What about shorter guys? Are they using "modern diet and nutrition" and "modern sports science" to enhance themselves?
Harder to beat and better are too different things. But things level off more in the lower weight classes because once two guys rehydrate the same pounds together they still have to rely on more technical ability to find an edge.
Not really. Not in a sport where not being beat almost always means you win. I know you're an ex-professional but I think you'd be alone among professional and ex-professional boxers in believing that being harder to beat does not make you better at boxing. So you believe that modern nutrition/modern sports science ONLY grant significant advantages to heavies, is that correct?
Absolutely. but it hinders them too if they are competing only against Big men. A shorter man has to work hard to overcome reach so he has to rely on technique and pace whilst sustaining comparable mass to his opponent.
Witness: NOT HEAVYWEIGHTS. I'm asking you that question but I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT HEAVYWEIGHTS. I earlier suggest middleweights...but we could say featherweights, flyweights etc.
Benefits all fighters in a round about way. What is lost in skill is gained with physical ability generally but tall Superheavyweight specifically benefit. After all they never featured so much before. New physical class of 6'5" 260lb guys who never made much impression before have now found a way.
Yes I answered this. "Things level off more in the lower weight classes because once two guys rehydrate the same pounds together they still have to rely on more technical ability to find an edge" Not so at heavyweight ..or Superheavyweight as the championship has become.
You are correct. This is absolutely how it used to be at heavyweight and still is ordinarily the case in all other weight classes. However, since the average weight among superheavyweights has increased to 239lb or so it has become harder for men this heavy to overcome a reach advantage. Jab and grab has become the standard at championship level.
Schmeling was a rock solid trained down 190 pound hwt who could fight 15 tough rounds. There were no roids in his day. Take Tyson,Holy, Wlad and bring them back to the 30's and you would see three very different looking Hwts.......much less muscular, lighter fighters.
You sound like Choklab How do you explain Willard and Carnera being their size. And given more training to hone their skills how would you then view them.
Willard was the first "great white hope" that was trained to be able to fight 25 rounds. He had a great jab and ko power in his right hand. Carnera is an enigma in a way since it's hard to separate what was real vs what was "arranged". Certainly he had a good jab and under appreciated skills for such a huge man without an amateur background. In terms of size there have been big men all through history. They would have been that much bigger if they had the roids used by Tyson, Holy and Wlad. (Among many others). Wlad back in 1930 would be a lanky 220 pounder with the same glass jaw, Tyson and Holy relatively normal sized hwts of the time. These fighters in those times could easily been beaten by a sharpshooter such as Schmeling.
The only reason Wlad would need to go 225 is if he felt the leaner mass would be better for longer fights. Not everyone lost mass to fight 15 rounds. Schmelling doesn't easily beat Holy or Tyson. Schmelling has the ability to, but he'd have to pack some muscle with his style or he would get walked down.
Right, but this is to do specifically with size. You have said that modern nutrition and sports science represents an advantage for modern fighters - are you saying that only heavyweights benefit? What i'm asking is, would you expect technical wizards of this era - Floyd Mayweather for example - to beat old timers based upon these advantages?