Joe Louis vs Derek Chisora (yes really)

"Are you actually trying to bump up Vitali's win over Briggs just because Vitali was older?"

No, read properly next time. Claiming Briggs was old is a bit silly when Vitali was older. I said I didn't consider Briggs to be among Vitali's top 10 opponents, so you mentioning him as implicitly Vitali's most notable opponent is funny to me.

"I'm gonna pretend you didn't call Louis..."

I did, because they are.

"one of the weakest eras in heavyweight history"

This was just cope from Americans (and to a lesser extent Brits) who had been pushed out by global competition. In reality the 1930's was a vastly weaker era. A time-machined Louis wouldn't have got past the gatekeepers in the Klitschko era.

"Am I missing something here?"

Bean, Donald, Sanders, Peter, Gomez, Arreola, Adamek, Chisora, with Byrd and Lewis rounding out the top 10. No room for Briggs or the lesser K. Johnson Vitali fought.

"I agree that Lewis would beat Louis, but it doesn't mean anything in this discussion at all."

Of course it does: if you believe (as I do) that Lewis would win every round and KO Louis, likely early, then Vitali is levels above Louis.

"Sure, in the Byrd fight he was injured so we'll give him that one"

No I won't because it's a lame excuse. He didn't start the fight injured, he sustained an arm injury after throwing punches at Byrd, most of them missing. And Vitali wasn't stopped controversially against his will as he was vs Lewis, he quit.

"Also, you forgot to mention other factors about Lewis in the Vitali fight"

More lame excuses. If Lewis felt he needed a tune-up he could have got one. He had performed above expectations against Rahman and Tyson. Perhaps the extra weight helped him to better absorb Vitali's punches. He wasn't thinking about retirement before the fight. And if Lewis was old at 37 then Vitali was green relative to Lewis.

"What's your source for this?"

This:

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1940

Barring the Chilean who gave Louis life and death, the top 11 heavyweights were all American.

Also, the post-Soviet transition, when we went from 85% of the heavies in the top 10 fights of the 90's being American to 5% in the Klitschko era.

 

"Boxers of the past still had great stamina, speed and agility"

Absurd contradiction already: you claimed that athleticism barely matters for boxing.

"15 round era"

100+ years ago there were no round limits, it means nothing. Fewer rounds = quicker pace.

"I don't think the cardio of past fighters is questionable"

One important measure of cardio is the number of punches thrown. Compare the records today to those in the past. Usyk throws far more over 12 than Ali did over 15. Joyce is a 6'5+, 270 lbs man who can throw 1000 punches over 12 rounds, as he was on course to do against Parker after 10 rounds. You get a monstrosity like Miller who could throw 1000 punches over 12 rounds while weighing 300+ lbs. This didn't exist in the past because of inferior science/conditioning methods. It's also more fatiguing to fight bigger, harder punching modern heavyweights than the de-facto LHW's and cruisers that past heavies fought, so the fact that punch records have continued to be broken makes it even crazier.

"It's more comparable to chess than bench pressing"

Comical. If that was true we'd see pencil-necked nerds with 160 IQ dominating boxing. Bench pressing is also a far more limited athletic endeavour than boxing:

"Speed of hand and foot, reflexes, agility, co-ordination, balance, stamina, strength and power at minimum are all athletic attributes and all are very important for boxing"

How many of these are important for chess? And how far will you get in the highly competitive sport of boxing while lacking these things? If it was easy to win an Olympic medal on 2.5 years boxing experience then we'd see it all the time wouldn't we? Wilder managed it but he had extremely rare physical attributes. Not one in a hundred or even a thousand 200+ lbs men could do it. And it's not because boxing noob Wilder had incredible boxing skills or a brilliant tactical mind.

"we've seen countless instances where skill beats athleticism."

Of course but the more skilled guy is also extremely athletic relative to the average man, at least in certain respects.

"Great athletes always existed, even in powerlifting"

Only relative to their eras. A great powerlifter in the 1930's is simply not great or even world class by modern standards.

 

'Absurd contradiction already: you claimed that athleticism barely matters for boxing.'

I did, and I still stand by it. My example also still stands, as there were still boxers who displayed great athletic abilities. Me pointing out that there were boxers who had great athleticism doesn't take away from the fact that athleticism isn't as important to boxing as it is for other sports. I don't know how that's an absurd contradiction.


'One important measure of cardio is the number of punches thrown. Compare the records today to those in the past. Usyk throws far more over 12 than Ali did over 15. Joyce is a 6'5+, 270 lbs man who can throw 1000 punches over 12 rounds, as he was on course to do against Parker after 10 rounds. You get a monstrosity like Miller who could throw 1000 punches over 12 rounds while weighing 300+ lbs. This didn't exist in the past because of inferior science/conditioning methods. It's also more fatiguing to fight bigger, harder punching modern heavyweights than the de-facto LHW's and cruisers that past heavies fought, so the fact that punch records have continued to be broken makes it even crazier.'

I agree, punches thrown are important in measuring cardio. However, we don't have compubox stats for the 1930s, but what we do have is film of fast paced matches. You're heavily underrating the pace of these old school fights.

'How many of these are important for chess? And how far will you get in the highly competitive sport of boxing while lacking these things? If it was easy to win an Olympic medal on 2.5 years boxing experience then we'd see it all the time wouldn't we? Wilder managed it but he had extremely rare physical attributes. Not one in a hundred or even a thousand 200+ lbs men could do it. And it's not because boxing noob Wilder had incredible boxing skills or a brilliant tactical mind.'

The chess comparison was a counter to your 100m dash\powerlifter comparison. Boxing is much less athletically dependent than those sports, but it's still a sport. I've actually seen quite a few successful 'pencil necked nerds' who achieve success at boxing. In fact, some of the best fighters at my gym looked dorky as ****. I've seen successful boxers who weren't especially fast, athletic, strong or agile that achieved success in the sport.

'Of course but the more skilled guy is also extremely athletic relative to the average man, at least in certain respects.'

You'd be surprised at how unathletic some boxers are, even now. Sure, the majority of them are great athletes, but so were the ones in the 30s. And even then, those great athletes of the time were still dismantled by superior skilled, less athletic tacticians. Since Jesse Owens proved that athletes of the past can indeed achieve heights that modern athletes could.

'Only relative to their eras. A great powerlifter in the 1930's is simply not great or even world class by modern standards.'

Since powerlifting benefits much more from athleticism and modern nutrition than boxing does I would agree. The conditions of modern powerlifting and old powerlifting and old running and new running is much more significant than the difference between modern boxing and classic boxing.

 

'No, read properly next time.'

Unnecessary. This civil discussion doesn't warrant that.

'Claiming Briggs was old is a bit silly when Vitali was older. I said I didn't consider Briggs to be among Vitali's top 10 opponents, so you mentioning him as implicitly Vitali's most notable opponent is funny to me.'

So? Briggs was still old, Vitali being older doesn't change that. I called Briggs old because that's exactly what he was; old.

'This was just cope from Americans (and to a lesser extent Brits) who had been pushed out by global competition. In reality the 1930's was a vastly weaker era. A time-machined Louis wouldn't have got past the gatekeepers in the Klitschko era.'

Does the fact that the contenders weren't Americans take away from how crappy the era is? Let's analyze your choices:

'Vaughn Bean' Look at Bean's record, who did he beat before Vitali?
Larry Donald? Look at his record, who did he beat before Vitali?
Juan Gomez? Same here
Samuel Peter? Same here
These, among others that I already covered, are Vitali's 10 best wins in this incredibly stacked era that is only bashed by salty Americans? Even 40 year old Briggs was better than these guys. The only decent wins you listed are Sanders, Chisora and Adamek, and even then they aren't great wins.

'Of course it does: if you believe (as I do) that Lewis would win every round and KO Louis, likely early, then Vitali is levels above Louis.'

I don't follow the 'guy 1 beats guy 2, so since guy 1 struggled with guy 3 that makes guy 3 better than guy 2' logic. Lewis beating Louis doesn't influence how I rank Vitali.

'No I won't because it's a lame excuse. He didn't start the fight injured, he sustained an arm injury after throwing punches at Byrd, most of them missing. And Vitali wasn't stopped controversially against his will as he was vs Lewis, he quit.'

Something I don't blame him for doing. He would probably dominate Byrd in a rematch.

'More lame excuses. If Lewis felt he needed a tune-up he could have got one. He had performed above expectations against Rahman and Tyson. Perhaps the extra weight helped him to better absorb Vitali's punches. He wasn't thinking about retirement before the fight. And if Lewis was old at 37 then Vitali was green relative to Lewis.'

How is it a lame excuse? It's the truth, he was a pudgy 37 year old who was coming back after a year lay off. Are you saying that these factors didn't influence Lewis at all?

 

"the fact that athleticism isn't as important to boxing as it is for other sports"

Your entire argument is based on the ridiculous *assertion* (not a fact) that boxing is closer to chess in how unathletically demanding it is compared to virtually any other sport. I think it's closer to the opposite:

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills#:~:text=Boxing.,the 60 sports we rated.

If your assertion were correct, Wilder wouldn't have won an Olympic bronze medal on 2.5 years boxing experience. Consider how well he'd do at chess after 2.5 years playing it by comparison (not even a good club player imo, let alone finishing 3rd/4th in a major world tournament).

"However, we don't have compubox stats for the 1930s"

We could go back and count the punches, you'd expect smaller men fighting other smaller men to throw more. But in reality we see behemoths in this era throwing more punches than the likes of Ali and Frazier in the 70's (and I consider them better than any 30's fighter). So whether it's a matter of PED's or general training methods, fighters today are vastly better conditioned than they were 50-60 years ago. This is in line with the considerable improvements in stamina in middle and long-distance running:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

 

"I called Briggs old because that's exactly what he was; old."

Mentioning Briggs implicitly as Vitali's best win is a thinly-veiled attempt to denigrate his record. It's like saying: "who did Lewis beat? Levi Billups and Ossie Ocasio?"

"Does the fact that the contenders weren't Americans take away from how crappy the era is?"

Americans and Western boxing fans in general were dismayed by the Eastern European takeover and the generally more global nature of the heavyweight division so they predictably responded with denigration. They didn't like the fact that they'd held the heavyweight division since the late 19th century and had suddenly been purged. They much preferred the days of Louis for example when as in 1940, 10 of the top 11 heavyweights were American:

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1940

I find being a dominant global champion in the 21st century more impressive than being a dominant national champion in the 1930's/40's.

"Even 40 year old Briggs was better than these guys"

Briggs was 38 and was in survival mode the whole fight. He'd lost wide to McCline and Ibragimov at or closer to his best years prior and his best win was a life and death with Liakhovich. So no, he wasn't one of Vitali's best wins, like Levi Billups wasn't one of Lewis's best.

"Something I don't blame him for doing. He would probably dominate Byrd in a rematch."

Perhaps Vitali would have dominated Lewis in the rematch he wanted but the fact remains he lost, albeit being stopped against his will as the B-side rather than quitting as he did against Byrd in Germany and not pursuing a rematch.

"Are you saying that these factors didn't influence Lewis at all?"

I'm saying it's completely unknowable who was more disadvantaged: 37 year old A-side Lewis who wants at least three more fights going in and who has vast championship experience or 31 year old B-side Vitali with far less high level experience. I don't think either man was just coming for a payday, they both felt it was a fair fight given where they were in their careers or they wouldn't have made it.

"Larry Donald?
Juan Gomez?
Samuel Peter?"

Donald was a 225 lbs, 81 inch reach, fleet-footed Olympic bronze medallist backfoot boxer with a solid chin. The Conn and Charles fights don't give me much confidence that Louis could have beaten him at his best.

The Galento fight doesn't give me confidence that Louis could handle far better conditioned, much taller and longer 21st century 240-250 lbs roughhouse pressure fighters with solid chins and power.

Like Byrd and Sanders, long-reigning cruiserweight titlist Gomez was a southpaw. So by Louis's own admission he'd duck him because he had no confidence or experience vs southpaws. Back in that old American era they didn't believe in teaching fighters how to box southpaw, therefore fighters had little to no training how to counter it or experience against it. Parochial in the extreme. But some will of course pretend this doesn't matter or have serious implications in fantasy matchups.

 

While the ESPN link you provided is intriguing, I can't help but be skeptical. The source of your link is the opinion of ESPN's 'sports experts', and they don't list their sources on why they believe that. I prefer proof rather than opinion of experts.

I provided proof that Jesse Owens would still be able to compete in modern day sprinting in spite of his lack of modern nutrition, so freak athletes have clearly always existed.

'This is in line with the considerable improvements in stamina in middle and long-distance running:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression'

It's a given for running sports to have improvements over time due to the conditions of past athletes, as I've proven. They'd have to be horrific runners if they managed to perform less well than athletes who did so under rougher conditions and terrain.

'So whether it's a matter of PED's or general training methods, fighters today are vastly better conditioned than they were 50-60 years ago. This is in line with the considerable improvements in stamina in middle and long-distance running'

I feel like this is jumping to conclusions, A doesn't automatically equal B. Joe Joyce being a high volume fighter does not mean fighters today are better conditioned. You're also not taking in how endurance-heavy old training was, stamina was the most important part of it. Do you have evidence that modern athletes have a significant stamina advantage over athletes of the past? And by evidence I don't mean a link for world records, I mean a study calculating how modern nutrition in particular effected stamina to such a significant degree, and has increased it to the point where athletes from the past aren't even comparable. High volume boxers have always existed, and you can see their intense paces on film even from that period. I don't see how the fact that Joe Joyce also has volume debunks that fact.

I saw you use Deontay as an example, and I think he actually proves my point more than yours. Yes, Wilder's dominance is largely based on what he's gained from natural athleticism in his power (I never said that athleticism didn't influence boxing at all, I just said it's vastly less important in comparison to other sports and that skill is much, much more important). But Tyson Fury, especially in his first comeback back in 2018, couldn't be further from a great athlete. This is more apparent in their first fight, as Fury just lost all of that weight and couldn't be in a more vulnerable position. Fury was slower in 2018 in comparison to now, whereas Wilder was faster, stronger and more athletic. Fury dominated him with skill alone (he didn't use his size in the first fight, yet he still managed to out perform the vastly superior athlete.) Another example is B-Hop vs. Jean Pascal. In no world was the 46 year old Hopkins the superior athlete, yet he took Pascal to school with skill alone. Holmes achieved success with pure technique in his 40s as well. You wouldn't see people in conditions like this this thrive at the top of sprinting or powerlifting. That's what makes boxing so great, it's the sweet science. You can go back to the 1900s and see unathletic oldheads school young champs with pure skill alone

My opinion on past athletes is a bit tricky, as this discussion has motivated me to look more into the topic. Based on my findings, it's apparent to me that conditions have affected athletes much more than modern nutrition, training methods or PEDS. Here's an example:

'The longest distance cycled in an hour was set in 1972 as 30 miles 3774 feet. That record was broken in 1996 with a more aerodynamic and better-engineered bike. However, they made a rule that everyone had to use a bike similar to the one in 1972 and the best distance record since the ruling is 30 miles 4675 ft. proving the gain'

I don't think anyone doubts that sports nutrition evolved significantly from the 70s to the 90s. And even moreso from the 30s to modern times, yet Jesse Owens still had the athletic capability to compete in modern conditions.

Your hypothesis is based on the idea that modern nutrition has made modern athletes incomparable to those of the past due to the significant advances. However, evidence proves that technology actually influences the athletes much more than nutrition does.

 

"I can't help but be skeptical"

I can't help but be sceptical about claims that boxing is more similar to chess in how unathletically demanding it is, when many great fighters have taken up the sport in their late teens or 20's and excelled based largely on their physical attributes.

"proof"

Your standard of "proof" and "facts" is pretty low in my opinion. An American Jewish journalist saying "This American hero who showed the Nazis what's what would be the best sprinter today on a level playing field" doesn't cut it for me.

"And by evidence I don't mean a link for world records"

Of course you don't because it destroys your argument if top modern athletes are clocking middle and long distance times that are much quicker than they were 50-100 years ago, or lifting twice as much weight than they were 100 years ago.

"High volume boxers have always existed"

But not as high volume as the top high volume boxers today, even though the modern athletes are bigger and fighting bigger opponents. It's not just 270 lbs Joyce, it's fights like Tua-Ibeabuchi which broke the record at the time, Thompson-Solis, Arreola-Kownacki, GW1516 Miller at 300+ lbs with incredible volume. Usyk with significantly greater volume than the similar-sized Ali.

"But Tyson Fury, especially in his first comeback back in 2018, couldn't be further from a great athlete. Fury was slower in 2018 in comparison to now"

This is comical. Fury is the fastest and more agile man of his size in the history of boxing and he was certainly faster in 2018 than he is now. Fury is fat and white yes, he's still a freak athlete and was raised in a boxing family, which Wilder was not. The fact that Wilder didn't beat Fury (which freak athlete and master boxer Wlad Klitschko also didn't) doesn't discredit Wilder. His athleticism (primarily) made him a Hall of Fame fighter and won him an Olympic bronze on less than 3 years experience, which would never be replicated in chess without an utterly stratospheric IQ and total autistic obsession.

"with skill alone"

This is an extreme oversimplification. Yes skill matters but they wouldn't have won those fights without durability, stamina, power (to get the respect of the opponent), handspeed (which doesn't fade with age as much as footspeed), determination, composure, accuracy, physical size etc. Skill in itself requires athleticism to implement and some fighters are far better preserved with age than others, or their attributes match up well with the attributes of their (possibly overconfident) younger opponent.

 

Oh Redbeard, are you having one of your episodes again?

 

'I can't help but be sceptical about claims that boxing is more similar to chess in how unathletically demanding it is, when many great fighters have taken up the sport in their late teens or 20's and excelled based largely on their physical attributes.'

In comparison to the sports you've mentioned! That's been my point throughout this entire debate! I know boxing involves more athleticism than chess, it's kind of obvious. That being said, boxing is far less reliant on natural gifts than the sports you keep mentioning like sprinting or lifting. You would never see an aged athlete like Hopkins or an out of shape fighter like Fury in 2018 thrive in sports like that, because they're reliant on your athletic gifts. In boxing, you can be relatively unathletic and still achieve success through good technique. Boxing is only comparable to chess if you compare it to lifting and sprinting.


'Your standard of "proof" and "facts" is pretty low in my opinion. An American Jewish journalist saying "This American hero who showed the Nazis what's what would be the best sprinter today on a level playing field" doesn't cut it for me.'

It doesn't matter if my source is Jewish (weird thing to make you disregard an entire study) because my source actually provided evidence to support my claim. The opinion of ESPN analysts isn't a source. If you walked into court and disregarded an entire source, with evidence, just because someone is Jewish you'd probably be laughed out of the room. If you disagree with my source, please point out it's flaws like I did for yours. A good example of a source in your side of the debate would be proving what specific nutrition impacts modern boxers, and makes them incomparable to those of the past.

'Of course you don't because it destroys your argument if top modern athletes are clocking middle and long distance times that are much quicker than they were 50-100 years ago, or lifting twice as much weight than they were 100 years ago.'

No because I've destroyed that argument countless times already and they've gotten tiring. It's been made clear that technology is the real game changer in sports, as I've proven it in countless posts before this. All you're doing is dropping baseless statistics with zero

'But not as high volume as the top high volume boxers today, even though the modern athletes are bigger and fighting bigger opponents. It's not just 270 lbs Joyce, it's fights like Tua-Ibeabuchi which broke the record at the time, Thompson-Solis, Arreola-Kownacki, GW1516 Miller at 300+ lbs with incredible volume. Usyk with significantly greater volume than the similar-sized Ali.'

But you have no evidence to support that claim at all. We didn't have punch stats before 1985, so how do we conclude modern boxers have higher volume? Ibeabuchi has held that record at HW for 25 years, so would you argue that boxers from the 90s have higher volume than modern boxers?

'This is comical. Fury is the fastest and more agile man of his size in the history of boxing and he was certainly faster in 2018 than he is now. Fury is fat and white yes, he's still a freak athlete and was raised in a boxing family, which Wilder was not. The fact that Wilder didn't beat Fury (which freak athlete and master boxer Wlad Klitschko also didn't) doesn't discredit Wilder. His athleticism (primarily) made him a Hall of Fame fighter and won him an Olympic bronze on less than 3 years experience, which would never be replicated in chess without an utterly stratospheric IQ and total autistic obsession.'

Poorly skilled boxers reliant on athleticism have existed since the dawn of time, just look at James J. Jeffries. Like you said (and I've agreed with), athleticism could impact boxing and Wilder is proof of that. However, you cannot make the argument that Fury, at that stage of his career, was anywhere close to the athlete he was in the Klitschko fight or in the Wilder fights proceeding that. He was slower and flabbier, just coming off of a 3 year layoff and somewhat rushed weight loss. He was in no condition to fight someone like Wilder, yet with pure skill alone he dominated the vastly superior athlete in Deontay. Wilder had the advantage in nearly every athletic department but still got cooked. In any other sport, like sprinting or lifting which are heavily more reliant on natural gifts than boxing is, an athlete like Wilder would've outperformed someone like Fury significantly. My point with athleticism in boxing is that you can thrive in boxing despite not being a very good one, unlike in lifting and sprinting where you're reliant on being a great athlete.

 

Lets see .An ATG who held the title for 12 years v A gate keeper who never beat anyone worth talking about.

Toughie!

 

"You would never see an aged athlete like Hopkins or an out of shape fighter like Fury in 2018"

Kim Colins ran a sub 10 second 100M at 40+ (his best ever time) and Fury wouldn't have taken the Wilder fight when he did if he thought he was significant removed from his best. Claiming that he was faster for Chisora 3 than he was for Wilder 1 is wild. One of the main reasons he radically changed his style for Wilder 2 was because his prior reflex based style doesn't age well and was a potential liability against Wilder.

"In boxing, you can be relatively unathletic"

Which of Fury, Usyk, Wilder and Joshua are "relatively unathletic"? They are all freak athletes, in a tiny sub-percentile of the population.

Boxing requires more rounded athleticism than sprinting or lifting, it's hugely athletically demanding. The same is true for combat sports in general.

"The opinion of ESPN analysts isn't a source."

So your journalist is a source but my ESPN journalists are not? They are all "sources". In my opinion, your source was politically motivated baloney with no evidence behind it, just a lot of "gunna wunna shunna". But there are many who want to believe for emotional reasons that the world doesn't move on, so there will always be dishonest, pseudo-academic peddlers of narratives contradicted by reality.

"It's been made clear that technology is the real game changer in sports, as I've proven"

You've just made BS excuses for why it doesn't have any significance that objective standards have risen enormously since 1930 in all sports. The marathon record hasn't been cut from 2 hours 30 to 2 hours in the last 100 years because modern runners wear better shoes.

"We didn't have punch stats before 1985"

This is a lazy and ignorant claim, Compubox have punch stats on a litany of fights from the 60's. For example, Ali-Mildenberger: 612-538. Usyk-Hunter: 905-794.

"Ibeabuchi has held that record at HW for 25 years"

No he hasn't. You have to lie and make "facts" up because you don't have a leg to stand on. Fighter output is greater now than it used to be even though the fighters are considerably bigger, fact. For the same reasons that athletes in other sports can run faster over distance than they used to.

"yet with pure skill alone"

You're right! Fury wasn't 6'7+, 260 lbs, extremely fast, agile and well co-ordinated, highly determined and confident, powerful enough to largely keep Wilder at bay, strong enough to tie him up and control him, fit enough to go the 12 rounds against a top KO artist opponent, durable enough to take his punches and recover rapidly. No, Fury did it with pure amorphous "skill" alone! I reckon the even more skilled 135 lbs Lomachenko could have done the same or better. Hell, even an unathletic but equally skilled version of Lomachenko, say a 55 year old version. Why not? It's all about skill!

 

'No he hasn't. You have to lie and make "facts" up because you don't have a leg to stand on. Fighter output is greater now than it used to be even though the fighters are considerably bigger, fact. For the same reasons that athletes in other sports can run faster over distance than they used to.'

Again you have to resort to childish remarks and insults, because you're too emotionally immature to have a civil discussion for some reason.

'This is a lazy and ignorant claim, Compubox have punch stats on a litany of fights from the 60's. For example, Ali-Mildenberger: 612-538. Usyk-Hunter: 905-794.'

I was wrong about this, but it still doesn't prove anything IMO. Your average heavyweight fight nowadays has a volume level similar to the Ali-Mildenberger fight. Fury vs. Wilder 3 was 430-327 thrown, AJ vs. Usyk was 641-529. Wlad vs. AJ was 355-256. Ali vs. Frazier 1 893-631, Ali vs. Norton 709-635. Usyk vs. AJ 1 was 641-529, rematch was 712-492.

'You've just made BS excuses for why it doesn't have any significance that objective standards have risen enormously since 1930 in all sports. The marathon record hasn't been cut from 2 hours 30 to 2 hours in the last 100 years because modern runners wear better shoes.'

It's funny how your example goes from the 100m, then after I debunked it the example goes to the marathon record. Not only is it more reliant on athleticism than boxing is (which, I'll again repeat, does not mean athleticism plays no role in boxing), a combination PEDs and technological advancement is certainly enough to make such a difference. The marathon record in 1908 was 2 hours and 55 minutes, and in 1913 it became 2 hours and 36 minutes. Was the evolution of sports medicine that incredible in those five years? In women's marathon, the record went from 3 hours and 37 minutes in 1963 to 3 hours and 7 minutes in 1967, the evolution in nutrition must've been insane! And then 2 hours and 40 minutes in 1975, to 2 hours and 27 minutes to 1979. Wow, was the evolution in nutrition that significant in those short years?

'Kim Colins ran a sub 10 second 100M at 40+ (his best ever time) and Fury wouldn't have taken the Wilder fight when he did if he thought he was significant removed from his best. Claiming that he was faster for Chisora 3 than he was for Wilder 1 is wild. One of the main reasons he radically changed his style for Wilder 2 was because his prior reflex based style doesn't age well and was a potential liability against Wilder.'

And now we're back with the 100m? Good point with the Kim Collins comparison tho. Fury, like Hopkins, is becoming less reliant on his athleticism with age. And Hopkins wasn't very athletic compared to other boxers, even in his prime. He was such a brilliant tactician that he can overcome being slower and less strong than his opponent, which was the case in his fights past 40.

'So your journalist is a source but my ESPN journalists are not? They are all "sources". In my opinion, your source was politically motivated baloney with no evidence behind it, just a lot of "gunna wunna shunna". But there are many who want to believe for emotional reasons that the world doesn't move on, so there will always be dishonest, pseudo-academic peddlers of narratives contradicted by reality.'

Complete and utter nonsense. The opinions of ESPN's journalists isn't a source because they didn't give any reasons or studies to actually justify their reasoning. Mine did, if you actually read my post you'd know this. David Epstein goes into great detail about how technology influences sports. But no, you make up some nonsense about 'political motivation' when in reality you made that up yourself. There was nothing political about David Epstein's article at all. Stop making up reasons to believe your own bullsh#t when evidence is right in front of you.

'Which of Fury, Usyk, Wilder and Joshua are "relatively unathletic"? They are all freak athletes, in a tiny sub-percentile of the population.'

Fury in the Wilder fight, as well as 2021-present is pretty unathletic compared to the others you've listed. Regardless, I think he's skilled enough to overcome that and beat them anyway. Fury is a good athlete compared to the average man but compared to his peers, that isn't the case anymore.

'You're right! Fury wasn't 6'7+, 260 lbs, extremely fast, agile and well co-ordinated, highly determined and confident, powerful enough to largely keep Wilder at bay, strong enough to tie him up and control him, fit enough to go the 12 rounds against a top KO artist opponent, durable enough to take his punches and recover rapidly. No, Fury did it with pure amorphous "skill" alone! I reckon the even more skilled 135 lbs Lomachenko could have done the same or better. Hell, even an unathletic but equally skilled version of Lomachenko, say a 55 year old version. Why not? It's all about skill!'

Wilder was undoubtedly the superior athlete in their fight, and the Fury of said fight was absolutely not the same athlete he was in 2015 or even 2019, he looks much sharper and quicker that year. Fury's aged and gained recently so I agree he hasn't been the same speed wise 2021-present, but I still think he was inferior in the athletic department than Wilder was. Fury, in their first fight, beat Wilder mainly due to his skill.

'Boxing requires more rounded athleticism than sprinting or lifting, it's hugely athletically demanding. The same is true for combat sports in general.'

Athleticism plays a role, which I have emphasized for countless posts, but it's not as reliant on natural gifts as the other sports you listed are! Someone who isn't physically strong cannot thrive in lifting, someone who isn't fast can't thrive at sprinting. However, someone who isn't fast or strong can still be a great boxer. You don't need to be an extraordinary athlete to excel at boxing, you need some form of athleticism due to it being a sport but not significantly, even if it does help. You can't excel in those other sports without being a freak athlete (as well as juice), the superior athlete will be the winner. Boxing, while being athletically based, does not represent that at all. That has been my point this entire time. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

World class, maybe, but no longer the best. Abusing Google Books, it looks like David Epstein's source calculated that Owens was as fast as Carl Lewis in the 80s. Assuming that calc was accurate, Owens -- a phenomenon in his own time -- doesn't make the top 20 of recent performances. This is assuming Owens performs up to Lewis's *peak* level. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres.)

It's a balancing act to try to figure out how much these kinds of studies mean. You can over- or under-estimate the advance of athletic training. At his absolute peak, a freakish athlete of the 30s like Owens would fall short of our best freakish athlete. But he's still quite good, even if a step behind.

 

I agree that the most freakish athlete of today would likely best the most freakish athlete of yesteryear, but this is mainly due to the introduction of PEDs. The Olympics have heavily advanced their technology since Owens, the carpets now are specially designed for runners to run as fast as humanly possible. Owens ran on cinders (scientifically proven to take away 0.2 seconds away from your run, without starting blocks (estimated 0.1-0.2 seconds), and in poorer shoes (estimated 0.1-0.2). Can you imagine how much speed his conditions have deprived of him? With rough calculations, Owens could've very well ran 9.6-9.9 seconds in modern conditions. And that's without PEDs or modern nutrition and conditions. This means he's either Olympic calibre, or arguably in Bolt's league. That's how insane of an athlete Jesse Owens was.

Also, which source of David Epstein's are you referring to? Is it this one:
Biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens’ joints shows that had been running on the same surface as Bolt, he wouldn’t have been 14 feet behind, he would have been within one stride.

I've also heard that Jeffries ran 100 meters in 11 seconds on cinders, which is terrifyingly athletic for a man of his size.