta, and Greb. And who the heck was Buster Douglas?

[Decebal]

Quite dissapointed with the no. of entries so far...I thought this would be a popular topic, because directly or indirectly it gets touched on a lot in all sorts of debates...yet we have only three entries...

[Rattler]

"As humankind evolves, the species physically grows along with it. As with knowledge, the acquisition of applied talent can be affected in ways that previous generations never considered nor had availability to. This is how evolution works. The next always has more then their predecesors, simply because that's how the line of descent makes it be.

Evolution comes slowly, though.... so slowly that the idea that one generation has a cleanly identifiable advantage that previous generations cannot possibly fight with success against is highly suspect. It takes more than just knowledge and the process of physical evolution to make a great fighter. It takes heart, discipline, desire, mental and physical toughness and the mental makeup necessary to engage in a violent conflict with as little hesitation as possible.

The sport of boxing is littered with names that recall visions of physical beasts who disappointed because they lacked the requisite intangibles that mark champions of all sport and competitions in life. In general, the next generation will find itself more capable than the previous one, but boxing is a man-on-man spectacle, and in that scenario, it's what goes unseen (and will always remain unmeasurable) that is the determining factor.

That makes reasonable assumption not only possible, but necessary."


I ain't countin' that shit....

[China_hand_Joe]

I'll do something a few minutes after the deadline -fullstop-

[Decebal]

Please comment on the following view in less than 250 words:



"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."


The deadline for submissions is the 3rd of August, 12:00 GMT. For China_hand_Joe, the deadline is 29th of July, 16:00 GMT. With your gracious permission, I, Decebal, will judge the entries and decide a winner.


:deal

[rekcutnevets]

They are warranted, because they are all engaged in a similar activity. Anytime you have a history of people involved in the same, or nearly the same, sport; you will always wonder how the best from different eras will match up. Even if it is impossible to determine an answer.

I keep a guideline in mind whenever I analyze match ups. Techniques change throughout eras, and so do conditioning methods. Instead of thinking of these match ups happening as they would era against era, I pretend both fighters would have the same knowledge available to learn from. I try to pretend they would be from the same time period, rather than saying so and so would be in better shape because he knew the importance of interval training. I try not to hold some of the old timer's sometimes different technique as the deciding factor, because if fighters are from the same period they will have similar technical knowledge to draw from.

I always remember that these match ups are strictly imaginary, and the outcomes never capable of proven.

[Manassa]

Evolution, not revolution.

Thank you.

[Decebal]

Evolution, not revolution.

Thank you.

What for?

[Decebal]

:-(

[Manassa]

What for?

Thank you for taking the time to read my fine essay.

[Decebal]

Thank you for taking the time to read my fine essay.

you must be younger than I thought!:yep

[Manassa]

So Floyd is better than SRR because the sport has evolved? I don't get it, is Amsterdam starting to influence you?

Ah, the opposite. Let's evolve our skills; at this time, we are merely revolving.

[Manassa]

you must be younger than I thought!:yep

Eighteen, sir!

[Decebal]

Eighteen, sir!

Thou art forgiven then! :good

(Friendly advice...read the question carefully before attempting an anwer...will come in handy when you do exams as university...and...contrary to popular beliefs it's a myth that they give an alpha alpha double plus for smart-assed three-word answers...);)

[Decebal]

As anyone who has Access to youtube can see, boxing peaked during the Tyson-Berbick fight when mike tyson truly became the perfect fighting machine.

Ive made a rough graph that shows the differences between earlier primitive boxers, and later primitive boxers in comparison to mike tyson.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]



In conclusion, Mike tyson is perfect, all other fighters are inferior.

:lol: "rough" is a bit of an understatement...the gradient of the line falling to George Foreman implies a logical impossibility...but otherwise, it's a pretty picture!:good

[Manassa]

Thou art forgiven then! :good

(Friendly advice...read the question carefully before attempting an anwer...will come in handy when you do exams as university...and...contrary to popular beliefs it's a myth that they give an alpha alpha double plus for smart-assed three-word answers...);)

Should have asked me during the week. At weekends I'm fully booked!

[Bummy Davis]

Boxing, like society, is under influence of constant changes. In the 19th century the transition was made from bareknuckle to gloved boxing and it didn't end there. The number of rounds has been reduced, the glove size changed and a "neutral corner" rule was added to name a few.

In Jack Johnson's days, boxing consisted for a large part of wrestling and in-fighting. Today, boxing consists for a large part of fighting on the outside and putting combinations together.

Can a fight like Joe Jeannette KO49 Sam McVey be compared to Ali vs Frazier I, or Holyfield vs Bowe I ? Certainly not, but all of those are legendary fights in their own way.

Much like that, some fighters in my opinion cannot be compared in a pure head-to-head sense because of the changes in the sport. But a fighter's legacy based on who he beat and how he beat them, can certainly be compared over the years. Marciano's legendary 49-0 is still standing 50 years later as well as Joe Louis' record for number of title defenses.

Clearly, even though the rules of boxing changed, legacies can still be assessed accurately and compared with one and other.


Did i cross the 100?


:good :good :good

[Decebal]

Should have asked me during the week. At weekends I'm fully booked!

"The deadline for submissions is the 3rd of August, 12:00 GMT"

:readthre:

[Manassa]

"The deadline for submissions is the 3rd of August, 12:00 GMT"

:readthre:

Oh, I see - how many words does it have to be?

[Decebal]

Oh, I see - how many words does it have to be?


If Muhammad doesn't want to go to the mountain, then I guess the mountain has to come to Muhammad...

I pasted the answer below, so that you don't have to scroll to the first post...:-(

Please comment on the following view in less than 250 words:


"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."

The deadline for submissions is the 3rd of August, 12:00 GMT. With your gracious permission, I, Decebal, will judge the entries and decide a winner.

[Manassa]

I don't completely understand the question, could you elaborate?

[Decebal]

I don't completely understand the question, could you elaborate?

Ok...you need to use your logical mind to unpeel it, before answering...it is a philosophy question, really...

First of all, you have to decide whether you agree that comparisons between fighters from different eras are indeed unwarranted. Then you have to decide whether, even if they are unwarranted, it follows that such comparisons cannot reasonably be made. You should also explore whether the fact that they might be warranted might not in fact allow for reasonable comparison. There, that's all the angles. Boxing knowledge usefull but not necessary.

[Manassa]

'Unwarranted' - what does this mean in relation to the essay?

What happens if I go over 250 words?

[Shake]

A manticore will devour you.

[Decebal]

'Unwarranted' - what does this mean in relation to the essay?

What happens if I go over 250 words?

Reason I said 250 is because I value economy of language. I don't want a wolly, long-winded answer. 250 or thereabouts should be sufficient for a good answer.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Decebal]

no, its quite logical, The complete lack of skill of george foreman actually devolved boxing as a whole.

:lol: I like your justification!

[McGrain]

As anyone who has Access to youtube can see, boxing peaked during the Tyson-Berbick fight when mike tyson truly became the perfect fighting machine.

Ive made a rough graph that shows the differences between earlier primitive boxers, and later primitive boxers in comparison to mike tyson.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]



In conclusion, Mike tyson is perfect, all other fighters are inferior.


This is my favourite entery, though this guy is probably I Am Legend.

With a better avatar.

[Manassa]

Reason I said 250 is because I value economy of language. I don't want a wolly, long-winded answer. 250 or thereabouts should be sufficient for a good answer.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Okay, I'm all for it. What is the subject?

[Decebal]

Okay, I'm all for it. What is the subject?

"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."

...my patience knows no bounds!

[Manassa]

"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."

...my patience knows no bounds!

What are you talking about?

[Decebal]

What are you talking about?

About what I am talking.

[Manassa]

Well I don't understand you. What do you want me to write about?

[Decebal]

Well I don't understand you. What do you want me to write about?


Please comment on the following view in less than 250 words:




"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."

The deadline for submissions is the 3rd of August, 12:00 GMT.

Manassa, mate, this is not compulsory! And you won't get a medal either if you volunteer to comment on the above view. If you find the subject tiresome, just leave it! :)

[Manassa]

I feel almost guilty :lol:

[Decebal]

I feel almost guilty :lol:

Don't get over yourself, mate...I let you have one or two over, as I was mean to you before.:smooch

[Amsterdam]

So Floyd is better than SRR because the sport has evolved? I don't get it, is Amsterdam starting to influence you?

Amsterdam is an intelligent, realistic poster...:oops:

[cross_trainer]

Amsterdam is an intelligent, realistic poster...:oops:

Cross Trainer thinks that talking about yourself in third person is strange.

His other personalities agree with him.

[Decebal]

Amsterdam is an intelligent, realistic poster...:oops:

Damn right! And it doesn't follow either...and even if it did, you would never put forth such propostera.

[Decebal]

Cross Trainer thinks that talking about yourself in third person is strange.

His other personalities agree with him.

:lol:

[Decebal]

Right, clowning around over, this thread is open for business again.

[Manassa]

Don't get over yourself, mate...I let you have one or two over, as I was mean to you before.:smooch

Don't wind up the wind-up merchant.

[Decebal]

Don't wind up the wind-up merchant.

Precisely!

...Unless you've got a 10 inch goad, you're out of your depth.

[Manassa]

Precisely!

...Unless you've got a 10 inch goad, you're out of your depth.

Not at all. Infact, my spidey-sense tells me you're trying to wind me up now, but I am immune.

[Decebal]

Not at all. Infact, my spidey-sense tells me you're trying to wind me up now, but I am immune.

Alas, immune to persuasion!...:roll:

[Decebal]

Liverpool is the best city in england.

Doc, here's a voucher! Why don't you get yourself a drink at the bar?

:deal

[Amsterdam]

Cross Trainer thinks that talking about yourself in third person is strange.

His other personalities agree with him.

Amsterdam agknowledges his eccentric qualities, it's well fine.

[Decebal]

Amsterdam agknowledges his eccentric qualities, it's well fine.

:lol:

[Decebal]

.

[Decebal]

It looks like this thread has had it; no more entries look forthcoming. Let's end it. First of all, thank you very much to all who participated. We have had some good entries, some very well written. The reason why I wanted to hear opinions about whether fighters from different eras can be compared is because we do it all the time, particularly on this forum.

I threw in the view:

"Comparisons between fighters from different eras are unwarranted, and, as such, cannot reasonably be made."

because of the following:

Firstly, fighters from different eras were fighting in a different environment. Boxing in the 1930s, say, meant, to a certain extent, something different than it means now. Even at the level of society, people had slightly different world views and values and priorities that affected the way they perceived boxing as an activity and as a profession. I don't know enough about the detail. Perhaps someone could write back and tell us more. What struck me particularly was that they used to fight so much more often, and for more rounds back then - whether they saw it as something more of a roadshow than a one off big show as things seem to be seen these days, I personally do not know. It would be interesting to find out. But what is clear is that it affected the way they fought, because, for one, recovery times were shorter. Chris Pontius and cross_trainer touched on this subject.

Secondly, given the expectations and value-sets at the time, clearly boxing became a refine art form, as cross_trainer explained. Dammit, they were fighting all the time, for many rounds - of course they started to see all the angles. So I think it's silly to say that they didn't know what they were doing or that boxing wa still in its infancy. It doesn't work like that...

Thirdly, no one could deny that there have been advances in nutrition, training, psychology, physiotherapy that have allowed many more top fighters to have more impressive physiques, and thus hit harder and be fitter. rekcutnevets and particularly Rattler explained this very well. The latter though, also explained that things that are commonely described as "heart" cannot be trained for; you either have it or you don't - motivation, desire to win/not to be defeated, things like that - sometimes make all the difference! But it would be foolish to assume that per capita, there were more people with heart then or now than at some other perios on time. What is certain however is that these days, for many more people in the world, there are many more options to realise their potential and have a decent life. But whether it is absolute or relative poverty that really makes the biggest difference is hard to determine...no one really touched on this.

Fourthly, there is the size of the talent pool. cross_trainer, particularly, touched on that subject. But is the talent pool bigger now than then or the other way around? Frankly this issue is only tangential here...because the question was not whether guys in the goodold days were better than guys in this era, but whether they could be compared.

There are more issues to consider, but these are the ones that come to me now.

What struck me as very good points are the following:

Chris Pontius: even though there have been changes in the sport, the legacy that certain fighters have built up, these legacies themselves, can be compared with the legacies of modern fighters. I think this point touches right at the heart of the subject.

cross_trainer: an equilibrium point, when fighters figure out the best techniques for their ruleset, was achieved then, as it is today. Thus, even though the sport evolves, and even progresses in some ways, during each major era, an equilibrium - a gold standard for the sport - is reached. This poses a problem while creating an opportunity.

cross_trainer: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This is very important! Clearly, every fighter was fighting the opponent in front of him, and not some other, and certainly not some other from another era, when the sport and expectations were different! This makes "comparing" fighters from different eras impossible and unwarranted - because we simply do not know how they would IN THE END have reacted to a different style/different conditions.

Rattler: explained that there is evolution in the sport, but showed that due to the "intangibles" and "heart", even if the sport is assumed to progress, one cannot assume that current fighters would beat the old-timers. Also made cross_trainers last point very well.

rekcutnevets: made the very good point that it is reasonable to compare fighters involved in a similar activity, all said and done. Not just that - but it is inevitable! Also made the very good point that when comparisons are made, we always allow or at least should allow for the fact that there has been progress in nutrition, training, recovery, etc., which have had an effect. Also explains very well that as a result, such comparisons are VERY much an artform, and cannot be a science. I guess this is what makes them such fascinating and creative activities to engage in.

My opinion is that the fact that the rules/conditions of the game are different, that there have been progresses that give an advantage to moders fighters over old fighters, whatever the rules of the game, and not least, that boxing represented quite a different thing then, than it does now, and that boxers, like memebers of their society, saw that activity in a different way, make objective comparisons unwarranted. But legacies can certainly be reasonably compared. And not just legacies, but the extent to which each fighter is closer or further away and in some cases, even defines, the gold standard of their day, can be reasonably compared!

So to give my one line answer to the question: even though strict comparisons between fighters are unwarranted to a large extent, it does not follow that reasonable comparisons cannot be made between them, and particularly of their legacies.

And since it is I that has the difficult task of decidind a winner, I would like to say that I was impressed with quite a few of the points that have been made, and certainly some of the entries have also been very well written, but my (subjective) pick for the winner is, and it is not an easy choice, because I'm tempted to give it to three of the different entries...rekcutnevets, despite his entry not being as well written, stylistically. So what do you think? Which entry do you like best? And thank you very much again to all who participated!

[McGrain]

America is better than england.


I tend to agree.

Vegas ko London 9

New York ko Birmingham 1.

I like Doc's entery.

[Decebal]

I tend to agree.

Vegas ko London 9

New York ko Birmingham 1.

oh, dear! Scotand v. England through proxies!:lol:

[McGrain]

oh, dear! Scotand v. England through proxies!:lol:

On and on it goes...

[Decebal]

On and on it goes...

:yep

[Decebal]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

rekcutnevets

[Amsterdam]

Modern>Primitive:good

[Decebal]

Modern>Primitive:good

:lol:

[China_hand_Joe]

A procrastinator had no chance here -fullstop-

[Decebal]

A procrastinator had no chance here -fullstop-

Procrastination is an enemy of truth...so...you're right!:D

[China_hand_Joe]

You can compare resumes, but not the fighters as to how good they are, as past boxers were simply dire -fullstop- Old-timer fighters can compete on greatness lists but on a true P4P list the are fucked -fullstop- (it is like comparing Dixie Dean to Thierry Henry)

[Decebal]

You can compare resumes, but not the fighters as to how good they are, as past boxers were simply dire -fullstop- Old-timer fighters can compete on greatness lists but on a true P4P list the are fucked -fullstop- (it is like comparing Dixie Dean to Thierry Henry)

I agree that strict comparisons between fighters are unwarranted to a large extent. And I agree it is reasonable to compare fighters, particularly when it comes to reputation/greatness/legacy. Beyond that, any comparisons are an artform to such a great extent that although they might provide a lot of insight to the one carrying out such an exercise, and certainly much enjoyment to the true connaisseur and others like him, in terms of validity, these exercises are condemned to have but a limited value.

(Now that this thread is over, will you write an essay, as you promissed?):D

[China_hand_Joe]

No, not now -fullstop- I was going to write an ironic piece, where I go on about boxing being a sacred, magical sport that is the exception to the rule about sports evolving -fullstop- And how boxing really is an exception to the rule, not just because we are classical boxing fans -fullstop-

[Decebal]

No, not now -fullstop- I was going to write an ironic piece, where I go on about boxing being a sacred, magical sport that is the exception to the rule about sports evolving -fullstop- And how boxing really is an exception to the rule, not just because we are classical boxing fans -fullstop-

Let's have the ironic piece then! Sounds interesting!:good

[cross_trainer]

No, not now -fullstop- I was going to write an ironic piece, where I go on about boxing being a sacred, magical sport that is the exception to the rule about sports evolving -fullstop- And how boxing really is an exception to the rule, not just because we are classical boxing fans -fullstop-

Exception to what rule of sports evolution? How many guys can run a 9 1/2 or 9 1/4 second 100 yard dash using old shoes over dirt?

[China_hand_Joe]

Exception to what rule of sports evolution? How many guys can run a 9 1/2 or 9 1/4 second 100 yard dash using old shoes over dirt?Look at times on the road mate -fullstop-

[Rattler]

I never win these damned things!! :mad

[fists of fury]

I believe it goes against logic to say the sport hasn't evolved, or that the fighters (on the whole) have not gotten better.
A few miracle workers from previous eras could step out of a time machine and fight for a belt against today's best, but most could not.

Boxing is not a quantitive science. We can measure the progress made in other sports because they are timed or measured. How many records from the 1960 Olympics still stand? Heck, how many records from the 1992 Olympics still stand? The progress in those sports is easy to measure.
In boxing progress isn't always easy to guage and a person with enough knowledge and writing skills can make a fight between John L. Sullivan and Lennox Lewis seem plausible.
Of course, they say logic is overrated and maybe it is...after watching rayrob or Joe Louis fight I have yet to see anyone do it better.

[cross_trainer]

I believe it goes against logic to say the sport hasn't evolved, or that the fighters (on the whole) have not gotten better.
A few miracle workers from previous eras could step out of a time machine and fight for a belt against today's best, but most could not.

Boxing is not a quantitive science. We can measure the progress made in other sports because they are timed or measured. How many records from the 1960 Olympics still stand? Heck, how many records from the 1992 Olympics still stand?

Quite a few from the 1992 Olympics still stand--after that point, the steroid testing became stricter.

[cross_trainer]

Look at times on the road mate -fullstop-
They didn't have "roads" in the modern sense in 1840.

Oh, and that time was done from a standing start as well. Evolution may have occurred, but it's been veeeerrrryyyy ssssllllloooooo[Only registered and activated users can see links] :good

[China_hand_Joe]

We should only include the more popular events, the records in minority sports can obviously stand for a far longer time -fullstop-

[China_hand_Joe]

They didn't have "roads" in the modern sense in 1840.

Oh, and that time was done from a standing start as well. Evolution may have occurred, but it's been veeeerrrryyyy ssssllllloooooo[Only registered and activated users can see links] :goodRoger Bannister -fullstop- Now every elite athlete can do the same time -fullstop- And running shoes have barely progressed before you bring that up, they are all about marketing -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

We should only include the more popular events, the records in minority sports can obviously stand for a far longer time -fullstop-

Running is a pretty popular event. So is weightlifting. Heck, even the highland games have a good following. Aside from this, "popular" sports tend to change the equipment and technique, which obscures most gains in "athleticism" (what you're measuring).

To put it another way--if I forced you to run from a standing start over barely-even dirt tracks in old shoes, you wouldn't do nearly as well as you would over clay with modern running shoes, crouching from blocks.

[cross_trainer]

Roger Bannister -fullstop- Now every elite athlete can do the same time -fullstop- And running shoes have barely progressed before you bring that up, they are all about marketing -fullstop-

Bannister managed a 9 1/4 seconds 100 yards over rough dirt from a standing start? Or even 9 1/2 (the best amateur performance from the 19th century)?

And running shoes have progressed--at least when they're used in modern tracks, and likely elsewhere. Have you seen what these guys were wearing?

[China_hand_Joe]

4:36.5 Richard Webster England 1865 England
4:29.0 William Chinnery England 1868 England
4:28.8 Walter Gibbs England 1868 England
4:26.0 Walter Slade England 1874 England
4:24.5 Walter Slade England 1875 London
4:23.2 Walter George England 1880 London
4:21.4 Walter George England 1882 London
4:18.4 Walter George England 1884 Birmingham, England
4:18.2 Fred Bacon Scotland 1894 Edinburgh, Scotland
4:17.0 Fred Bacon Scotland 1895 London
4:15.6 Thomas Conneff United States 1895 Travers Island, N.Y.
4:15.4 John Paul Jones United States 1911 Cambridge, Mass.
4:14.4 John Paul Jones United States 1913 Cambridge, Mass.
4:12.6 Norman Taber United States 1915 Cambridge, Mass.
4:10.4 Paavo Nurmi Finland 1923 Stockholm
4:09.2 Jules Ladoumegue France 1931 Paris
4:07.6 Jack Lovelock New Zealand 1933 Princeton, N.J.
4:06.8 Glenn Cunningham United States 1934 Princeton, N.J.
4:06.4 Sydney Wooderson England 1937 London
4:06.2 Gundar Hägg Sweden 1942 Goteborg, Sweden
4:06.2 Arne Andersson Sweden 1942 Stockholm
4:04.6 Gunder Hägg Sweden 1942 Stockholm
4:02.6 Arne Andersson Sweden 1943 Goteborg, Sweden
4:01.6 Arne Andersson Sweden 1944 Malmo, Sweden
4:01.4 Gunder Hägg Sweden 1945 Malmo, Sweden
3:59.4 Roger Bannister England 1954 Oxford, England
3:58.0 John Landy Australia 1954 Turku, Finland
3:57.2 Derek Ibbotson England 1957 London
3:54.5 Herb Elliott Australia 1958 Dublin
3:54.4 Peter Snell New Zealand 1962 Wanganui, N.Z.
3:54.1 Peter Snell New Zealand 1964 Auckland, N.Z.
3:53.6 Michel Jazy France 1965 Rennes, France
3:51.3 Jim Ryun United States 1966 Berkeley, Calif.
3:51.1 Jim Ryun United States 1967 Bakersfield, Calif.
3:51.0 Filbert Bayi Tanzania 1975 Kingston, Jamaica
3:49.4 John Walker New Zealand 1975 Goteborg, Sweden
3:49.0 Sebastian Coe England 1979 Oslo
3:48.8 Steve Ovett England 1980 Oslo
3:48.53 Sebastian Coe England 1981 Zurich, Switzerland
3:48.40 Steve Ovett England 1981 Koblenz, W. Ger.
3:47.33 Sebastian Coe England 1981 Brussels
3:46.31 Steve Cram England 1985 Oslo
3:44.39 Noureddine Morceli Algeria 1993 Rieti, Italy
3:43.13 Hicham El Guerrouj Morocco 1999 Rome, Italy



It is ridiculous to argue against this and I know you are fully aware of that fact -fullstop-

[China_hand_Joe]

Bannister managed a 9 1/4 seconds 100 yards over rough dirt from a standing start? Or even 9 1/2 (the best amateur performance from the 19th century)?

And running shoes have progressed--at least when they're used in modern tracks, and likely elsewhere. Have you seen what these guys were wearing?In the last 30 years the progress in running shoes is negligible -fullstop- They might be slightly more comfortable now, but that is it -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

4:36.5 Richard Webster England 1865 England
4:29.0 William Chinnery England 1868 England
4:28.8 Walter Gibbs England 1868 England
4:26.0 Walter Slade England 1874 England
4:24.5 Walter Slade England 1875 London
4:23.2 Walter George England 1880 London
4:21.4 Walter George England 1882 London
4:18.4 Walter George England 1884 Birmingham, England
4:18.2 Fred Bacon Scotland 1894 Edinburgh, Scotland
4:17.0 Fred Bacon Scotland 1895 London
4:15.6 Thomas Conneff United States 1895 Travers Island, N.Y.
4:15.4 John Paul Jones United States 1911 Cambridge, Mass.
4:14.4 John Paul Jones United States 1913 Cambridge, Mass.
4:12.6 Norman Taber United States 1915 Cambridge, Mass.
4:10.4 Paavo Nurmi Finland 1923 Stockholm
4:09.2 Jules Ladoumegue France 1931 Paris
4:07.6 Jack Lovelock New Zealand 1933 Princeton, N.J.
4:06.8 Glenn Cunningham United States 1934 Princeton, N.J.
4:06.4 Sydney Wooderson England 1937 London
4:06.2 Gundar Hägg Sweden 1942 Goteborg, Sweden
4:06.2 Arne Andersson Sweden 1942 Stockholm
4:04.6 Gunder Hägg Sweden 1942 Stockholm
4:02.6 Arne Andersson Sweden 1943 Goteborg, Sweden
4:01.6 Arne Andersson Sweden 1944 Malmo, Sweden
4:01.4 Gunder Hägg Sweden 1945 Malmo, Sweden
3:59.4 Roger Bannister England 1954 Oxford, England
3:58.0 John Landy Australia 1954 Turku, Finland
3:57.2 Derek Ibbotson England 1957 London
3:54.5 Herb Elliott Australia 1958 Dublin
3:54.4 Peter Snell New Zealand 1962 Wanganui, N.Z.
3:54.1 Peter Snell New Zealand 1964 Auckland, N.Z.
3:53.6 Michel Jazy France 1965 Rennes, France
3:51.3 Jim Ryun United States 1966 Berkeley, Calif.
3:51.1 Jim Ryun United States 1967 Bakersfield, Calif.
3:51.0 Filbert Bayi Tanzania 1975 Kingston, Jamaica
3:49.4 John Walker New Zealand 1975 Goteborg, Sweden
3:49.0 Sebastian Coe England 1979 Oslo
3:48.8 Steve Ovett England 1980 Oslo
3:48.53 Sebastian Coe England 1981 Zurich, Switzerland
3:48.40 Steve Ovett England 1981 Koblenz, W. Ger.
3:47.33 Sebastian Coe England 1981 Brussels
3:46.31 Steve Cram England 1985 Oslo
3:44.39 Noureddine Morceli Algeria 1993 Rieti, Italy
3:43.13 Hicham El Guerrouj Morocco 1999 Rome, Italy



It is ridiculous to argue against this and I know you are fully aware of that fact -fullstop-

I see a progression of records owing a bit to training and at least as much to equipment and technical factors, which supports my point.

Why would I argue for something that I know is incorrect? What on earth would I have to gain? It's a boxing forum, for crying out loud.

[Decebal]

In the last 30 years the progress in running shoes is negligible -fullstop- They might be slightly more comfortable now, but that is it -fullstop-

I think the running shoe issue is to a certain extent a red herring...some of these top athletes from Kenya still run the 10,000 meters barefoot. They have done in the past and they do now...but just faster. You could argue it's the track that makes the difference, and to a certain extent it does, but not to sufficiently to explain the time difference. Modern Kenyans are faster than Kenyans a generation ago.

[fists of fury]

You have a good point C_T about the different equipment and steroids and the like. It definitely does blur the issue.

I'm not a big fan of this old v modern debate in any event. I participate in those matchups because it's fun to hear other viewpoints (and often I play devil's advocate anyway) but away from this site I could really care less.

Can't we just appreciate fighters from all eras and leave it at that? I can appreciate a Ketchell in his own right without wondering how he'd stack up to Hagler. It just doesn't interest me all that much.

[China_hand_Joe]

In a pair of 1970s running spikes I'd be less than half a second slower than in modern spikes -fullstop- It is almost purely down to training methods before the Africans take over -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

In the last 30 years the progress in running shoes is negligible -fullstop- They might be slightly more comfortable now, but that is it -fullstop-

Well, like I said: I am referring to professional records made in the 1840's. By '79, progress had slowed down. But then, after '79 there were not many quantum leaps, but rather a slow and gradual increase.

[China_hand_Joe]

I think the running shoe issue is to a certain extent a red herring...some of these top athletes from Kenya still run the 10,000 meters barefoot. They have done in the past and they do now...but just faster. You could argue it's the track that makes the difference, and to a certain extent it does, but not to sufficiently to explain the time difference. Modern Kenyans are faster than Kenyans a generation ago.The minimalistic running shoes with little cushioning is the best, modern shoes often do more damage than good -fullstop-

[China_hand_Joe]

Well, like I said: I am referring to professional records made in the 1840's. By '79, progress had slowed down. But then, after '79 there were not many quantum leaps, but rather a slow and gradual increase.And boxing is the same -fullstop- On a similar curve with an ever decreasing gradient -fullstop

[cross_trainer]

In a pair of 1970s running spikes I'd be less than half a second slower than in modern spikes -fullstop- It is almost purely down to training methods before the Africans take over -fullstop-

100 yards. Not mile. And you wouldn't do nearly as well with 1840's running shoes.

[cross_trainer]

And boxing is the same -fullstop-
It's not measurable before 1979, and after that it increased only slightly? (I'd actually say it's not measurable in modern technical terms before the 20's, when the major rule changes came. Anyway...)

Another thing to chew on: In the 100 yards, it is comparatively easy to figure out how training impacts the athlete. Do a certain program in a certain way, and your athlete gets faster. In boxing, there isn't much reliable feedback, so one would not expect boxing training to be as advanced or specialized as running. That's one of the reasons why there are many fighters today who train "old school" and still win...the same is not true of runners or weightlifters.

[China_hand_Joe]

It's not measurable before 1979, and after that it increased only slightly? (I'd actually say it's not measurable in modern technical terms before the 20's, when the major rule changes came. Anyway...)

Another thing to chew on: In the 100 yards, it is comparatively easy to figure out how training impacts the athlete. Do a certain program in a certain way, and your athlete gets faster. In boxing, there isn't much reliable feedback, so one would not expect boxing training to be as advanced or specialized as running. That's one of the reasons why there are many fighters today who train "old school" and still win...the same is not true of runners or weightlifters.The only argument against boxing having evolved is this: "Boxing is not a measurable sport, so just perhaps there is an infinitely small chance it has not progress, since we cannot prove otherwise with a clock -fullstop-" Just look at soccer, a sport much like boxing, in that it cannot be measured -fullstop- It is quite clear soccer has progress, boxing has too, it is just a really ugly sport, so we cannot see it quite as easily -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

The only argument against boxing having evolved is this: "Boxing is not a measurable sport, so just perhaps there is an infinitely small chance it has not progress, since we cannot prove otherwise with a clock -fullstop-" Just look at soccer, a sport much like boxing, in that it cannot be measured -fullstop- It is quite clear soccer has progress, boxing has too, it is just a really ugly sport, so we cannot see it quite as easily -fullstop-

That's not what I meant. I'm referring to a training principle--that if you can measure progress, it's easier to create it.

Compared to a sprinter, boxing trainers are fumbling in the dark. They have no way of knowing how much their training has impacted their boxer, except in a very rough way. Even then, they have to take into account the opponent, their own fighter's style, and his unique physical attributes. A sprinting trainer, by comparison, just looks at the clock and easily figures out what training works.

And like I said, there are no longer any top-flight sprinters who train "old school".

[China_hand_Joe]

Soccer is the same in terms of fumbling in the dark, it has clearly progressed -fullstop- Progress may be lesser than in measurable sports, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

Soccer is the same in terms of fumbling in the dark, it has clearly progressed -fullstop- Progress may be lesser than in measurable sports, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened -fullstop-

Precisely. Progress is slower as a result, which was my point. We differ in our rates, though, and the degree & type of change.

How many more new skills will soccer/football players know ten years from now that they do not know today?

[McGrain]

Soccer is the same in terms of fumbling in the dark, it has clearly progressed -fullstop- Progress may be lesser than in measurable sports, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened -fullstop-

You are wrong. You can make the argument that players are fitter (if you like) but not more proficent technically. The most technically excellent players are spread gentley over the century. So are the best.

Do you submit that modern tennis players are better than old school tennis players? Not the rackets or nutrition but the players? Mankinds reactions have evolved?

[McGrain]

How many more new skills will soccer/football players know ten years from now that they do not know today?

Almost certainly none that will be of practical use.

[China_hand_Joe]

You are wrong. You can make the argument that players are fitter (if you like) but not more proficent technically. The most technically excellent players are spread gentley over the century. So are the best.

Do you submit that modern tennis players are better than old school tennis players? Not the rackets or nutrition but the players? Mankinds reactions have evolved?The players from the 90 till now destroy those from the 60-70s in tennis, even with the same equiptment -fullstop-

[McGrain]

The players from the 90 till now destroy those from the 60-70s in tennis, even with the same equiptment -fullstop-

Why?

And what about football? You've thrown out there that the players are better now and failed miserabley to back it up.

[China_hand_Joe]

Pretty much every single sport has progressed greatly since the 60s for various reasons, it would be nice to think boxing is special, but it is not -fullstop- Slightly less progress than some sports maybe -fullstop- But great progress regardless -fullstop-

[Decebal]

I think the tennis and football parallels are significant. In both sports physique has improved, and as a result, the sport has become more athletic, and less based on skill and technique. Saying that, there are still players out there who have good technique as well as a superior physique compared to old-timers. But it is unlikely that over all, elite sportsmen's technique today is as good as it was back then, when, without technique, you were nothing, because these days, you can get by on pure physique to a great extent. Is my view completely wrong?

[China_hand_Joe]

Why?

And what about football? You've thrown out there that the players are better now and failed miserabley to back it up.Fitter is better -fullstop-

[enquirer]

Steroids and drugs have added to 'progress' greatly....In ALL sports....
In boxing of course it helps some,but i dont think its as necessary as in sports like weightlifting and sprinting.....Boxing is one of the few sports where progress can run back or stay still as there are too many intangibles,you cant train a chin,its somewhat genetic....Toughness and heart doesnt necessarily go up,when economic times are hard or when kids are tought to struggle hard for success then this can breed the right intangibles that fighters need.....
Maradona was twice as good as any modern footballer and would easily compete in todays football world,pele,maybe not.....

[McGrain]

Fitter is better -fullstop-

To tennis to football or both?

[cross_trainer]

Almost certainly none that will be of practical use.

Your lack of faith astounds me. Already they have started work on:


The Attack Kick

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Flip Kick

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Secret Body Check

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Unmentionables Gambit

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The High-Tech Soccer Suit

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




And several other groundbreaking innovations...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[China_hand_Joe]

I think the tennis and football parallels are significant. In both sports physique has improved, and as a result, the sport has become more athletic, and less based on skill and technique. Saying that, there are still players out there who have good technique as well as a superior physique compared to old-timers. But it is unlikely that over all, elite sportsmen's technique today is as good as it was back then, when, without technique, you were nothing, because these days, you can get by on pure physique to a great extent. Is my view completely wrong?I can't think of any without physique who get by on pure technique now with great sucess -fullstop- That applies to boxing and tennis -fullstop-

[Decebal]

Your lack of faith astounds me. Already they have started work on:


The Attack Kick

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Flip Kick

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Secret Body Check

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Unmentionables Gambit

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The High-Tech Soccer Suit

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




And several other groundbreaking innovations...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




:lol:

[cross_trainer]

Pretty much every single sport has progressed greatly since the 60s for various reasons, it would be nice to think boxing is special, but it is not -fullstop- Slightly less progress than some sports maybe -fullstop- But great progress regardless -fullstop-

This conversation is going in circles, though.

"Boxing has progressed because measurable sports have progressed"

"What about changes in technique and equipment?"

"These don't matter, because modern athletes are fitter"

"How do you know they're fitter?"

"Look at the measurable sports records".

[Decebal]

I can't think of any without physique who get by on pure technique now with great sucess -fullstop- That applies to boxing and tennis -fullstop-

and unless you are really gifted like Maradonna, it applies to football too, to a large extent.

[cross_trainer]

I can't think of any without physique who get by on pure technique now with great sucess -fullstop- That applies to boxing and tennis -fullstop-

Physique?

In that case, let me introduce you to the GOAT:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Decebal]

This conversation is going in circles, though.

"Boxing has progressed because measurable sports have progressed"

"What about changes in technique and equipment?"

"These don't matter, because modern athletes are fitter"

"How do you know they're fitter?"

"Look at the measurable sports records".

Are you arguing that modern boxers are not in fact fitter? I can see why they might not be, given the way that some train, but then there are many reasons why they would be, too! For example a couple of weeks ago Khan was saying how much he had improved through getting a nutritionist in and a regular physiotherapist...

[McGrain]

I can't think of any without physique who get by on pure technique now with great sucess -fullstop- That applies to boxing and tennis -fullstop-

There are very few in history for whom this is the case. What is your point?

In football it is now not possible to get by without serious physique. AGAIN, what is your point? It seems to be that footballers now are bigger and stronger. I would agree. Do you think this is true for boxers too? Heavyweights, of course, may be slightly bigger, but i'll think that you'll find, generally, that middlewieghts are around 160lbs.

[cross_trainer]

Are you arguing that modern boxers are not in fact fitter? I can see why they might not be, given the way that some train, but then there are many reasons why they would be, too! For example a couple of weeks ago Khan was saying how much he had improved through getting a nutritionist in and a regular physiotherapist...

They're somewhat fitter, but I think that the differences have been exaggerated--largely because, as I said, in boxing there are too many different things to train for at once. Ali didn't use plyometrics, for example, but he was clearly fast enough.

[enquirer]

Of course physique,weight training,nutrition,knowledge of skills and drugs have improved immensely,but in boxing this is not the be all and end all....You dont need to even lift a single weight,take any steroids,have a modern dietician or train by modern principles to be a great boxer....
Boxing is somewhat different in that you dont always progress in the intangibles as society goes on.....Why are kids getting fatter in the US and UK? Is that progress? Or is that a tribute to the modern lifestyle?

[McGrain]

Are you arguing that modern boxers are not in fact fitter? I can see why they might not be, given the way that some train, but then there are many reasons why they would be, too! For example a couple of weeks ago Khan was saying how much he had improved through getting a nutritionist in and a regular physiotherapist...

Modern boxers are every bit as fit as their less modern counterparts for what they do.

There may be a slight difference in real terms as modern fighters train for 12 rounds.

[cross_trainer]

, but i'll think that you'll find, generally, that middlewieghts are around 160lbs.
Impossible! :admin

[McGrain]

They're somewhat fitter.

Why do you think they are fitter?

[Decebal]

They're somewhat fitter, but I think that the differences have been exaggerated--largely because, as I said, in boxing there are too many different things to train for at once. Ali didn't use plyometrics, for example, but he was clearly fast enough.

Then a good question would be: do you think that the past greats would have been even better if, whilst benefiting from every positive aspect of their actual training, they would have had a modern-day nutritionist, physiotherapist and fittness trainer?

[China_hand_Joe]

This conversation is going in circles, though.

"Boxing has progressed because measurable sports have progressed"

"What about changes in technique and equipment?"

"These don't matter, because modern athletes are fitter"

"How do you know they're fitter?"

"Look at the measurable sports records".That is because you are choosing to go down that route, in full knowledge that nothing can be proven because boxing is not measurable -fullstop- Despite it being quite clear that every other non-measurable sports, in one way or another has progressed -fullstop- If is safe to assume, thanks to modern training principles and sports science - boxers are overall slightly faster, stronger and fitter (for the purpose of boxing in a modern ruleset) -fullstop- I don't care if Rocky Balboa beat Ivan Drago or not -fullstop-

[China_hand_Joe]

Then a good question would be: do you think that the past greats would have been even better if, whilst benefiting from every positive aspect of their actual training, they would have had a modern-day nutritionist, physiotherapist and fittness trainer?Yes they would -fullstop-

[Decebal]

Modern boxers are every bit as fit as their less modern counterparts for what they do.

There may be a slight difference in real terms as modern fighters train for 12 rounds.

I think this is a very good point. It was made in the essays as well. Each generation trains for the fight that it actually fights for, and eventually, you develop golden standards.

[cross_trainer]

Why do you think they are fitter?

Because, even though trainers can't quite get the perfect mix (due to the reasons I mentioned above), their techniques of training for specific aspects of the game have improved slightly. There HAVE been slight improvements in comparable sports--old hammer distances have increased, the deadlift is slightly better now, and so on. Just not as much as many believe.

Of course, *supplementation* helps too.

But the "modern athletes steamroll old-timers" gets a little ridiculous--as if modern fighters have evolved genetically into supermen because of their training. Even today, you could train a modern person using "old school" techniques and produce a champion...and many have.

[McGrain]

Then a good question would be: do you think that the past greats would have been even better if, whilst benefiting from every positive aspect of their actual training, they would have had a modern-day nutritionist, physiotherapist and fittness trainer?

Depends really, upon the great.

But let's not dress this up. Jack Johnson knew that he needed a lot of protein but avoided lots of red meat because his personal experience was it made him sluggish. However, he loved to eat steak, and did.

Greb new he would be better if he wasn't pissed half the time. But on it went.

I personally think it is more about the man than the information and help he has. Let's say that Greb would have been better if he had more discipline, first and foremost.

I think good nutrition is more about good training than good fighting, personally.

[Amsterdam]

The fact that Greb could get away with that non sense and still stay the best of his era is not telling of his greatness, but of the era itself.:hey

[McGrain]

Because, even though trainers can't quite get the perfect mix (due to the reasons I mentioned above), their techniques of training for specific aspects of the game have improved slightly. There HAVE been slight improvements in comparable sports--old hammer distances have increased, the deadlift is slightly better now, and so on. Just not as much as many believe.

OK. But Louis trained for 15 rounds. He did 16 on the bags, and sparred more because of this. Why will he have less stamina - or fitness - than Chagaev?


But the "modern athletes steamroll old-timers" gets a little ridiculous--as if modern fighters have evolved genetically into supermen because of their training. Even today, you could train a modern person using "old school" techniques and produce a champion...and many have.

Yes. It also needs to be said that guys like Greb stayed fit primarily through boxing rather than training. That makes for an interesting machine more specialised than a person who is trained very specifically for his discipline.

[McGrain]

The fact that Greb could get away with that non sense and still stay the best of his era is not telling of his greatness, but of the era itself.:hey

Tapia's era too.

And Monzon's.

And Duran's.

[Decebal]

I think good nutrition is more about good training than good fighting, personally.

I agree with what you said. Modern day athletes benefit from motivational coaching too, though, in a way that their predecessors didn't. So many more of them will be disciplined and focussed. Impossible to say if more motivated too, though. As to the point that I quoted, surely to a certain extent better training leads to better fighting, right?

[China_hand_Joe]

But the "modern athletes steamroll old-timers" gets a little ridiculous--as if modern fighters have evolved genetically into supermen because of their training. Even today, you could train a modern person using "old school" techniques and produce a champion...and many have.I agree with that for the most part -fullstop- Nobody is getting steamrolled -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

That is because you are choosing to go down that route, in full knowledge that nothing can be proven because boxing is not measurable -fullstop- Despite it being quite clear that every other non-measurable sports, in one way or another has progressed

That is what this is about. Measurable sports haven't progressed much, taking rule changes into account. I've given several examples. Now you say that non-measurable sports have advanced as well--how do you intend to prove this, given that the measurable sports don't strongly support your argument? :think

I gave my answer, which is:


Training has improved somewhat, but not massively (as corroborated by sports in which technique and conditions remain stable). Boxing technique hit a critical mass around Joe Louis's time, and has remained pretty much the same ever since. But since modern boxers come from a ten year talent pool (as opposed to seventy) and don't have as much experience, they aren't going to wipe out the ATG's.

[McGrain]

Modern day athletes benefit from motivational coaching too, though, in a way that their predecessors didn't. So many more of them will be disciplined and focussed. Impossible to say if more motivated too, though.

I am starting to sound like an old-school nut-hugger here. Let me say I see balance beween most eras of boxing and consider the peaks and troughs blips.

Old school guys would be much more motivated. Some of them had no money for food. If the difference between success and failure can be somewhere to live and not you dig straight through the hard rock at the bottom into the bile.

This is a generalisation and there will be exceptions, of course. The heavyweight champ for one seems to find it easier to stay focused in the modern era.

As to the point that I quoted, surely to a certain extent better training leads to better fighting, right?

That depends, as I said. Nutrition was and is no mystery. I am pretty sure I could impliment a really good eating program for another human, just as I have for myself. These guys knew. Some played by the rulese, some didn't.

I'd guess nutrition specific advances are rare and yield tiny dividends, if any.

[cross_trainer]

OK. But Louis trained for 15 rounds. He did 16 on the bags, and sparred more because of this. Why will he have less stamina - or fitness - than Chagaev?

He has more fitness, but he had to put more effort into it than Chagaev to get the same payoff. The difference isn't vast, but Chagaev's methods are simply more time-efficient.


Yes. It also needs to be said that guys like Greb stayed fit primarily through boxing rather than training. That makes for an interesting machine more specialised than a person who is trained very specifically for his discipline.

Yes, that would tend to give him very high "specificity" scores. There's nothing like fighting to practice fighting, you might say.

[China_hand_Joe]

That is what this is about. Measurable sports haven't progressed much, taking rule changes into account. I've given several examples. Now you say that non-measurable sports have advanced as well--how do you intend to prove this, given that the measurable sports don't strongly support your argument? :think
I would consider the changes in the measurable sports pretty massive in the last 60 years, in almost everything -fullstop-

[Decebal]

Then a good question would be: do you think that the past greats would have been even better if, whilst benefiting from every positive aspect of their actual training, they would have had a modern-day nutritionist, physiotherapist and fittness trainer?

because if they would have been better, it doesn't prove that modern fighters are better; it proves that old ATG fighters could be even better now.

[cross_trainer]

The fact that Greb could get away with that non sense and still stay the best of his era is not telling of his greatness, but of the era itself.:hey

Welcome back. Looks like it's heating up again. :D

I will note that Greb, even in his time, was looked on as a weird stylist. Look at Dempsey or Tunney for closer approximations of how fighters fought. You still consider them crude, but they're not Grebs.

On the ClassicPugilism group on Yahoo, there are some guys with "Dempsey's Pugilism" seminars on DVD (I just looked into it recently myself). That, along with his book, might give you some interesting stuff to practice and see for yourself how well it worked.

[cross_trainer]

I would consider the changes in the measurable sports pretty massive in the last 60 years, in almost everything -fullstop-

Well, like I said:

* Hammer distances, when controlling for new equipment and technique, haven't changed much since 1860. The hammer throw is one of the more important "power sports" around.

* Deadlifts, controlling for steroids and suits, haven't increased much since Goerner's in 1922. Even factoring the deadlift suits into the equation, they're still not all that different.

* Runners in ye olde tymes ran in comparatively awful conditions. Even so, Seward's 1840's records were comparable to 100 yd. times during the 1960's by Olympians.

* Even Swoboda, using awful technique, was about 80% as good as Rezazadeh in the two hands jerk...and that was at the turn of the century.


...And there are a few more that I can't think of now. We do it better now, but not THAT much better.

[enquirer]

I will reply in a while,my wife is asking me to go shopping with her.....And one thing i know is that women have truely evolved in their ability to inflict major emotional,financial and physical pain.....And thats bloody measurable as well.......:good
Wife KO 1 ENQUIRER......:patsch

[Rattler]

Physique?

In that case, let me introduce you to the GOAT:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Imagine the carnage...

[McGrain]

I will reply in a while,my wife is asking me to go shopping with her.....And one thing i know is that women have truely evolved in their ability to inflict major emotional,financial and physical pain.....And thats bloody measurable as well.......:good
Wife KO 1 ENQUIRER......:patsch


:lol: :lol:

God damit.

[Decebal]

I will reply in a while,my wife is asking me to go shopping with her.....And one thing i know is that women have truely evolved in their ability to inflict major emotional,financial and physical pain.....And thats bloody measurable as well.......:good
Wife KO 1 ENQUIRER......:patsch

small fry like us are likely to be ignored on this forum too, though, not just in the bosom of the family:lol:


...I should speak for myself, only :(

[McGrain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Imagine the carnage...


Distressing.

Trust you to lower the tone. :D

[Amsterdam]

Welcome back. Looks like it's heating up again. :D

I will note that Greb, even in his time, was looked on as a weird stylist. Look at Dempsey or Tunney for closer approximations of how fighters fought. You still consider them crude, but they're not Grebs.

On the ClassicPugilism group on Yahoo, there are some guys with "Dempsey's Pugilism" seminars on DVD (I just looked into it recently myself). That, along with his book, might give you some interesting stuff to practice and see for yourself how well it worked.

I'll look into it.

[cross_trainer]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Imagine the carnage...

Aaaargh My Eyes! :patsch

Take that unholy thing away.

[China_hand_Joe]

Well, like I said:

* Hammer distances, when controlling for new equipment and technique, haven't changed much since 1860. The hammer throw is one of the more important "power sports" around.

* Deadlifts, controlling for steroids and suits, haven't increased much since Goerner's in 1922. Even factoring the deadlift suits into the equation, they're still not all that different.

* Runners in ye olde tymes ran in comparatively awful conditions. Even so, Seward's 1840's records were comparable to 100 yd. times during the 1960's by Olympians. They aren't comparable simply because of the conditions

* Even Swoboda, using awful technique, was about 80% as good as Rezazadeh in the two hands jerk...and that was at the turn of the century. 20% is a huge, huge margin of difference


...And there are a few more that I can't think of now. We do it better now, but not THAT much better.There has definitely been a boom since the 40s, no -questionmark- Sports science wasn't too good back then -fullstop- The best training techniques from the 40s and 50s are used by everyone nowadays -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

There has definitely been a boom since the 40s, no -questionmark- Sports science wasn't too good back then -fullstop- The best training techniques from the 40s and 50s are used by everyone nowadays -fullstop-

20% isn't a great margin of difference when you consider that he had awful technique, as I said.

As to Seward: conditions were not comparable--they were WORSE, far worse. And he still did well vs. the 60's Olympians.