Joe Louis vs Derek Chisora (yes really)

I also think Jimmy Slattery fits the category of being a good athlete, just watching his pace in the Berlenbach fight is exhausting:

This content is protected

The fact is, let's say that top athletes have improved significantly since the 30s. This doesn't mean that the best fighters of the past didn't count as great athletes themselves. If Jesse Owens can rival Usain Bolt and surpass many modern Olympians, then I don't think it's unfeasible for past boxers to compete against modern boxers athletics wise. Sprinting is much more reliant on someone's natural gifts than boxing is, which is more of a scientific sport. I look at past boxers and I see them doing the exact same things modern fighters do at similar speeds. They have good hand speed, quick feet and good fundamentals. They don't look like people who are incapable of competing with modern athletes.

Even if modern nutrition boosted a boxer's athleticism by a bit, I don't think it's significant enough to outclass boxers of the past.

 

I searched Jesse Owens in Epstein's "The Sports Gene" on Google Books. This was the fragment I was given from page 115:

"Biomechanical video analysis of legendary sprinter Jesse Owens , for example , has shown that his joints moved as fast in the 1930s as those of Carl Lewis in the 1980s , except Owens ran on cinder tracks that stole far more energy than ..."

So taking all of Owens's deficits into account -- assuming Epstein's study is right -- Owens on his best day couldn't match Bolt under modern conditions. He would've been as fast as Lewis, which is still really fast, but not fast enough.

For our purposes, the extent to which this comes from PED use would be irrelevant, IMO, since this forum tends to take athletes as they actually were.

 

Galento's reach was 72 in ,same as Tua's 4 inches longer than Marciano's and only 1 inch shorter than Charles',and Dempsey's
When was Chisora ranked in the top ten?

 

On various sites Galento's said to be 5'8, with 69 inch reach:

https://www.leninimports.com/pages/tony_galento_9a.html

5'9, 67 inch reach, 185 lbs brawlers like Marciano (who also had a very limited amateur record of 8-4 when he turned pro at 23) have been selected out, they haven't been relevant at heavyweight since the 50's. They weren't fighting athletic movers who were 6'2+, 225 lbs, slick southpaws, iron-chinned pressure fighters who were 6'2, 240+ lbs, let alone 6'5+, 245+ lbs athletic super-heavyweights with big power.

Chisora was briefly top 10 ranked in 2020 or 2021, around the Usyk and Parker 1 fights. The reason why he's not been a fixture of the top 10 is he's fought Ring champions on more occasions than Holmes, Foreman and Tyson and usually been the B-side, especially against all of the contenders he's fought. He's lost more SD's/MD's than UD's.

 

Fascinating, still an impressive feat for the 5’10 Jesse Owens. Epstein (weird name to use on its own) did say Bolt was faster, but that they would be within one stride.

 

"Again you have to resort to childish remarks and insults"

Don't lie then. I see you didn't bother mentioning the fact that I called you out on your lie that Ibeabuchi-Tua's punch count record from 1999 was still the record today.

"I was wrong about this (no punch stats prior to 1985), but it still doesn't prove anything IMO"

Nice that you admit it for once! Don't make up facts next time. How can I debate someone who just lies and makes up facts to suit his argument?

It proves a huge amount. My point isn't that there aren't low volume tactical fights today, or that there aren't highly explosive fighters who aren't high volume, it's that heavies in high volume fights throw higher volume than they ever did in the past and that's despite modern heavyweights being bigger than ever (modern lower weights throw even higher volume than modern heavyweights again).

Any reasonable person would concede that this is strong evidence that modern heavyweights have superior stamina, both relative to the weight (where it's most pronounced) and in absolute terms. And the athletic attribute of stamina is extremely important in the cardio intense sport of boxing.

"then after I debunked it the example"

You haven't debunked anything, you've just claimed (based on some American liberal propaganda piece) that their 1930's hero would be equal to or faster than Bolt if x, y or x.

"the evolution in nutrition must've been insane!"

It could have been a scientific advancement in PED's, better training methods, better running technique/strategy or a larger/better talent pool in the sport. When a sport is much more primitive as sports were 50-100 years ago, there is more room for rapid improvement.

"David Epstein goes into great detail about how technology influences sports."

Any semi-competent charlatan academic/journalist can go into "great detail". I'm not interested in their spin, I'm interested in the objective, measurable fact that standards in all of these sports have risen enormously.

"I agree he hasn't been the same speed wise 2021-present"

So you've modified your assertion that "Fury was slower in 2018 in comparison to now", good to know. And the only reason why Fury looked faster against Schwarz in 2019 at 263 lbs than he did vs Wilder in 2018 at 256 lbs is because Wilder is much faster than Schwarz.

"Fury is a good athlete compared to the average man"

List the HW's in boxing history who are over 6'7 and 256-273 lbs at their best weight who are better athletes than Fury. He's more athletic than every boxer of his size or bigger, past or present, which puts him in a minuscule percentile of athleticism.

"Someone who isn't physically strong cannot thrive in lifting, someone who isn't fast can't thrive at sprinting."

That's because they are more limited athletic endeavours whereas boxing requires all round athleticism. Despite your ludicrous comparison, chess requires almost zero athleticism (beyond being in good enough condition to focus for long periods), whereas boxers are benefitted immensely by a range of athletic attributes. Over time, boxers have become more athletic, bigger and they have the benefit of being able to study the best of the past as well as the present, which gives them massive inherent advantages over their forbears. Hence the best guy 80-90 years ago may well have been a lower performer in absolute terms than guys in the fringes of contention today. And he'd certainly be stylistically vulnerable to types of fighters that didn't exist back then. This is one reason why I laugh at posters who claim that southpaw ducker Louis or Holmes would have a chance against HW southpaw GOAT Usyk, when they couldn't even handle Bettina or Nick Wells.

 

I am taking Box Rec's stats.Chisora never fought a current Ring recognized champion. Of the two alphabet world champs he fought 1. Vitali beat him by U Dec,the other Fury ko'd him.
He was a gate keeper who lost every time he stepped up.
Holmes fought the following current champions.
Holyfield IBF WBC WBA
Tyson IBF WBC WBA
Norton WBC

Tyson
Berbick IBO WBO IBF WBC
Bruno WBC IBF WBA
Lewis IBF IBO WBC

Foreman
Moorer IBF WBA
Holyfield IBF WBA WBC
Frazier WBA WBC

Marciano was 5' 10 1/2" . His reach was 68"

 

How do you know Louis couldn't handle Bettina ,they never fought?
Wells beat Holmes in the amateurs.
Which southpaw did Holmes duck as a pro?

Bettina was briefly ranked in 41 Louis did not defend against him,instead he defended against Conn his no1 challenger , the man who had beaten Bettina.
When Bettina was again ranked in 44 Louis' title was frozen because of WW2.
Please show evidence that either Holmes or Louis ducked southpaws?

 

'Don't lie then. I see you didn't bother mentioning the fact that I called you out on yur lie that Ibeabuchi-Tua's punch count record'


I didn't bother mentioning it since I accepted that I'd made an error, it is what it is. So me misinterpreting a record automatically makes me some heinous liar with bad intentions? Take your meds dude, the Ibeabuchi fight was the record until 2019 and I simply forgot that it was broken, it's not that big of a deal and it didn't really add that much to the conversation. There's no reason to make rude remarks just because I got something wrong, that's childish and unnecessary. I've admitted when I was wrong on this thread, and I've admitted instances where you were right, unlike you who just changes his wikipedia article every 5 seconds because they keep getting debunked. I've tried being civil with you this entire thread, but all you do is try and instigate like a 14 year old.

Then again, I'm sure you'll mentally justify it to yourself since I'm apparently this villain that's lying about everything to get you, once again proving you are too emotionally immature to have a civil discussion. People like you are insanely talented mental gymnists.

'It proves a huge amount. My point isn't that there aren't low volume tactical fights today, or that there aren't highly explosive fighters who aren't high volume, it's that heavies in high volume fights throw higher volume than they ever did in the past and that's despite modern heavyweights being bigger than ever (modern lower weights throw even higher volume than modern heavyweights again).'

And I proved that there were still high volume fights in the past, you're underrating their volume. A past prime Ali threw 917 punches in the Thrilla in Manila, he also threw 893 punches in the FOTC. These are both examples of past prime Ali showing volume levels of Usyk

'List the heavyweights in boxing history who are over 6'7 and 260-270 lbs at their best weight who are better athletes than Fury. He's more athletic than every boxer of his size or bigger, past or present, which puts him in a minuscule percentile of athleticism.'

Has nothing to do with anything that I said. Fury is still an inferior athlete to Wlad, Wilder and AJ. Again, in 2018 Fury was not the athlete he was at his peak. The Fury of 2015 was very athletic, but I'm using the Fury of 2018 and 2021-present as my example. He is more reliant on his skill and technique now than his style of the past was. as you yourself have admitted.

'You haven't debunked anything, you've just claimed (based on some American liberal propaganda piece) that their 1930's hero would be equal to or faster than Bolt if x, y or x.'

Once again; childish. You're disregarding a source because it has propaganda that isn't even there. What 'American liberal propaganda' are you referring to?

'Any reasonable person would concede that this is strong evidence that modern heavyweights have superior stamina, both relative to the weight (where it's most pronounced) and in absolute terms. And the athletic attribute of stamina is extremely important in the cardio intense sport of boxing.'

Cardio is important to boxing but we've seen a few fighters achieve success in spite of having poor cardio. This was also the case in the 1930s. What specific nutrients have increased the cardio of modern day fighters in comparison to older fighters? Actually, old school training was heavily reliant on cardio training. What proof do you actually have that older fighters didn't have this level of volume, because you haven't provided any yet. Usyk is dropping the same numbers as Ali did.

'It could have been a scientific advancement in PED's, better training methods, better running technique/strategy or a larger/better talent pool in the sport. When a sport is much more primitive as sports were 50-100 years ago, there is more room for rapid improvements.'

Judging from your logic; since boxers in 1913 apparently (AKA; zero proof as usual) had better PEDs, better training methods, and a larger talent pool, then a boxer from 1908 should never be capable of beating them. That's what your argument has been about in this entire thread, right? That PEDs, training and nutrition have evolved too rapidly for past boxers to excel. If this is the case, then a boxer in 1908 vs. 1913 has no chance whatsoever due to the fact that marathon runners in 1908 ran over 20 less minutes than the ones in 1913. Yet despite this, countless fighters from 1900s have beaten those from 1910s. Mike Gibbons was the best middleweight in 1908, still was in 1913. What is your theory for Gibbons adapting to the rapid evolution those 5 years brought? Your words: '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.' The female marathon record was cut by 30 minutes in just 4 years.

'That's because they are more limited athletic endeavours whereas boxing requires all round athleticism. Despite your ludicrous comparison, chess requires almost zero athleticism (beyond being in good enough physical condition to focus for long-periods), whereas boxers are benefitted immensely by a wide range of athletic attributes. Over time, boxers have become more athletic and bigger and they have the benefit of being able to study the best of the past as well as the present, which gives them massive inherent advantages over their forbears. Hence the best guy 80-90 years ago may well have been a lower performer in absolute terms than guys in the fringes of contention today. And he'd certainly be stylistically vulnerable to types of fighters that didn't exist back then. This is one reason why I laugh at posters who claim that southpaw ducker Louis or Holmes would have a chance against cruiser/heavy southpaw GOAT Usyk, when they couldn't even handle Bettina or Nick Wells.'

For the 90th time, the chess comparison was a metaphor for how the other sports you listed are incomparable to boxing. Those are sports where the winner is dependent on who the superior athlete is. In boxing, you can be an inferior athlete to your opponent but still win through superior fundamentals. It's less reliant on natural gifts than the other sports you keep listing are. Fury, while still a gifted athlete for his size, is not as athletic as Deontay. Wilder is a freak athlete, even moreso than Fury (especially by the time they fought) yet Fury outclassed mainly due to his skill. He wasn't reliant on his weight advantage like he was in their fights proceeding the first one. Fury himself even admitted this later on.
Now that we've established that an inferior athlete is capable of beating a superior athlete in boxing due to being more fundamentally sound, how is this not the case for Louis vs. Chisora? Why can't Louis, or others from his era, survive in the modern era? Let's say they're at an athletic disadvantage like you claim; how significant is it? If Jesse Owens was athletic enough to achieve standards that are modern Olympic-caliber, why couldn't the best boxers of the past? We have film of them, it's not like they were bad athletes themselves. Jesse Owens is proof of that.

This is coming someone who favours Usyk and Fury against most ATGs, including Louis. I actually get quite a bit of slack for it.

Don't bother replying if you are incapable of acting like an adult. But then again, I'm sure you won't.

 

I was never impressed that much by Chisora, but he stands a pretty good chance against poor ol slow flat footed Louis.

 

Redbeard is a knowledgeable poster.

 

The guy holding the stop watch was extremely important prior to electronic timing. I assume Owens was timed with a stop watch? I know that times are usually much slower for people with electronic timing when compared with their times with someone holding a stop watch. I'm sure there were some fast people in Owens' day, I don't think people have changed, but PEDs have changed sports. I don't know for sure, I'm no expert on T&F, but I don't think there were 6'5" sprinters (like Bolt) in Owens' day either. Something had to happen to make tall people able to get out of the blocks and accelerate in the shorter distances. More strength?

Like you mentioned, the reason doesn't matter, it's the athlete as he was then vs. the athlete of today as he is. Today's athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger. I don't think anybody believes that people have "evolved" in 100 years, but PEDs sure changed things.

 

I think PEDs influence sports like the 100m and weight lifting significantly more than it does boxing. I've seen some cans who juice and still get sent to school.'

That being said sometimes it's also something thing that can make a good fighter into an even better fighter.

 

Bob Hazelton is a decent case study. He compiled a fairly poor record, got KO'd by Foreman, and then took a few years off to bulk up with steroids. He seems to have become a better fighter when he came back, and assembled an okay record.

That was late "Golden Age" boxing we're talking about.

https://tss.ib.tv/boxing/featured-b...and-results/1928-steroids-kayoed-bob-hazelton

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/105