Log in or Sign up

Myth: Boxing is the only sport where 30s era athletes handily beat modern fighters

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by madballster, Oct 28, 2011.

Page 3 of 14

Vockerman LightJunior SuperFlyweigt Full Member

Joined:

May 18, 2006

Messages:

908

Likes Received:

87

leo_messi said: ↑

Lennox Lewis would knock the living **** out of Dempsey.

Dempsey is still an ATG though.
Click to expand...

lemme fis dat 4 U

Dempsey would knock the living **** out of Lewis.

Lewis is still an ATG though.

Vockerman, Oct 29, 2011

#31

dmille We knew, about Tszyu, before you. Full Member

Joined:

Aug 1, 2004

Messages:

2,270

Likes Received:

71

Please post the footage of Ursain Bolt or Jack Kramer taking a bomb on the chin, thanks.

dmille, Oct 29, 2011

#32

ajlc15 New Member Full Member

Joined:

May 31, 2010

Messages:

76

Likes Received:

0

Yes, athletes today are smarter, more knowledgeable, more resourceful, faster, stronger, etc than in the 30s.....too bad none of them seems to be interested in boxing and instead play in other sports.

ajlc15, Oct 29, 2011

#33
BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Joined:

Jan 20, 2009

Messages:

11,867

Likes Received:

13

Why are people banging on about the 70's? By that point the "modern" era of boxing had begun.
I would say the cut off point would be from 50 years ago + at HW.

BoxingFanNo1, Oct 29, 2011

#34

Beatle Sheer Analysis Full Member

Joined:

Apr 12, 2009

Messages:

9,270

Likes Received:

269

Boxing is not a sport. It's two guys beating each other up. Look at my avatar: does that look like a sport to you?

The old era guys were bad asses who fought every two weeks. Today's boxers are pussies compared to them.

Beatle, Oct 29, 2011

#35
Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2006

Messages:

38,291

Likes Received:

23

the fickeled boxing fans like to believe evolution is not possible in boxing. you are either born a great boxer or you arent.

Boom_Boom, Oct 29, 2011

#36
ajlc15 New Member Full Member

Joined:

May 31, 2010

Messages:

76

Likes Received:

0

Beatle said: ↑

Boxing is not a sport. It's two guys beating each other up. Look at my avatar: does that look like a sport to you?

The old era guys were bad asses who fought every two weeks. Today's boxers are pussies compared to them.
Click to expand...

Human progression in sports and in athletics are well documented. It's an empirically demonstrable fact. Not to mention sports medicine, diet and conditioning has improved in the past century. Why is boxing an exception?

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_record_progressions[/ame]

note: I think boxing peak around the 50s to 70s....30s and before are simply too primitive in general to compete against today's boxers.

ajlc15, Oct 29, 2011

#37

boxingfanneato what would MORALES do! Full Member

Joined:

Jan 2, 2010

Messages:

2,850

Likes Received:

2

I think to use heavies is a bad example. I mean early heavies are essentially cruisers. if u put a real heavy id say someone like holmes inthere against lewis he boxes lewis socks off and knocks him out. joe luis on the other hand.would k.o wlad imo. his footwork and defense is so underrated its scary. he didnt have flashy ali float like a buttrrfly. but it was perfect for his style and he kould parry punches and come back with huge punches.

boxingfanneato, Oct 29, 2011

#38
Dempsey Gibbons Member Full Member

Joined:

Jun 25, 2005

Messages:

403

Likes Received:

484

Gained said: ↑

boxers are comparable to horse now!

thats like comparing usain bolt to an ostrich!

atg esb post right there.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Click to expand...

Which guy pictured could go sixteen hard rounds in his sleep and which one is gassed after six measured, careful rounds?

Dempsey Gibbons, Oct 29, 2011

#39
Chempasillo Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Feb 5, 2011

Messages:

6,431

Likes Received:

1

Thaiad24 said: ↑

i totally agree with you

plus the fact that people hold dead people in higher regard
Click to expand...

absolutly, had brad pitt died a tragic death like james dean he would have been a bigger star today than him living and with all the filmes he did......and that goes with everything, I mean, I love nostalgie, but in no way jack johnson or joe louis would have had a chance vs a prime tyson or in no way willie pepp would have beat floyd mayweather. there are exceptions like sugar ray robinson, but that dude was a million years advanced of anybody athleticly and talented...

Chempasillo, Oct 29, 2011

#40
Chempasillo Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Feb 5, 2011

Messages:

6,431

Likes Received:

1

Vockerman said: ↑

This gets brought up a good bit, and I always answer it the same way - we can all verify that track times have gotten lower over the years. In fact, Jesse Owen's Olympic-winning 100 yard time is matched by high-school students every year. Would Jesse Owens, therefore, be only a High School varsity-level sprinter in 2011?

You tell me. Jesse Owens ran in leather shoes with metal spikes on the soles. He ran on a cinder track, and he had to dig his own starting divot when he took his mark.

Given these fairly significant changes in track conditions, is it really fair to compare track records from the 1930s to those of today? Clearly Owens was saddled with inferior shoes compared to today's ultralight models. His track surface certainly wasn't as uniform or resilient as modern composite tracks. Having a firmly-fixed tailor made starting block rather than a self-dug divot should be worth several fractions of a second as well.

With all of the myriad advances we've had in terms of equipment for sprinting, the most basic of all sports, the actual gains have been surprisingly small - the following official times are for the 100 meter race:

First under 10.5: 10.4 Charles Paddock USA 1921
(For comparison, Owens ran a 10.2 in 1936)
First under 10.00: 9.95 Jim Hines 1968
First under 9.95: 9.93 Calvin Smith USA 1983
First under 9.90: 9.86 Carl Lewis 1991
First under 9.80: 9.79 Maurice Greene USA 1999

With all of the numerous technological advances in running shoes, superior track surfaces, and a pharmacopia of performance-enhancing compounds (the spectre of which hangs over nearly every elite sprinter of the past 25 years) we're looking at about a 6% gain in speed since 1921. Far easier, in my mind, to attribute these small increases in speed to superior equipment, more accurate timers and the miracles of pharmacology than to any natural evolutionary pressure towards faster humans.
I dont know much about tennis not qualified to talk about that example but on Chess you are dead wrong and that is easily shown by several examples. Oh and By the way the Fourth World Chess Champions name is Alexander Alekhine. The Mikhail you are likely thinking of is Mikhail Tal who is also a very poor choice to compare because he is still generally considered the greatest tactician who ever lived. Both The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games (Burgess, Nunn & Emms 2004) and Modern Chess Brilliancies (Evans 1970) include more games by Tal than any other player.
Rating systems are prone to inflation over time read about it here
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5608
The most accurate way of evaluation players across time is Chessmetrics developed by Jeff Sonas. Sonas uses Chessmetrics to evaluate historical annual performance ratings and comes to the conclusion that Kasparov was dominant for the most years, followed closely by Karpov and Lasker. Alekhine is fourth ALL TIME
If you know anything at all about chess you want to know - What would Bobby say? A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy (June 22, 1837 July 10, 1884) is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today ... - Bobby Fischer

Even so, all this is completely irrelevant to boxing however because it is not a sport where results depend purely on athletic ability. I mean how many world class track runners have there been with a waistline like James Toney? The fact that a man who was a former middleweight can eat himself into a world class contender at Heavyweight in the modern age tells you all you need to know about what improvements in sports science have done for boxing. Absolutely nothing.
So we are left with skill that is the major determining factor. I and any unbiased observer can see clearly enough that boxing skill is not on the rise in general and hasnt been since the 1960s. Quite the opposite in fact. Many divisions in boxing today must acknowledge they are in a weak era in the sport. Boxing is losing ground to MMA in fan base and will die out as a major sport unless changes are made. I propose a return to the original EIGHT +1 weight classes with Cruiser inserted between 175 and 200. A return to ONE governing body with ONE world champ in each weight class. An across the board testing program for drugs and steroids and a LIFETIME ban for the FIRST offense. A mandatory title defense against the number one challenger with a fixed 60/40 split every six months.
A Same Hour weigh-in so welters don enter the ring north of 160 for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

total bull****, sure equipment and training has to do something with advancing in sport, but not from 10 secondes to mind blowing 9,58.

accept the fact that human being evolve and become more and more athletic with time passing. 200 years ago someone being 6 feet was a giant, today basicly every 20 th person in the world is 6 feet.

usain bolt just got born more athletic than any other athlete before him and in 100 years from now somebody even more athletic gonne get born.

Chempasillo, Oct 29, 2011

#41

RSBonos Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Feb 27, 2008

Messages:

5,436

Likes Received:

141

Boxing fans have been slagging the contemporary era's and hyping things they read in books about the 'good old times' since the beginning.

Nat Fleischer looked down on Ali and his era.

It's some stupid badge of honor to slight modern fighters.

RSBonos, Oct 29, 2011

#42

Rock0052 likes this.
Gesta Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Apr 12, 2009

Messages:

2,975

Likes Received:

9

Vockerman said: ↑

This gets brought up a good bit, and I always answer it the same way - we can all verify that track times have gotten lower over the years. In fact, Jesse Owen's Olympic-winning 100 yard time is matched by high-school students every year. Would Jesse Owens, therefore, be only a High School varsity-level sprinter in 2011?

You tell me. Jesse Owens ran in leather shoes with metal spikes on the soles. He ran on a cinder track, and he had to dig his own starting divot when he took his mark.

Given these fairly significant changes in track conditions, is it really fair to compare track records from the 1930s to those of today? Clearly Owens was saddled with inferior shoes compared to today's ultralight models. His track surface certainly wasn't as uniform or resilient as modern composite tracks. Having a firmly-fixed tailor made starting block rather than a self-dug divot should be worth several fractions of a second as well.

With all of the myriad advances we've had in terms of equipment for sprinting, the most basic of all sports, the actual gains have been surprisingly small - the following official times are for the 100 meter race:

First under 10.5: 10.4 Charles Paddock USA 1921
(For comparison, Owens ran a 10.2 in 1936)
First under 10.00: 9.95 Jim Hines 1968
First under 9.95: 9.93 Calvin Smith USA 1983
First under 9.90: 9.86 Carl Lewis 1991
First under 9.80: 9.79 Maurice Greene USA 1999

With all of the numerous technological advances in running shoes, superior track surfaces, and a pharmacopia of performance-enhancing compounds (the spectre of which hangs over nearly every elite sprinter of the past 25 years) we're looking at about a 6% gain in speed since 1921. Far easier, in my mind, to attribute these small increases in speed to superior equipment, more accurate timers and the miracles of pharmacology than to any natural evolutionary pressure towards faster humans.
I dont know much about tennis not qualified to talk about that example but on Chess you are dead wrong and that is easily shown by several examples. Oh and By the way the Fourth World Chess Champions name is Alexander Alekhine. The Mikhail you are likely thinking of is Mikhail Tal who is also a very poor choice to compare because he is still generally considered the greatest tactician who ever lived. Both The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games (Burgess, Nunn & Emms 2004) and Modern Chess Brilliancies (Evans 1970) include more games by Tal than any other player.
Rating systems are prone to inflation over time read about it here
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5608
The most accurate way of evaluation players across time is Chessmetrics developed by Jeff Sonas. Sonas uses Chessmetrics to evaluate historical annual performance ratings and comes to the conclusion that Kasparov was dominant for the most years, followed closely by Karpov and Lasker. Alekhine is fourth ALL TIME
If you know anything at all about chess you want to know - What would Bobby say? A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy (June 22, 1837 July 10, 1884) is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today ... - Bobby Fischer

Even so, all this is completely irrelevant to boxing however because it is not a sport where results depend purely on athletic ability. I mean how many world class track runners have there been with a waistline like James Toney? The fact that a man who was a former middleweight can eat himself into a world class contender at Heavyweight in the modern age tells you all you need to know about what improvements in sports science have done for boxing. Absolutely nothing.
So we are left with skill that is the major determining factor. I and any unbiased observer can see clearly enough that boxing skill is not on the rise in general and hasnt been since the 1960s. Quite the opposite in fact. Many divisions in boxing today must acknowledge they are in a weak era in the sport. Boxing is losing ground to MMA in fan base and will die out as a major sport unless changes are made. I propose a return to the original EIGHT +1 weight classes with Cruiser inserted between 175 and 200. A return to ONE governing body with ONE world champ in each weight class. An across the board testing program for drugs and steroids and a LIFETIME ban for the FIRST offense. A mandatory title defense against the number one challenger with a fixed 60/40 split every six months.
A Same Hour weigh-in so welters don enter the ring north of 160 for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Great post.

How would todays boxers handle fighting once a month like the old timers?, would the same guys still be on top?

Could Floyd's hands handle fighting every month with gloves that are a lot smaller? etc... (not picking on Floyd, just saying)

Gesta, Oct 29, 2011

#43
Gesta Well-Known Member Full Member

Joined:

Apr 12, 2009

Messages:

2,975

Likes Received:

9

I am 30 and I remember the older footballs (all types) and how hard / water logged they were in the wet.

Did Rocky IV not each us anything?

http://youtu.be/bN-SShi58cI
http://youtu.be/bN-SShi58cI

Gesta, Oct 29, 2011

#44
RobertV77 Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Apr 7, 2010

Messages:

6,001

Likes Received:

4

This is a pointless thread.

RobertV77, Oct 29, 2011

#45

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 3 of 14