1949 heavyweights v. 1999 heavyweights

Is it fair to make a 100 M comparison? In the 1948 Olympics the winner ran a then Olympic record of 10.3 seconds. In 1996 the 7th placed (8th was dq'd) competitor ran a 10.16. You have to go to the 8th placed finisher in one of the semifinal heats to find a sub 10.3 and that was 10.36.

I am sure the 1948 winner was athletic, but he doesn't match up with the best 50 years later.

I know boxing and track at not the same, but I think there is a difference in certain athletic traits over half a century.

 

great post

 

Sportwriters such as Grantland Rice, Jeff Moshier, Bob French, among others, seemed to regard 1948-'49 as a new low in the heavyweights, with Louis's decline and retirement.
The fact that old men like Jersey Joe Walcott and Lee Savold were becoming contenders years after their primes was cited as evidence.
And Ezzard Charles, a light heavyweight, came along to take the top spot.

I'll see if I can drag up some sources. :good

 

yeah,clearly the times change

 

Carnera was no Lennox Lewis. But Lewis looked clumsy against smaller guys too. Can you blame Carnera for looking so bad against Guys so much faster and smaller?

Have you seen how much better Carnera looks against Ray Impleteri?

It is clear to me a lot of dismissing of earlier eras is by people who have less info on the earlier times.

Big guys look like oafs against small guys. On their own they're not so bad as you want to believe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNXc1MHvb08


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zooOLCOIw

 

Combat sports cannot be compared to track and feild atsch

A punch in the face from 2000 years ago is still going to knock you out.

It's hand to hand combat.

A sword from the bronze age will still cut your head off today.

Gloves are bigger now than at any point in history. If anything, boxers were more lethal with less of a punch back in the day because of the smaller circumference of the gloved hand..

In 1949 gloves were half the size. 6oz horse hair with detached thumbs.

Wearing down tactics were less required than today.

All anyone can say is today's guys are perfect for now. Big gloves with memory foam filling require a different shaped heavyweight.

Please use some research into this.

 

I didn't think I had said anything controversial. I thought the issue at hand was about Carnera as an athlete vs fighters to today. I conceded there was a difference between track and boxing.

I do remain unconvinced that the majority of heavyweights in the 40s would be competitive in the 90s. I don't doubt their toughness or drive any less,if anything perhaps they were tougher and more driven. I just think that the 90s in this case have bigger, stronger, and faster fighters in many cases, and that tips the scales for me.

Sent from my Lenovo B8000-F using Tapatalk

 

Carnera LOOKS better than most the heavyweights near his size now, or from any era.
There are only a handful who LOOK better.
He was actually pretty light on his feet for such a huge man, and he attempted to box behind the jab and move a bit.

But big guys still just flap there arms around in a lame jabbing motion and stand like they are stuck in mud.
In one of these threads I'm being told Breazeale is better talent/skills than Carnera. I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Far from it.

 

Good post. The Olympic sports argument is quite nauseating for some of the reasons you've stated, it also leaves out the fact that better showings were more of a result of advancements in performance enhancing drugs rather than some imagined evolutionary progression in athletics. Mens weightlifting and Womens Track and Field being good examples of such sports that saw declines after stiffer drug testing measures were put in place.