Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2007, 10:22 PM   #16
goldnarms
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 296
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

[quote=JJ]I think it is WAY too easy to say that if they got the right training and food, they would clean out the division.
How much speed would they loose when big?
How would their chins be against the monsters of today?
Could all of them learn all of todays training?

Taking Mayweather and magnifying him makes as much sense...[/quote]

How can you say that? If you look at that bone structure of Rocky, Joe Lewis etc they are FAR bigger than Mayweather. Plus, PBF has already enjoyed the benefits of modern training and nutrition. Perhaps without it he'd be fighting flyweight!

Can someone pull the fist/wrist measurements of previous champs and compare them to today's? I've seen it out there but don't have it at hand.
goldnarms is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-12-2007, 10:40 PM   #17
goldnarms
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 296
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Good comparison of size. Notice how Jack Johnson had 10 inch wrists!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
goldnarms is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 10:44 PM   #18
jazzboy
Free Boosie
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In the Boot
Posts: 333
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

People are saying that fighters of the past would be bigger than they were is not really true. Americans in the past 50 years have gained 1 inch on average but 25 more pounds.

That being said i think the fighters of the past would have done just fine because the size difference is not that great.
jazzboy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 10:48 PM   #19
JJ
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 493
vCash: 1358
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldnarms
Good comparison of size. Notice how Jack Johnson had 10 inch wrists!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Great find!

I just think that you just cant add a quality, like weight and not look at what you would loose instead.
JJ is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 11:38 PM   #20
emanuel_augustus
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,449
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

I remember a comment from Jim Lampley during the Goofi/McCline fight a few years back, where goes "you're looking at the future of the heavyweight division, they're not going to get any smaller, they're only going to get bigger."

Four years later we had a 7' 0" champion get his ass handed to him by 6' 1" Chagaev.

Three of the four champs are 6' 3" or shorter.

Point is, height and/or bulk is not necessarily indicative of success at the heavyweight level. The taller you are, the more openings there are.

As highly skilled and trained even as Wlad is, when someone gets past his jab, he is open simply because there's so much more area for him to have to defend.

Taller isn't always better.
emanuel_augustus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 11:44 PM   #21
PATSYS
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,184
vCash: 75
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Size does matter.

If Marciano beats Lewis/Wlad, his fans would really make something big about it - proof that it is a monumental task. Whereas if Lewis/Wlad beats Marciano, Marciano fans can easily set up the size differential and wil try to talk in P4P sense.
PATSYS is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 02:14 AM   #22
Slothrop
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Zone
Posts: 5,770
vCash: 1195
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evisceration
Ofcourse the sizeable skilled fighters of today would destroy any of the champs of yore. It's simple evolution. Do you have any doubts that the modern U.S. Marine who's average weight is about 185 of pure muscle would defeat the Marine of 1940's whose average weight was around 160 lbs? It's pure science and only the pure idiotic nuthuggers of the past would maintain that today's skilled giants would not destroy the smaller champs of yester year.
This is a strange post.
Slothrop is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 03:02 AM   #23
sean
pale peice of pig`s ear
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,777
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

skill and chin are very important , but i do think the 50`s and 60`s heavies would have many more losses on there records fighting 30lb to 50lb heavier fighters than was the norm in there day.

i will take heavyweight contender tony galento as an example.

i have watched him on film in 4 fights and unless these were one of poor performances he was a very limited fighter in skill and technique.

and yet look at his record and he was able to have a fair measure of success in his era simply because he was 30 lbs bigger on average than his opponents.

could you imagine a 5.9 fat man weighing a soft 225 , with very very limited skills being competitive, even today which so many pundits critisize the stadard.

if a james toney with his skills struggles to put a dent in heavys chins today even weighing in at 230, then IMO you have to take this into account when judging other 185 to 200lb fighters of yesteryear.

styles and oppoents make fights but just say for example marciano faced a top 50 heavy of today like ancient henry akinwande who at 240+ and 6.7 used his boring stick and move tactics to jab, clich , jab and clinch, imo you could well see marciano`s first loss.

but of course all conjecture and i liked marciano`s style, tenacity and stamina.
his will to win was also great and he was obviously a dedicated athlete who trained hard unlike so many of the heavys of the last 20 years.
sean is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 05:00 AM   #24
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 5,992
vCash: 1887
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago. To think our food now is somehow better is plain incorrect.

On the other hand, a modern fighter probably ingests a lot more protein than fighters of the past, and they also use stuff like creatine that was only invented in the 90's. The undeniable use of steroids among many boxers will also have a big influence when comparing old vs. new.

Training methods have also changed a lot over the years. Weight training is par for the course now, whereas as recently as the 70's even legendary trainers like Dundee kept his fighters away from the weights.

Modern science has also highlighted the need for the body to recover after extensive exercise, something that was basically unknown 40 or 50 years ago. For instance, a modern fighter will train for about 8 weeks for a fight, but Rocky Marciano opened camp for his first match with Charles a ridiculous 7 months before the figt. 7 months!

So with that being said, I suppose it's perfectly logical to assume that the fighters today are bigger and in better condition that the fighters of the past.
Somehow though, that doesn't always translate in film. The punch output of someone like a Greb or Marciano has yet to be equalled by today's fighters - even by cruiserweights. (which is basically what Marciano was.)

I think to a large extent there is an overrelaince on 'science' and modern training techniques.
The old-timers used to get back to basics - running in army boots up winding mountain paths, chopping wood, picking up boulders, pulling carts and that sort of thing.
Weights are fine and well, but there is a big difference in picking up a perfectly weighted barbell and picking up a large rock. There is a difference in running around an athletics track, and running up and down a hill with an uneven surface.

I honestly and truly believe that old-timers were mentally tougher. They would go through hell if thier trainer told them to. They also fought a lot more, so achieving a peak conditions was less necessary than it is today. They literally fought htemselves into condition.
Mike Tyson used to baloon up to over 250 lbs. between fights. Guys like Joe Louis or Marciano would never get so out of shape. They had more discipline.

Where today's guys have a big advantage is size.
Big George Foreman of the 70's would look quite small next to Wladimir Klitschko. Big bad Sonny Liston would just be another smallish heavyweight now. Joe Louis would look skinny next to Evander Holyfield.

Even middlewieghts, welterweights, lightweights etc. today are bigger. Ray Robinson scaled around 154 for many of his middleweight fights. Germaine Taylor may officially weigh 160, but by fight time he's 170 or more.

But hang on a second...why is it then that Sonny Liston's fist was a massive 15 inches, bigger than anyone elses? (Bar maybe Valuev's.) Why was his reach the same as that of Lennox Lewis'? Why was Max Baer's chest measurement the same as that of any modern heavyweight? The same can be said of James J. Jeffries, Joe Louis, John L. Sullivan and a number of other old-timers. The basic skeletal size of a heavyweight has not changed significantly since even Sullivan's time.
I have noticed that modern heavywweights are much larger in the thigh area, a trend that began with Sonny Liston, but overall they are not really that much bigger than most of the old-timers, barring obvious exceptions like Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns. Don't just assume that the moderns are so much bigger - do the research and see for yourselves.
If modern training methods really are superior, then why did the 80's have so many fat heavyweights like Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Leroy Jones, Tim Witherspoon etc.
Why are there so many around now?

If the modern guys are so big and strong, how come a fat, blown-up middleweight like James Toney hold his own?

What I have noticed is that modern nutrition, modern training and erm, other substances has allowed old fighters to carry on fighting well beyond their shelf life. Holyfield is 44 and going strong. Hopkins is 42 and...well, he's still here.
In the past, only a freak like Archie Moore could do this.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 05:45 AM   #25
PATSYS
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,184
vCash: 75
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury
Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago.
Maybe, but bear in mind that we do not eat only fruits.

Just compare the milk and milk products, processed foods, sport drinks, etc. They are all now fortified with nutrients never even heard before.

The vitamins/minerals tables that we are taking today have far more contents that ever before.
PATSYS is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 06:01 AM   #26
PATSYS
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,184
vCash: 75
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury
Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago. To think our food now is somehow better is plain incorrect.

On the other hand, a modern fighter probably ingests a lot more protein than fighters of the past, and they also use stuff like creatine that was only invented in the 90's. The undeniable use of steroids among many boxers will also have a big influence when comparing old vs. new.

Training methods have also changed a lot over the years. Weight training is par for the course now, whereas as recently as the 70's even legendary trainers like Dundee kept his fighters away from the weights.

Modern science has also highlighted the need for the body to recover after extensive exercise, something that was basically unknown 40 or 50 years ago. For instance, a modern fighter will train for about 8 weeks for a fight, but Rocky Marciano opened camp for his first match with Charles a ridiculous 7 months before the figt. 7 months!

So with that being said, I suppose it's perfectly logical to assume that the fighters today are bigger and in better condition that the fighters of the past.
Somehow though, that doesn't always translate in film. The punch output of someone like a Greb or Marciano has yet to be equalled by today's fighters - even by cruiserweights. (which is basically what Marciano was.)

I think to a large extent there is an overrelaince on 'science' and modern training techniques.
The old-timers used to get back to basics - running in army boots up winding mountain paths, chopping wood, picking up boulders, pulling carts and that sort of thing.
Weights are fine and well, but there is a big difference in picking up a perfectly weighted barbell and picking up a large rock. There is a difference in running around an athletics track, and running up and down a hill with an uneven surface.

I honestly and truly believe that old-timers were mentally tougher. They would go through hell if thier trainer told them to. They also fought a lot more, so achieving a peak conditions was less necessary than it is today. They literally fought htemselves into condition.
Mike Tyson used to baloon up to over 250 lbs. between fights. Guys like Joe Louis or Marciano would never get so out of shape. They had more discipline.

Where today's guys have a big advantage is size.
Big George Foreman of the 70's would look quite small next to Wladimir Klitschko. Big bad Sonny Liston would just be another smallish heavyweight now. Joe Louis would look skinny next to Evander Holyfield.

Even middlewieghts, welterweights, lightweights etc. today are bigger. Ray Robinson scaled around 154 for many of his middleweight fights. Germaine Taylor may officially weigh 160, but by fight time he's 170 or more.

But hang on a second...why is it then that Sonny Liston's fist was a massive 15 inches, bigger than anyone elses? (Bar maybe Valuev's.) Why was his reach the same as that of Lennox Lewis'? Why was Max Baer's chest measurement the same as that of any modern heavyweight? The same can be said of James J. Jeffries, Joe Louis, John L. Sullivan and a number of other old-timers. The basic skeletal size of a heavyweight has not changed significantly since even Sullivan's time.
I have noticed that modern heavywweights are much larger in the thigh area, a trend that began with Sonny Liston, but overall they are not really that much bigger than most of the old-timers, barring obvious exceptions like Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns. Don't just assume that the moderns are so much bigger - do the research and see for yourselves.
If modern training methods really are superior, then why did the 80's have so many fat heavyweights like Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Leroy Jones, Tim Witherspoon etc.
Why are there so many around now?

If the modern guys are so big and strong, how come a fat, blown-up middleweight like James Toney hold his own?

What I have noticed is that modern nutrition, modern training and erm, other substances has allowed old fighters to carry on fighting well beyond their shelf life. Holyfield is 44 and going strong. Hopkins is 42 and...well, he's still here.
In the past, only a freak like Archie Moore could do this.
So you take excetionally freakish HWs in the old days to make you case? Size does not only involve reach, but also height, and weight. Liston may have a freakish arm length, but no way will he be considered a huge HW by today's standard.

Wlad/Vitali are fit HWs and still they weigh around 240-250. Big George Foreman in the 90s weighed 256 lbs and already look like a butterball. His frame is simple not big enough to carry 250 lbs, that is why his weight during his prime was only 218 lbs.

A super fit Tyson weighing 218 lbs is only an inch taller from a fit 185 lbs Marciano.

Do not try to make a case for Hopkins, he is not a HW. The discussion here revolves at HW where there is no weight constraint.

Holyfield and Toney - both of these fighters have superb skills but they do not get anywhere at HW - at least if they ever try to fight the legit HW champ today and that is Wlad Klitschko. If Holyfield and TOney were around back in the 50s, maybe they get a better chance at becoming undisputed HW champ. No today's era though
PATSYS is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 07:47 AM   #27
JJ
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 493
vCash: 1358
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury
Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago. To think our food now is somehow better is plain incorrect.
Where do you get that from?

Clearly the food is better today, people simply didnt eat that much fruit 50 years ago...you maybe got an orange on saturday and that was it! The same with vegetables.
JJ is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 08:08 AM   #28
joe33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Does any one though think that sheer size is whats ****ing wrojng with the heavys today?
The majority seem to fat or big and far to slow for me,shanon briggs and toney,valuev would be good examples of that,they may have loads of skills,but they seem to slow to ****ing use them.
I prefer the slightly smaller guys from the past myself,they seemed in wicked shape,and the fights seemed far more interesting,the bigger they get,to me anyways the fights are getting mind numbing bore fests.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 09:34 AM   #29
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 5,992
vCash: 1887
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PATSYS
So you take excetionally freakish HWs in the old days to make you case? Size does not only involve reach, but also height, and weight. Liston may have a freakish arm length, but no way will he be considered a huge HW by today's standard.
It's not only Liston. Read my post again. The skeletal structure of heavyweights has not changed radically since Sullivan's time. Thigh size has increased dramatically, along with (ironically) waist size to a degree. Most other measurements, such as chest, neck, biceps etc. are not much different from old-timers to now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PATSYS
Wlad/Vitali are fit HWs and still they weigh around 240-250. Big George Foreman in the 90s weighed 256 lbs and already look like a butterball. His frame is simple not big enough to carry 250 lbs, that is why his weight during his prime was only 218 lbs.
But how many Wlad's and Vitali's are there out there? By the way, you do know that Wlad started out in the pro's in the low 220's, right? Vitali as a kickboxer weighed as low as 205. Take an old-timer like Louis and put him in the modern era and he's a solid 220. Easy. His frame could easily handle that. The same applies to many other old-timers.
To call Foreman a butterball is unfair. Sure he was fat, but he had a lot of muscle too.
Besides, that butterball did pretty well on his comeback against modern, hi-tech trained heavyweights, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PATSYS
A super fit Tyson weighing 218 lbs is only an inch taller from a fit 185 lbs Marciano.
I have never stated that Marciano was a big guy. He was smallish even by 50's standards.
Of course, Tyson had nowhere near Marciano's punch output per round either.
In fact, most heavyweights today are gassed after 5 fast rounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATSYS
Holyfield and Toney - both of these fighters have superb skills but they do not get anywhere at HW - at least if they ever try to fight the legit HW champ today and that is Wlad Klitschko. If Holyfield and TOney were around back in the 50s, maybe they get a better chance at becoming undisputed HW champ. No today's era though
Fact is they are competitive now. Toney fought modern super-duper heavyweight Sam Peter twice.
Holyfield will challenge for the title soon. A blown-up light heavyweight Roy Jones won a title as well.
To say they would do better in the 50's is pure speculation, incidentally.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 09:48 AM   #30
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 5,992
vCash: 1887
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe33
Does any one though think that sheer size is whats ****ing wrojng with the heavys today?
The majority seem to fat or big and far to slow for me,shanon briggs and toney,valuev would be good examples of that,they may have loads of skills,but they seem to slow to ****ing use them.
I prefer the slightly smaller guys from the past myself,they seemed in wicked shape,and the fights seemed far more interesting,the bigger they get,to me anyways the fights are getting mind numbing bore fests.
I agree. It's size for sizes sake now. David Tua weighed 205 for his first pro fight. Later, he'd weigh more than 240. The funny thing is, he was worse at the higher weight. He was sloppy, slow and plain fat at 245.

In these parts, we had a decent heavyweight prospect that went overseas for training. I think he weighed about 210. Once overseas, he was put on a weight-gain diet and gained 20-odd pounds and he became useless.

Seriously, the modern heavyweight is actually a 210-220 pound guy carrying 20 or 30 pounds of useless fat. It's the 80's all over again. Yes, The Klits, Lennox and one or two others are exceptions but for the most part it's true.
If it's not fat it's too much muscle. Look at Briggs. 270 pounds of useless flesh. Boxers weren't meant to carry that much weight.

But they big, modern heavyweights with modern training techniques and scientifically developed dietary habits. It's laughable.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013