Deleted

First topic message reminder :

Deleted

I dont know where you guys are getting your arguments from, but its certainly not from what I wrote. I have never once said that a ripped boxer is better than those who carry more body fat. In fact I gave Larry Holmes as a boxer who wasn't exactly ripped.

Also I have not once said that lifting weights is the be all and end all of training for boxing. What I have said and still maintain is that today's training methods are far superior to those of yesteryear. To deny that is to assume that all sports have moved on but boxing has stood still I dont think it has.

As someone alluded to, in yesteryear, the boxers generally weighed close to their weight division. But today a fighter comes into the ring a stone above their weight division due to weigh in being a day before and they have time to rehydrate. Better nutrition allows boxers to make weight and maintain their strength (generally).

Also to suggest that strength and speed has no effect on boxing is to deny logic. In short it does. Punching power isn't neccessarily brute strength, but timing. The comparison between Naz and Paulie shows this in that naz had excellent timing when throwing his power shots added that he had legs and thight built for a welterweight. Paulie also has very dodge hands and probably affects his punch power.

Also Jesse Owens has run slower than Hambers not because he was less talented or speedy, but because with the benefit of specific training at each stage of a 100m race and the added strength and speed training Chambers has run faster. Also the better track and equipment (spikes) gives Dwain better times. I will also add that Owens ran on dirt tracks and not on Supreme which is faster so on balance Owens is probably faster.

I'm rambling and trying to get everything out whilst at work so if it appears patchy, I apologise.

Draining can be seen as a 'modern training technique', can it not?

The modern conditioning, stamina and nutrition arguments apply to to an era where boxers fight maybe twice a year.

The point of these conditioning trainers and fitness coaches is so that a fighter has a fight, goes off for a few months holiday and as a result puts on weight and loses stamina. Thus before his next fight he employs these trainers and there techniques to get him back into shape in double quick time.

These trainers and techniques may be able to make a fighter cut weight more effectively and build stamina more quickly but I cant for the life of me think why someone like Harry Greb would need them when he was fighting 12 - 15 times a year and was never out of shape. If Harry Greb was around now, fighting two times a year then yes, he may well benefit from these additional trainers and techniques designed to get a fighter back into shape. Would it make him a better fighter? - no. Would he be in better shape than in 1919? - I doubt it.

What I have said and still maintain is that today's training methods are far superior to those of yesteryear. To deny that is to assume that all sports have moved on but boxing has stood still I dont think it has.
__________________________________________________________

I'm not convinced they have, weight training is just an example of something done to excess in todays sport that probably does more harm than good but think there are also other things done in the modern gym that were not part of the old time regime that probably do more harm than good.

Have seen a fairly compelling argument that pad work, which is part and parcel of every fighters regime does more harm than good. The argument goes that as a trainer is holding the pads for a fighter he cannot see if a fighter is throwing his punches correctly and so through repetition mistakes get ingrained. Old timers never used pads they would do punching exercies on heavy bags because if the trainer is stood to the side they can see what mistakes are being made and address them before they become ingrained.

Being able to cut weight because of 24 hour weigh ins doesn't make a boxer more talented does it, boxers today rely on this to gain an advantage whereas the old timers didn't.

Give Owens the same track and spikes as Chambers he would probably be running just as quickly if not quicker, he's only roughly 4 hundreths of a second behind as it is. Blows your argument out the water there and then.

Scottrf wrote:Draining can be seen as a 'modern training technique', can it not?

Not in my opinion. Draining is not a modern, scientific training advancement in my eyes. It would be easy for a guy from 1920 to drain himself if he had the required time to re-hydrate. As it was, they didn't. There is nothing scientific, advanced, or even modern about sweating to lose weight. I don't see this as a credible argument for claiming a modern day boxer is inherently better than a past era one.

Either way, history shows that size is not everything, i would back Walker to crush Margarito no matter what the discrepancy in weight.

Ghosty - You're inventing wording when presented with a valid point. I didn't mention talent, but being bigger than your opponent is an advantage, other things equal.

Gentleman - The fact is, taking a guy from one division from say 1910, and from 2010, the 2010 guy will generally be bigger, sometimes by 2 divisions. You can say 'well they could have done that too', and of course they could. But they didn't and you can't just gloss over that fact in a Welterweight matchup for example.

Scottrf wrote:Ghosty - You're inventing wording when presented with a valid point. I didn't mention talent, but being bigger than your opponent is an advantage, other things equal.

Gentleman - The fact is, taking a guy from one division from say 1910, and from 2010, the 2010 guy will generally be bigger, sometimes by 2 divisions. You can say 'well they could have done that too', and of course they could. But they didn't and you can't just gloss over that fact in a Welterweight matchup for example.

I can quite easily gloss it over, seeing as the argument is not about head to head match ups, but instead about the advancement of human physicality, training techniques, and nutrition. The fact is, taking 24 hours to drain your body to weigh-in and then re-hydrating in order to come to the ring heavier than your opponent represents none of those things. In fact, in my original post, I mentioned how being bigger was an advantage in boxing, but I still don't understand how Berto (who is hardly a monstrous welterweight) beats SRR (who boxed at middle and kayoed bigger man such as La Motta) by sheer virtue of the fact that Berto fights in 2011.

The problem for me is we keep hearing how much better modern training techniques are but I don't see this transposing to what happens in the ring. Will say there are some terrific fighters now but they are few and far between. How many modern fighters do we see slipping punches or blocking punches with their elbows? How many are adept at in fighting or when backed to the ropes or heaven forbid all of these things.

Am not saying there are not fighters who can do these things but if training was so significantly improved on yeteryear would expect to see pretty much every fighter doing such things in their sleep and personally I ain't seeing it

The argument is actually about which era had the best boxers, not the advancement of those categories you mention. Can the best boxers not be seen as the ones most likely to win a head to head matchup? Whether it fits under 'training techniques', 'nutrition' or 'other' is irrelevant, it's still an advantage a modern boxer would have.

Anyway not going to contribute further because I don't believe you are genuinely trying to listen to anything I'm saying. I don't actually believe there to be any significant advantages in the technical side (in fact I think there are disadvantages), which I believe to be far more important that the physical side.

Seeing as how Pacquiao has made a mockery of the current Welterweight scene, think it's fair to say that superior Welterweights would be more than comfortable beating men bigger than themselves.

imperialghosty wrote:Seeing as how Pacquiao has made a mockery of the current Welterweight scene, think it's fair to say that superior Welterweights would be more than comfortable beating men bigger than themselves.

Has anyone said otherwise? An advantage is an advantage regardless of whether other factors are more important.

In that case I don't see what point your trying to make

Yes boxers today have the advantage of 24 hour weigh ins but that doesn't alter my view that in many cases the best don't gain an advantage because of it, I would even suggest that the more you boil down the more it affects performance. Just look at Mclellan for proof of what losing too much weight too quickly can cause.

You think Donaire would be better as a Featherweight, Margarito for the majority of his career as a Super Middle, Pavlik as a Light Heavy not a Middleweight for most of his career? That's probably where they would be without it, still think there's no advantage? Of course you can get example where they have done too much but it's clearly an advantage in general or noone would do it.

Scottrf wrote:The argument is actually about which era had the best boxers, not the advancement of those categories you mention. Can the best boxers not be seen as the ones most likely to win a head to head matchup? Whether it fits under 'training techniques', 'nutrition' or 'other' is irrelevant, it's still an advantage a modern boxer would have.

Anyway not going to contribute further because I don't believe you are genuinely trying to listen to anything I'm saying. I don't actually believe there to be any significant advantages in the technical side (in fact I think there are disadvantages), which I believe to be far more important that the physical side.

I am listening perfectly. I think we are agreed that being bigger is an advantage. I'm not denying that, in fact I've said twice in previous posts that it is an advantage. I'm questioning the logic of stating that modern fighters are better than older ones due to nutrition/training/physical advancements. If you don't dispute that, then we aren't actually at odds at all...

The problem with that theory is the opposition they'd be facing would by and large be the same, with the exception of Mayweather who by and large weighed in at his fighting weight most boxers do it. All you seem to be doing is proving that the skill levels aren't up to scratch at the moment and they have to fight at lower weights, can you imagine Margarito in with Hagler or someone of similar size?

Gentleman, I would say experience, competition, matchmaking etc mean that past fighters would probably be better in general. Was just saying that there would be some advantages modern boxers have (along with spending longer focusing on one opponent for example, and clearing injuries), which some seem to want to deny.

imperialghosty wrote:The problem with that theory is the opposition they'd be facing would by and large be the same, with the exception of Mayweather who by and large weighed in at his fighting weight most boxers do it. All you seem to be doing is proving that the skill levels aren't up to scratch at the moment and they have to fight at lower weights, can you imagine Margarito in with Hagler or someone of similar size?

When everyone does it I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion?

I didn't say everyone does it but you've highlighted extreme cases of boxers who need all the physical advantages they can get because they can't compete with boxers there same size.

Mosley, Calzaghe and Mayweather have never been big at their weights but more than held there own against boxers far bigger than them because they had the skill.

Scottrf wrote:Gentleman, I would say experience, competition, matchmaking etc mean that past fighters would probably be better in general. Was just saying that there would be some advantages modern boxers have (along with spending longer focusing on one opponent for example, and clearing injuries), which some seem to want to deny.

I see. I agree that there are certain advantages to modern boxers that were not enjoyed by their predecessors (having time to devise, practice and execute a gameplan for each specific opponent is certainly a huge advantage) However, as you've alluded to, all these advantages are eclipsed by the superior experience, coaching etc that boxers from yesteryear enjoyed. I also don't consider weighing in early to be an 'advantage' in the modern era. this is due to the fact that any prospective advantage any one boxer may hope to gain by draining, would be off-set by his opponent doing exactly the same thing. My original point (which i don't think you contend?) is that modern boxers are no more advanced physically than their predecessors due to modern training/nutrition or human evolution (allowing for the fact that I don't consider draining to come under any of those categories)

I don't really want to compare boxers from different era's if they are drastically different in weight, as it makes it very difficult to gauge a fighters ability's if they rely too much on a physical advantage. I would pick Froch to beat Mayweather, but obviously he cannot be considered 'better' (unlees you're D4)

imperialghosty wrote:Being able to cut weight because of 24 hour weigh ins doesn't make a boxer more talented does it, boxers today rely on this to gain an advantage whereas the old timers didn't.

Give Owens the same track and spikes as Chambers he would probably be running just as quickly if not quicker, he's only roughly 4 hundreths of a second behind as it is. Blows your argument out the water there and then.

Impy I recki=on you should read what I wqrote again. I said that Owens was probably faster. Also I didn't say that 24hr weinging in makes the boxer more talented. If you are going to disagree with me at least do me the favour by disagreeing with what I wrote.

Cheers