Is there another sport where a consensus of experts thinks the players 50 years ago..

I would have thought the answer to all that would have been obvious.
Clearly, the "potential great heavyweight boxing talent" might well be a second- or third-rater in the NFL or NBA, oblivious to how good he could have been as a fighter. He's a big strong 6'4, 230 pound guy with quick hands, toughness, power and with the desire to dedicate and try to excel in a sporting environment, but he chose the wrong sport.

Of course the athletic skillsets dont match up across these disciplines, but the most basic physical requirements and motivations possibly do.

Not that i necessarily subscribe to that NFL/NBA stealing talent theory. But your objections are not convincing.

 

Very true :good

 

I haven't seen that but I've heard of it.
Frazier always claimed to have had an accident as a kid which resulted in his left arm being impossible to straighten (something he attributed his brilliance at left-hooking to). Of course, an arm that doesn't straighten would be a gross disadvantage in any overhead press.

I believe Frazier must have possessed quite a reasonable level of lower-body strength, if his upper-body was so lacking. He managed to fight on better than even terms with men like Chuvalo (who has been pumping iron and developing his upper body since his teen years) and Bugner (at least a decent performer in athletics throws as a youth). To bull those men about, even momentarily, must take strength, unless it is all a matter of skill and balance ?

 

I guess that to be genuine and consistent in arguing that boxing had seen the same linear progress as tracks sports, your top 10 heavyweights would have to look something like this:

1. Wlad Klitschko
2. Vitally Klitschko
3. Lennox Lewis
4. David Haye
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Ruslan Chagaev
7. Nicolai Valuev
8. Sultan Ibragimov
9. Mike Tyson
10. Larry Holmes

 

I'll answer the question with a question: is there another sport where the top participants perform once or twice a year and train seriously for a matter of weeks in a year?

 

Maybe not, but is there any other sport that demands withstanding missiles to the head and body as its bread and butter?

Besides, historically, the best fighters have always defended their crown considerably more than "once or twice a year".

 

This can be said of any era, though. Perhaps the next great heavyweight of the past was a coal-miner, a hobo, merchant marine, or one of the millions of soldiers who died in the wars of the 20th century. It is really immaterial. Boxing still casts a wide net over potential talent, perhaps not as much in the US as in the past, but certainly moreso over other countries. Does anyone want to account for the influx of former USSR/Cuban talent that was once forbidden to fight in the pro ranks? Does anyone seriously think the history of boxing would be the same were this vast, athletic and skilled populace allowed to participate in past decades?

 

For a short time, Frazier was the best in the world in his chosen sport....I'd say that makes him a good athlete.

Shane Mosley competed in one of those bull**** competitions too, and he got embarrassed in most events, especially canoeing and swimming if memory serves me right. Henry Cooper competed in the same thing over here years ago, same thing happened. Boxers are generally good at boxing and nothing else. Of course you're now going to bring up the weight-lifting prowess of the Klitschkos, then I'll bring steroids into the equation and off we go again...

I've seen Frank Bruno try to swing a golf club, that wasn't a pretty sight either - and neither was WALDO trying to play football :shock:

 

Fraizer was a good FIGHTER. He was poor at eveything else about in regards to athlethics.

I saw the world sports thing with Fraizer. The Weight thing was not the worse of it. Fraizer almost drown in the swiming event.

 

So what? Are you saying that fighters aren't athletes? That's my point here.

As for being useless at swimming, of course he was, brothers can't swim, everyone knows that. Weight lifting, who gives a ****? I'd love to see the average marathon runner pick up heavy weights because I'd bet my left nut they'd fail. I guess they ain't athletes either then atsch

 

Walter Johnson's 100 mph side arm fastball would be just as hard to hit today as in 1920.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Exactly. He excelled at the highest level in a very athletic endeavor. That makes him a GREAT ATHLETE.

I love this ambiguous phrase "athleticism"... What the **** does that mean? I come from a track and field background. As such, I suppose the most "athletic" dude on the planet would be the current World Champion in the decathlon, as that involves 10 rather unique disciplines. Otherwise, I have no idea what people are talking about when they describe one world class athlete as "athletic" and another as "not athletic". Nor do I really believe said commentators know ****-all about sport.

 

John Conteh won the European Superstars Event.

 

The modern day equivilent of Dempsey would be Vitali Klitschko.
He had a few years away from boxing and remained champion when he came back, plus he has his own Harry Wills, that being his brother.
I presinaly think Vitali would beat Dempsey head to head and I think as a general rule of thumb that modern dominant fighters would beat old time dominant fighters, but this would be open to many exceptions as boxing has so many intangebles. In fact many fights already fought could well of had much differing results under slightly different circumstances.
So what I believe is there is an improvement H2H in boxing it is small and all eras would be competetive with each other - earlier eras may well have had a deeper pool of talent with boxing being so much more popular then.





.