Its not really evolution of people. Its evolution of training methods,and diet, supplements etc. Look at the difference between american footballers in the 60s and players now. Or pretty much any sport for that matter.
If what Lamon is saying is true, why arent we seeing any 210lbs fighters winning the world championship these days? The world title has pretty much been dominated by guys over 240 and 6'4 for the past 20 years or so. Bowe,Lewis and the Klitschkos, only small guy in there being Holyfield and Tyson briefly. Its because size,as much as some people here want to dismiss it,counts. Because of modern training methods,diet etc, you can get 250 lbs 6'5 guys who are fast who can move and who can box. You just didnt see guys that big and athletic in Alis day and certainly not before that.
This is kinda true, but it can also be thrown out the window when humans are involved. We have made radical changes in animals we have domesticated, which may well have taken millions of years without our intervention. As to ourselves as a species, we have also turned natural selection on it's head.
If you look at the best heavyweights since the 00s there aren't actually that many giants in there. Lewis and the Klitschkos obviously, but then guys like Byrd, Brewster, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Peter, Haye, Chambers, Povetkin, Adamek... these guys aren't giants. Valuev was I suppose. The next generation of heavyweights has some really big guys (Helenius, Fury, Price etc) but we don't know that they are going to dominate the division yet
The size issue is completely overblown. There are only two good big heavyweights in the modern era, Wlad and Lewis. All the other big fighters are poor. If you want to go back a few more years, Bowe is another but that's it. The big prospects are all terrible too, with the exception of David Price who seems technically strong. Helenius, Wach and Fury are all abysmal technically and none have good foot movement, head movement or agility.
Gains in height in the last 50 years aren't really evolution, but more a case of better diet allowing us to max out on the height we are meant to have. There's a big difference in height between the average South and North Korean- but genetically they are practically identical. It's just diet, not evolution You can account for some of the gains in height in heavyweight boxers being the influx of slavics in the last decade. They are often pretty tall. If they still couldn't compete then there'd be no difference in height between fighters now and those from recent previous decades
Vitali is 'poor'? It doesn't matter that he doesn't fight like other guys. He hits people without getting hit back. That's effective boxing
Well, I wouldn't say he's poor as such, so I was wrong to be so blunt. I think the general standard of other big fighters is poor, but to be fair to Vitali, he is better than the rest. That said though, Vitali isn't a good fighter. He's good at what he does but technically poor and very beatable.
Brewster was spot on with a lot of what he says, by the way. Super heavyweight dominance will never happen. They simply aren't better fighters. I'd take a good 220lber, over a good 270lber any day of the week.
lol at Lamon talking about bringing fight to wlad and pressuring him. more like Bringing bottle of poisoned liquid and mixing at Wlad's bottle.
It has happened, it is happening. The last 15 years has been completely dominated by men who are 6'5+ and 240+. And that dominance will continue. Wlad will reign for another few years. The best of the new generation are Helenius, Fury, Price, Pulev. Only small heavy I can think of thats coming through is Perez
Technically poor or just unorthodox? Hamed was unorthodox, but still a great fighter 40 year old Vitali is certainly beatable by a good enough fighter (they'd have to be very good), but if you think prime Vitali was 'very beatable' then practically anyone is