Deleted

First topic message reminder :

Deleted

imperialghosty wrote:Then we have to believe that Haye would have murdered Liston which simply wouldn't have happened

There is a comparison which is why most in the know do compare different eras, skill is all that matters especially when you consider that boxers today aren't stronger, they aren't bigger punchers, they don't have better stamina and in no way are they automatically better.

Using others sports as examples is pointless, they aren't boxing, you can't train someone to take a punch, you can't train someone to be tough and most of all you can't train someone to know what to do and when that comes from experience.

Boxers like Moore and Foreman show up your argument for what it is, baseless.

Of course you cant train someone to take a punch. But you can train someone to throw punches more quickly and with greater power. You can train specific muscles to work better in order to absorb punches better. But hit right, they will go regardless.

Foreman was a modern day fighter. He benefitted from improved training when he returned. His style changed. He was also helped by Moorer being a poor champ with a paper chin whi was in fact a blown up LHW. Foreman did a Conn on him.

Scottrf wrote:Right.

I can hit a speed bag quickly and consistently without thinking about it. I guess modern nutrition has made me better than Joe Louis too.

If you truly believe some of what you are writing there is no hope for you.

There might be merit to some of your points if you weren't quite so extreme.

Come on scott. You're better than that. The simple facts are that human beings have grown faster, stronger. To assume that this has impacted on all sporting events but boxing is extreme in itself.

Now ask yourself why man has become stronger and faster. also why do you think that boxing has been left in this vacuum where time had stood still. I believe all sports have moved on including boxing. To believe otherwise is quite frankly defying logic.

OK, own up. Which 4 people reckon bexers of 1990-2010 are better? Good grief man.

Michael Moorer wasn't really a weak champion nor was did he have a paper chin, he was just hit by someone who even at the age of 46 a murderous puncher.

You can't really train punching power, it's natural and hand speed is largely natural. If you don't have the power your not going to knock someone out just because you hit them right.

Looking at Foreman when he returned he was benefitting that much from modern training because he was overweight and oh trained the same way he did before retirement.

You do realise it takes thousands and thousands of years for any real significant difference in human evolution or are we to assume that the past 80 years were different

Deleted

imperialghosty wrote:Michael Moorer wasn't really a weak champion nor was did he have a paper chin, he was just hit by someone who even at the age of 46 a murderous puncher.

You can't really train punching power, it's natural and hand speed is largely natural. If you don't have the power your not going to knock someone out just because you hit them right.

Looking at Foreman when he returned he was benefitting that much from modern training because he was overweight and oh trained the same way he did before retirement.

Moorer was a weak champ. Got lucky against a weak Holy. Got destroyed by Tua in 30 seconds. WRT punch power, you can train to improve it thru technique. Hearns was a prime example of this. I read somewhere he stopped less that a dozen of his amateur opponents but when he turned pro became the puncher he was. Steward trained him to sit more on his punches and improve the timing of delivery.

But I get your point generally. Training methods in the 1970s were better than in the 1940s.

Good heavens,

I cant believe some of what I am reading. Joe Louis struggling to hit a speedball?

We are not comparing boxers to weight lifters or sprinters. We are comparing them to other boxers. Just because Usain Bolt is faster doesnt mean someone like Chris Arreola is.

I am asking how you think David Haye with all this beneficial conditioning and improved stmaina (a man who fights twice a year at a push) punched himself into exhaustion against a 40 year old over the hill Carl Thompson? Or how Wladamir Klitschko wass dead on his feet after 10 rounds against a journeyman like Purrity.

Or how the Foreman you compare to a mummy was able to take a decade out of the sport, come back into it as an old, out of shape man and win a world title?

How is it with all the modern benefits Vitali had to take a 4 year rest period.

Saying man has got faster does not answer these questions for me.

People are happy to include guys like Ali as a great without all this modern nonsense - yet he was involve in many close fights with his contempories who were by no means uncompetitive against him.

The problem is, people like to think boxing began with colour tv.

D4thincarnation wrote:I pretty sure Foreman's training camp in the 70s were a lot more tough, more intensive and got more out of him than his training camp in the 90s

I've seen clips of Mayweather training and SRR training and I'm much more impressed in what SRR is doing.

azania

What training technique brought in the last 20 years has improved boxing?

D4, with all due respect, whenever you mention Floyd it will never be complimentary so comments comparing him with old timers should be discounted.

What makes you say that his training was more intensive in the 1970s. I'd say it was different to take into account his age and changed style.

The shape of weights have changed to make it more body specific. The diets changed to make it more person specific. Cardio exercises, nutrients taken (ask Pac). Its barely recognised from yesteryear.

I honestly don't think you know which factors are important in making a good boxer.

Assuming fitness is that much better when has a Heavyweight since shown better endurance than Ali against Frazier? You would think to hear so much emphasis placed on nutrition that noone used to make it past 3 rounds when actually there were plenty if high intensity 15 round or longer fights.

That aside, do you really think Joe Louis struggled on a speed bag? Bear in mind your answer has a large impact on whether I take you seriously in future.

D4

Glad we agree on something for once mate, the clip of Foreman hitting that heavy bag is scary

Lets look at Jesse Owens he held records in the 100 yard and 220 yard events with times of 9.4 and 20.3 that roughly equates to 10 for 100m and 20 for 200m, with the exception of Usain Bolt there isn't that many people in history who have run that much quicker. We also have to consider tracks and running shoes which are specifically designed for speed, the actual difference in pure speed is minute and that's in sprinting, are we meant to accept that it makes a massive difference in a sport like Boxing where speed is one of many different contributing factors?

Colonial Lion wrote:Good heavens,

I cant believe some of what I am reading. Joe Louis struggling to hit a speedball?

We are not comparing boxers to weight lifters or sprinters. We are comparing them to other boxers. Just because Usain Bolt is faster doesnt mean someone like Chris Arreola is.

I am asking how you think David Haye with all this beneficial conditioning and improved stmaina (a man who fights twice a year at a push) punched himself into exhaustion against a 40 year old over the hill Carl Thompson? Or how Wladamir Klitschko wass dead on his feet after 10 rounds against a journeyman like Purrity.

Or how the Foreman you compare to a mummy was able to take a decade out of the sport, come back into it as an old, out of shape man and win a world title?

How is it with all the modern benefits Vitali had to take a 4 year rest period.

Saying man has got faster does not answer these questions for me.

People are happy to include guys like Ali as a great without all this modern nonsense - yet he was involve in many close fights with his contempories who were by no means uncompetitive against him.

The problem is, people like to think boxing began with colour tv.

For every Chris Areolla, I raise you Tony Gallento (who floored Louis). What does it prove? Heavies are not body beautiful guys. Even Holmes was not built like Bruno.

I think you will find now that Wlad will go 12 easily. Haye punched himself out and learnt from that.

I didn;t compare Foreman to a mummy. Ali did. And I think you miss my point when I made that comment.

Do you also know how long the world weight lifting record has stood for?

imperialghosty wrote:D4

Glad we agree on something for once mate, the clip of Foreman hitting that heavy bag is scary

Lets look at Jesse Owens he held records in the 100 yard and 220 yard events with times of 9.4 and 20.3 that roughly equates to 10 for 100m and 20 for 200m, with the exception of Usain Bolt there isn't that many people in history who have run that much quicker. We also have to consider tracks and running shoes which are specifically designed for speed, the actual difference in pure speed is minute and that's in sprinting, are we meant to accept that it makes a massive difference in a sport like Boxing where speed is one of many different contributing factors?

Over 100 srpinters have ducked under 10 seconds for 100m.

Where's this huge difference you've been telling us about?

The track and shoes make a big difference in sprinting, variables like that don't in Boxing

imperialghosty wrote:Do you also know how long the world weight lifting record has stood for?

About 2 years. Some Iranian guy holds it as far as I am aware.

imperialghosty wrote:Where's this huge difference you've been telling us about?

The track and shoes make a big difference in sprinting, variables like that don't in Boxing

Impy, do you think time has stood still for boxing? That man has become stronger and faster, jumps linger and higher. But boxers have not improved?

It's stood for 24 years in fact

imperialghosty wrote:Where's this huge difference you've been telling us about?

The track and shoes make a big difference in sprinting, variables like that don't in Boxing

It isn't just track and shoes.

Man has slightly improved in those things by about 1/2%, apply that boxing and it becomes an insignificant amount.

You also seem to forgetting that equipment makes a big difference in athletics, the same isn't true of boxing.

Like everyone has already said you don't become the best in boxing by being stronger or faster. You become the best by applying a gameplan and having the ability to carry it out.

It's not just those things but it does make a significant difference more than human evolution does

Deleted

Deleted

imperialghosty wrote:Man has slightly improved in those things by about 1/2%, apply that boxing and it becomes an insignificant amount.

You also seem to forgetting that equipment makes a big difference in athletics, the same isn't true of boxing.

Like everyone has already said you don't become the best in boxing by being stronger or faster. You become the best by applying a gameplan and having the ability to carry it out.

You become better than if you are slower and weaker. Agree?

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:D4

Glad we agree on something for once mate, the clip of Foreman hitting that heavy bag is scary

Lets look at Jesse Owens he held records in the 100 yard and 220 yard events with times of 9.4 and 20.3 that roughly equates to 10 for 100m and 20 for 200m, with the exception of Usain Bolt there isn't that many people in history who have run that much quicker. We also have to consider tracks and running shoes which are specifically designed for speed, the actual difference in pure speed is minute and that's in sprinting, are we meant to accept that it makes a massive difference in a sport like Boxing where speed is one of many different contributing factors?

Over 100 srpinters have ducked under 10 seconds for 100m.

How many of those are down the the use of steroids or other PEDs

Quite a lot I'd imagine. But not all. How many boxers do you think are on PEDs? What of those who refuse to take random tests? But of course sprinters are caught using testing systems not used in boxing. You do agree that boxers who refuse to take tests which could determine if they are juiced are doing the great sport of ours a disservice.

Deleted

No, you become better by having the ability to apply what you can do

Pacquiao for all his speed and power would be nothing if he couldn't apply a gameplan to go with it

If Boxer A is stronger than Boxer B does that mean he is better?

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Good heavens,

I cant believe some of what I am reading. Joe Louis struggling to hit a speedball?

We are not comparing boxers to weight lifters or sprinters. We are comparing them to other boxers. Just because Usain Bolt is faster doesnt mean someone like Chris Arreola is.

I am asking how you think David Haye with all this beneficial conditioning and improved stmaina (a man who fights twice a year at a push) punched himself into exhaustion against a 40 year old over the hill Carl Thompson? Or how Wladamir Klitschko wass dead on his feet after 10 rounds against a journeyman like Purrity.

Or how the Foreman you compare to a mummy was able to take a decade out of the sport, come back into it as an old, out of shape man and win a world title?

How is it with all the modern benefits Vitali had to take a 4 year rest period.

Saying man has got faster does not answer these questions for me.

People are happy to include guys like Ali as a great without all this modern nonsense - yet he was involve in many close fights with his contempories who were by no means uncompetitive against him.

The problem is, people like to think boxing began with colour tv.

For every Chris Areolla, I raise you Tony Gallento (who floored Louis). What does it prove? Heavies are not body beautiful guys. Even Holmes was not built like Bruno.

I think you will find now that Wlad will go 12 easily. Haye punched himself out and learnt from that.

I didn;t compare Foreman to a mummy. Ali did. And I think you miss my point when I made that comment.

Well I feel like you are proving my point for me here in essence. Haye doesnt punch himself out now because HE LEARNED not to. Not because he was doing some advanced training. This is key to boxing and using some kind of superior speedball or diet cannot teach you it.

With all due respect Azania, the fact that Jim Jeffries (who peaked over a hundred years ago) could run the 100m in under eleven seconds - unmatched by any other Heavyweight boxer - could high jump around six feet - again unmatched by any other Heavyweight - regularly outlasted opponents over twenty-odd rounds when today's generation don't go beyond twelve, and is generally regarded as, in terms of bruth strength, the strongest Heavyweight of all time along with Foreman blows a massive hole in your 'newer is always better' argument.

imperialghosty wrote:No, you become better by having the ability to apply what you can do

Pacquiao for all his speed and power would be nothing if he couldn't apply a gameplan to go with it

If Boxer A is stronger than Boxer B does that mean he is better?

If boxer A is stronger and faster than B, then yes Boxer A has a better chance. But the punch is a great equaliser.

Of course he doesn't have a better chance if he hasn't got the skill to go with it

imperialghosty wrote:Of course he doesn't have a better chance if he hasn't got the skill to go with it

of course

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:azania

Watch and learn

SRR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmbtHhT7NM


Joe Louis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws

I'll say again. I'm not claiming they lacked skills. SRR is still the best ever. Louis was good. But no-one of you guys who heap praise on old timers haven't answered my simple question;

Do you think SRR and Louis would be better fighters if they had the training, diet, scientific methods of today where everything is body and person specific?

azania wrote:I'll say again. I'm not claiming they lacked skills. SRR is still the best ever. Louis was good. But no-one of you guys who heap praise on old timers haven't answered my simple question;

Do you think SRR and Louis would be better fighters if they had the training, diet, scientific methods of today where everything is body and person specific?

Possibly with regard to diet, training is much the same, nothing new has come along for boxing technique (which is far more important than a fitness advantage). But it would pale into insignificance compared with the advantage Robinson had in experience. That is worth many, many times more than any small possible advantage in nutritition. Even ask Haye who is probably one of the ones for whom you would cite these modern training methods. When speaking of how he has improved on Ringside last week, did he mention his training or what he learnt from fights?

There is a very basic flaw in the ' modern nutrition ' argument, regardless of the detail.

The advocates of the ' new is better because of nutrition ' presuppose that in any hypothetical match up the combatants go at it in a modern ring. That's well and dandy, but if we are going to exercise our imaginations in whisking Joe Louis forward by fifty years it shouldn't require much of a leap of the imagination to suppose that he then benefits from said advances in nutrition. Conversely, we could transport Wlad Klitschko back to the 1940s, leaving him bereft of any biological or chemical potions.

Best of all, we could pair them off halfway between their respective eras. Joe Louis v Wlad Klitschko in 1975, for example.

In any event, boxing history is absolutely choc full of examples whereby a superior athlete was beaten by a superior technician, and chin, guts, heart, generalship, reflexes, judgement of distances, timing, coordination, blocking, feinting, slipping, correct punching, balance and Heaven knows what else have precisely zero to do with nutrition.

Isnt it funny also that everyones cut off point for the point that boxing suddenly became better is generally when they began watching it.
_________________________________________________________

Very perceptive point Colonel, well made.

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a very basic flaw in the ' modern nutrition ' argument, regardless of the detail.

The advocates of the ' new is better because of nutrition ' presuppose that in any hypothetical match up the combatants go at it in a modern ring. That's well and dandy, but if we are going to exercise our imaginations in whisking Joe Louis forward by fifty years it shouldn't require much of a leap of the imagination to suppose that he then benefits from said advances in nutrition. Conversely, we could transport Wlad Klitschko back to the 1940s, leaving him bereft of any biological or chemical potions.

Best of all, we could pair them off halfway between their respective eras. Joe Louis v Wlad Klitschko in 1975, for example.

In any event, boxing history is absolutely choc full of examples whereby a superior athlete was beaten by a superior technician, and chin, guts, heart, generalship, reflexes, judgement of distances, timing, coordination, blocking, feinting, slipping, correct punching, balance and Heaven knows what else have precisely zero to do with nutrition.

Morning Fellas

I would say to those who think training with weights makes fighters "more explosive"? When Jones Jnr did it made him less explosive, some of the most explosive fighters haven't used weights Burley,Robinson, Tyson etc.Supplements certainly don't make fighters more explosive,Weights make athletes stronger. What's the point of all this fast-twitch muscle fiber growth and andro supplements if the skillset and consistent fights aren't there? I've always felt like a lot of modern conditioning is really based on minimizing the work/results ratio. That certainly doesn't help cultivate the mindset or skillset of a fighter. Training and nutrition hasn't improved IMO in fact its got worse, Fighters spar less, for example. They also rarely fight looseners.

Jimmy Tyson didn't use weights when he fought Berbick and Spinks but was using them heavily when he fought Neilsen and Lewis. I know which of the two I consider to be the more explosive of fighters.

Think as you rightly say the likes of weight training is an illusion, fighters want a quick fix and think if they have a ripped physique it is the same as having physical fitness, is simply not the case as the likes of Vargas and Tyson have proved

rowley wrote:Jimmy Tyson didn't use weights when he fought Berbick and Spinks but was using them heavily when he fought Neilsen and Lewis. I know which of the two I consider to be the more explosive of fighters.

Think as you rightly say the likes of weight training is an illusion, fighters want a quick fix and think if they have a ripped physique it is the same as having physical fitness, is simply not the case as the likes of Vargas and Tyson have proved

Yes totally agree Jeff, using weights for explosiveness was a big no-no and this is being backed by generations of fighters and trainers, up to and including Joe and Enzo Calzaghe - is a short list of some of the most explosive fighters in history who did not believe in weight training. Cus Da Mato didn't rate weights. Some people are going to have you believe that Patterson and Tyson would have been more explosive with them, like you mentioned Jeff I know which Tyson I prefer.

All I can say is thank Heavens James Toney had such a good nutritionist. I'm sure he would have been quite a mediocre fighter if he hadn't eaten correctly and availed himself of the modern training methods.

Jimmy my belief is a lot of fighters, apart from wanting the quick fix have confused strength and being ripped with punching power when the truth is nobody really knows what causes punching power. Have said it before but Paulie Malignaggi is always ripped and is probably very strong for his size but can't knock a candle out. On the flipside Naz was never exactly a musclebound but could knock guys out for fun.

This is covered a lot in the Arc of Boxing and almost to a man the old time fighters and trainers are dismissive of things such as weights, they said in the old time gyms the only thing ever used that came close to weights was the wall pullies as this extended the arms and improved flexibility which is obviously more important for punching and as excessive weight training causes muscles to contract and tighten it is absolutely the worst thing a fighter can do.

Hate to send like a grumpy old man but genuinely feel a lot that passes for innovation is snake oil to be honest. Given a choice of having Ray Arcel or virtually any modern trainer in my corner I know who i'll plump for

rowley wrote:Jimmy my belief is a lot of fighters, apart from wanting the quick fix have confused strength and being ripped with punching power when the truth is nobody really knows what causes punching power. Have said it before but Paulie Malignaggi is always ripped and is probably very strong for his size but can't knock a candle out. On the flipside Naz was never exactly a musclebound but could knock guys out for fun.

This is covered a lot in the Arc of Boxing and almost to a man the old time fighters and trainers are dismissive of things such as weights, they said in the old time gyms the only thing ever used that came close to weights was the wall pullies as this extended the arms and improved flexibility which is obviously more important for punching and as excessive weight training causes muscles to contract and tighten it is absolutely the worst thing a fighter can do.

Hate to send like a grumpy old man but genuinely feel a lot that passes for innovation is snake oil to be honest. Given a choice of having Ray Arcel or virtually any modern trainer in my corner I know who i'll plump for

Interesting Jeff, The truth is that free weights are just a replacement for the strength training that has been in boxing for ages. Strongman work like Louis lifting 75-100lb ice blocks in his youth, Fitzsimmons' blacksmith work which developed his upperbody, Jim Jeffries' singlehandedly making boilers out of cast iron with no machinery? Do people not equate these activities with contributing to a fighter's physical strength greatly?

Whats also worth a note whilst Joe Frazier despised weights it should be stressed that Marvis Frazier loved them.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

rowley wrote:Jimmy my belief is a lot of fighters, apart from wanting the quick fix have confused strength and being ripped with punching power when the truth is nobody really knows what causes punching power. Have said it before but Paulie Malignaggi is always ripped and is probably very strong for his size but can't knock a candle out. On the flipside Naz was never exactly a musclebound but could knock guys out for fun.

This is covered a lot in the Arc of Boxing and almost to a man the old time fighters and trainers are dismissive of things such as weights, they said in the old time gyms the only thing ever used that came close to weights was the wall pullies as this extended the arms and improved flexibility which is obviously more important for punching and as excessive weight training causes muscles to contract and tighten it is absolutely the worst thing a fighter can do.

Hate to send like a grumpy old man but genuinely feel a lot that passes for innovation is snake oil to be honest. Given a choice of having Ray Arcel or virtually any modern trainer in my corner I know who i'll plump for

Interesting Jeff, The truth is that free weights are just a replacement for the strength training that has been in boxing for ages. Strongman work like Louis lifting 75-100lb ice blocks in his youth, Fitzsimmons' blacksmith work which developed his upperbody, Jim Jeffries' singlehandedly making boilers out of cast iron with no machinery? Do people not equate these activities with contributing to a fighter's physical strength greatly?

Whats also worth a note whilst Joe Frazier despised weights it should be stressed that Marvis Frazier loved them.

jeff, Jimmy,

We shouldn't forget, either, that it was also common practice for the oldies to chop trees at training camp to develop weight transference and dynamism as an aid to punching power. For the life of me I can't think of any piece of machinery which could readily replicate this practice, or better it.

Tne argument that humans have moved on in terms of physicality, i.e strength, speed etc. and using sports such as athletics to 'prove' that modern boxers must be better than ones from era's past, is fundamentally flawed.

The reason that it is so flawed is not only due to the arguments made by Jeffrey, Windmill et al, but due as well to the nature of boxing competition. Dwayne Chambers is quicker over 100m than Jesse Owens. However, this is in no small part due to Chambers being taller, and heavier, and bigger in general.

What can be seen, if you look at the records, is that a man who weighs exactly, say, 147lb in 2011 will hold no significant advantage over a man who weighed exactly 147lb in 1911. Due to this, i would argue that the only weight division that human advancement can even theoretically be used as an argument is the only one with no weight limit. I could entertain the idea that the Kllitschko's, one dimensional as they are, could take out Dempsey based purely on physicality. they outweigh Jack by nearly 50lbs and so that argument is far from ridiculous. but to claim a man who weighs 147lb now would hit significantly harder, hit significantly quicker, and be significantly better in every department pertaining to physicality than a 147lb from 1920 is not supported by any scientific research or findings that I can locate.

This coupled with the other well argued respnses, such as depth of talent, number of fights, quality of training etc.. lead me to the conclusion that boxers from yesteryear were superior, or at least the equal of current fighters.

Well, Gentleman if you look at a Welterweight like Mike Jones for example, he's 6 foot, big built and must put on well over a stone by the time he gets into the ring. Compared to a WW from earlier days who will be vary close to 147 in the ring, and a Welterweight fantasy fight isn't comparing like for like at all.

Stick him in the ring with a genuine middleweight from years gone and see how he does

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:azania

Watch and learn

SRR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmbtHhT7NM


Joe Louis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws

I'll say again. I'm not claiming they lacked skills. SRR is still the best ever. Louis was good. But no-one of you guys who heap praise on old timers haven't answered my simple question;

Do you think SRR and Louis would be better fighters if they had the training, diet, scientific methods of today where everything is body and person specific?

Probably not, he might have only had around 40 fights and the experience he gained in all the fights he did have not only made him more ring savy and perfect technique but also conditioned him.

Well, that's the point. Most people would put him in with a Welterweight thinking they are both fighting at 147. Rarely do people cite the time of weigh ins when judging a fantasy matchup in a particular weight class.

Scottrf wrote:Well, Gentleman if you look at a Welterweight like Mike Jones for example, he's 6 foot, big built and must put on well over a stone by the time he gets into the ring. Compared to a WW from earlier days who will be vary close to 147 in the ring, and a Welterweight fantasy fight isn't comparing like for like at all.

Well, in that case the 'advances' we are talking about is the fact that weigh-ins have been moved to 24 hours before a fight, rather than 2 hours. The argument is about improvements in human physicality/nutrition etc. I don't think saying Margarito beats Walker because in the ring Marg is going to outweigh Mick by 12lbs really is anything to do with 'modern training techniques' or 'modern nutrition'. It is simply a case of saying bigger men will have an advantage over smaller men. this is a timeless principle but it doesn't mean that similar sized boxers from modern eras are physically superior