View Single Post
Old 11-16-2012, 01:38 PM   #58
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Tyson was 200 pounds at age 13. He was naturally that size, no lifting, no space age training, probably living on fast food and government cheese. From pictures of a young Tua, the same seems to be the case. Their muscle mass was natural and not fabricated or even overly encouraged.

In Marciano, we are talking about re-constructing a physique of an athlete in his mid-20's. It's just a different story.
I know he was but I thought you were arguing leverage mechanics of a shorter man with shorter arms?

I think when you're talking about muscle mass not being 'fabricated' you're talking about the muscle in the right places for boxers, ie the core/midsection/back/shoulders/legs and not bicep/chest heavy with little stamina. That is achievable when increasing body mass, see Holyfield, or Jack Johnson for that matter

Another thing you have to remember is, you didn't have many fat kids in the ghetto in the era Rocky grew up. If he was fed better he'd be stockier/stronger, maybe even taller and longer. People are products of their eras, my dad who grew up in poorer times is 5'7, I'm 6'0 and my 3yo daughter is as tall as most 5-6yos yet has a 5'0 grandmother. To be fair on the genetics front she also has a 6'0 great grandfather and a 6'0 great great grandmother. But I'd stand by the argument that people are bigger and stronger because of general economic prosperity and I doubt my daughter will ever try to stick bits of old soap together like 1 of her great grandmothers did
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote