In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

So my point becomes only valid when there are no injuries anymore and every Athlet can be healed from any injury?
[url]https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-sports-psychology/sport-fitness/the-evolution-sports-medicine-over-the-last-50-years-the-wet-sponge-holistic-care[/url]

and you didnt adress the comparison to cancer healing rates which is not a comparison of apples and oranges.

 

He’s saying that Ali never used to throw punches from the same position as Haye did, as their styles were different. HOWEVER, you can CLEARLY see in the video that I posted that Ali had:

Faster hand speed

Faster feet

Faster reflexes

WATCH THE VIDEO.

Haye was very quick. But he wasn’t faster than Tyson, Ali or Floyd Patterson.

Not that it matters anyway. Because if you want to claim that one decade/era is slower or faster than another one, you’d need to put forward more than just a few examples.

You said that boxers were faster today, but then just compared 1 or 2 fighters who were slower than Haye to try and prove your point.

That’s not how you debate.

 

Are you still going to claim that today’s MW’s and SMW’s were better than what they were 20-30 years ago?

 

I'm saying that he demonstrated his tremendous speed in a quite different bag altogether. They are both fast-handed fighters, but their broader compounds of attributes are very different, their approach to taking apart an opponent is very different. Their punching techniques/delivery systems aren't even very comparable. As I said elsewhere, Ali varied the speed and the force of his punches, didn't rely on those big booming hits that were Haye's bread and butter. Could Ali slip outside a jab and land a right hand? He possesses reflexes and speed enough to do it (especially against a boxer as basic as Enzo, though I doubt the impact would be equally forceful), but it's much more in his nature to torment Mac behind his own jab and 1-2.

David Haye isn't getting up on his toes, moving side to side and dominating fights in the style with which Ali dominated fights.


Haye's technique didn't just break him down physically after ten professional years, it made him very predictable to the higher caliber of fighter. It did serve him well up to a certain level, but he was notorious for picking his fights, which is the main reason his shortcomings weren't exposed more often. Ali, meanwhile, went in with a who's who of two generations, had two distinctly different careers and was able to compete with top guys while past his physical best (Round 15 with Shavers alone is far more compelling evidence of greatness than anything David Haye ever demonstrated). His abilities are well and truly proven.

Yeah, it gets that way when you're making such categorical claims for limited advancements. You set a high bar for the advancements you're touting, not a modest bar. If you're wanting me to acknowledge that they can make a difference to fighters in some cases, I acknowledge it. But then, you're pretty much saying that if we took the guy from 1947 and put him in the now, so that he could avail himself of those advancements, he'd benefit, no? That's a tacit acknowledgement that it's only the lack of medical advancement that's holding him back, rather than an innate evolutionary (athletic/technical) shortfall in boxers of his era.

Is there an article on hypobaric chambers coming next?

 

If the guy feels that way, he's entitled to say so.

I think our response has only been so assertive on account of how categorical and bullish he is in his views.

My own initial response to the thread wasn't great. It's just one of those topics that's been done to death is all. Better to not respond in such cases, one only needs to take part in so many of these rodeos.

 

Ok so when i said speed i meant hand speed to make that clear and at least judging from the clips i know i seems like haye has a edge over ali. Hayes footwork therefor is slower( i prefer to use better) then alis.

It is exactly the same thing as with nutrition, on its own it wont make too much of a difference but if you combine all those small advantages athletes today just have way better options to develop then back then.
Did you even bother reading through the article? It is a little bit tough to discuss with some of you guys cause a lot of pro modern people try to back ower claims with stats and stuff, articles etc. and you dont even bother to address them.
If you would put a guy from 1947 into todays world he would of course benefit from all those things and maybe be world class today but this kind of this discussion would be too hypothetical.

 

Our responses reflect his staggering ignorance.

 

On what planet does Haye have quicker hand speed?

You obviously haven’t even watched the video.

 

I think a great amount of what it refers to is intuitive on the part of the individual under duress. The psychological aspects of sport injury may not have been a field of study 50 years ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean the individual lacks the resources to cope and act as his own psychological counsel. While it might sound like a pitiless attitude, I see it as a survival of the fittest proposition, specifically of the mentally fittest and tough. And I dig that. As much as I've been an admirer of Carl Froch, it always puzzled me that he let George Groves get inside him to such a degree as to require a counselor in order to tolerate being in the trolly ginger guy's company. That was something he should've been able to deal with by himself. And perhaps he could and would have if he'd had to. He was, in his own words, ticking a box, reasoning that he may as well avail himself of whatever might give him an edge.

For an EPL soccer player like Danny Rose, the fact that he's already set for life after a few seasons on a big wage might be a factor. I tend to feel that if you need a sports psychologist to motivate you to engage with and adhere to rehabilitation sessions, you've gotten too comfortable. If you were a prizefighter instead of a soccer player, you'd be dead meat already. Our ambitious boxer hasn't had that kind of reliable income, he's looking to secure his future. If the thought of having his hopes of a comfortable life for himself and his family snatched away isn't motivating enough, nothing will be. He has to man up and get off his butt, or he's being left behind to pump gas, flip patties or drive Uber, so to speak.

I tend to favor a lot of moldy oldies over their modern counterparts because the overall skillsets impress me more and I'm not seeing inferior athletes on average. It's my tendency to think purely in those terms and imagine all the extraneous (non-boxing specific) factors being even for the sake of just assessing the matchup. If I don't flip things around and ask whether today's guys could deal with the conditions in '47 or '82, taking into account that some would thrive on both the hard times and (as I see it) the deeper tutelage and become more rounded operators than they are here in 2020 (while others would fall by the wayside in the harsh circumstances of those eras), it's because that's where I find that things have become too hypothetical. With a clearly defined technical/athletic matchup, I have meat to work with.

 

It wouldn't be much of a forum if we all thought the same things. I don't wish to browbeat the guy or treat his views with contempt, but I believe I may have trod on that borderline unnecessarily in response to what I perceived as an overly authoritative air. As such, @ertwin has my apology. I find these exchanges are more fruitful with the heat taken out of them (or at least more agreeable, even if they end in disagreement).

With regard to the handspeed of Ali;
He wasn't a guy who threw every shot with the same intention, so it might be possible to watch a brief clip and be underwhelmed by his handspeed. But when he wanted to punch with speed, when he put punches together with real offensive intent, his hands were blazingly fast. The tapes are there to be inspected, that's all I can say. If someone still feels that Haye was the faster-handed fighter, he's within his rights to hold that opinion. I just strongly disagree is all.

Same about the feet of Ali. He wasn't just faster of foot, but more educated, more assured. And the judgement of range he would demonstrate while back-peddling in his pomp was uncanny, radar-like.

Just to revisit that earlier question as to whether pre-draft Clay/Ali was capable of slipping a jab to the outside and countering with the right hand;
He gave himself the opportunity to do so often, it just wasn't in his nature to capitalize in that way. He preferred to use it as a taunt, a demoralizing opportunity, to revel in showing a guy how ineffective he could render him before getting up on his toes again and popping his own jab.

 

I respect your opinion and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts in this thread.

I respect what you’ve written above regarding Ali.

You’ve made some great points.

If you want to apologise to Ertwin, then I respect that too. However, I have debated him on numerous threads over the past month, where he’s acted ignorant all throughout the debates. And I’m not saying that because he doesn’t agree with my opinion. Not at all. It’s his writing style, his tone, and the fact that he keeps changing his mind on where he stands. One minute he’s trolling, then he’s just joking. Then he’s just been sarcastic. And then the whole thing starts back up again, where you can see that’s he not trolling and he is in fact being serious. He just uses his trolling pass if things start to heat up. Personally, I think he’s a garbage poster who is full of ignorance. But again, I respect you for being the bigger person and apologising and giving him another chance. In my opinion, he certainly doesn’t deserve it.

Cheers.

 

Likewise, man – some solid missives from yourself within these pages.


It's been my first encounter with the fella, I must've missed some threads.

I'm about as secure as can be in our shared position on this thread topic and the Ali/Haye spinoff argument, but I guess I don't want to be so high-handed about it that it forces a kind of orthodoxy of thought and shuts out the right of others to express contrary views. I've found certain orthodoxies stifling myself. If I take a moment to seriously consider another poster's mystifying position but still end up scrunching it and tossing it in the mental wastepaper, I can hope that the exercise helps fend off complacency if nothing else.

 

LOL!! You're funny. Lord of the Rings/Star Wars, no....but it is the basis of all sports and as primitive as it gets. One man vs one man; as simple as can be; but with a whole multitude of things that can happen in a 20 foot square. And that goes across time lines as it is no given than a 21st Century man is going to win a boxing match against a 20th Century man, just because he's has fancy exercise equipment and health shakes.

Regarding your other point, of course it's as simple as poverty vs affluence....that was my point. Poverty was far more prevalent 100 years ago than now and there were far fewer options 100 years ago for the downtrodden and destitute than there is today. Hence, "yesterday", overall, you had tougher men with more fire in their bellies to escape than now.

This is not to downplay the poverty-stricken neighborhoods today; but boxing gyms were far more prevalent in days gone by than now, as boxing is not en vogue anymore. It's a cult sport, whereas it used to be just behind baseball as "Americas pastime". Jack Dempsey was just about as famous a Babe Ruth. How many laymen know who Tyson Fury or Deontay Wilder are or even Anthony Joshua? Walk down any street and ask 10 people if they know who the World Heavyweight Champion is.....you'll be lucky to find 1.

 

Walk down any street in The Philippines, and ask 10 people, if they know who Manny Pacquiao is. Do you think, you could find even ONE adult person, who wouldn't have heard of him?

Do the same with Inoue in Japan, Canelo in Mexico, Usyk and Loma in Ukraine... and they would all be known by just about everybody in their respective countries, I would guess.

Just because boxing isn't what it used to be in the US, doesn't mean it's dead everywhere else… though I realize, many Americans have little knowledge of, or interest in, the rest of the world:

This content is protected

 

Great post.