Why wont old timey fans see sense???

Alot of the things the TS say is true. Maybe its not articulated in the best way but lemme put it this way....take a guy like Freddie Roach. Everyone says he's an Eddie Futch protege. Well in a sense he knows more than Futch coz hr's incorporating what Futch knows in addition to what he knows. In the business world its called compound interest. Put in the context of sports, everything learned in one year, whether it be technique or nutrition, or recovery...adds up year after year. Put in another hypothetical context, a Pacquiao who learned his craft in 1960 would be at severe competitive disadvantage over today's Pacquiao.

...comprende??

 

Hopkins is exceptionally skilled, has always had defensive skills that Morales could only dream of...that's what has helped him so much on top of his nutritional habits and year-round training. Morales could've hired Alex Ariza and Victor Conte back when he was with BALCO and loaded up on anabolics and EPO. Would that have changed his tendency to brawl? Or his lack of defense? I don't really think so.

Look at Miguel Cotto. He has been with Phil Landman for training and nutritional purposes for years and even at the age of 30, he's pretty much damaged goods, well on the downside of his career.

 

isnt lewis only 4 inches taller then dempsey?

 

Just as much to do with the fact that he didn't get his career underway until the age of 25, combined with the fact that he's an exceptionally cautious, paced fighter and almost always has been. Compare that with guys who started their careers in their teens, fought more times in a few years than Hopkins has in his entire career, many of whom fought in a far more physically taxing style, like the ones I just mentioned.

And yet, they were still able to go 15 rounds at a high pace. Isn't that odd. Is it starting to sink in that maybe your arguments aren't as sound as you seem to think?

There are exceptions to the rule in every era. What of Archie Moore, who started his career at the age of 19 and fought until he was 45 (at least, depending on the truth to the rumours of his actual age), remaining a world class fighter almost the entire way? Won the Lt. Heavyweight title aged 36 and held it for almost a decade. He was in war after war after war, fought better competition than likely any other fighter ever has from Middleweight to Heavyweight. Was he undertrained as well?

45 fights is a lot? Vitali gets by on the fact that he's still the most formidable physical specimen in the division outside of his brother. They've succeeded the way they have because of the lousiness of the era, plain and simple.

See above. These things are easier to achieve when the competition is so sorely lacking. I'm much more impressed by the likes of Archie Moore.

It's possible, but as many claims as you make I could make just as many to the contrary.

 

this is normal thinking fighters from the past are much better than now because you're more likely to grow up with old time fighters. Even Happens with recent vs 1980's (forget 1920's) - for example most pick Hagler to beat J C by KO althogh they fail to see the size difference and the actual ability of Calzaghe

 

They're both bigger and better than anyone around today. That's because the Heavyweight division is quite simply the worst it's ever been in terms of the depth of talent. You have the Klitschko's and that's more or less it.

I've given my explanations and shut down all of yours, and I'm the one being stubborn? Fine, you keep on believing that a sport like boxing which relies on intuitiveness, technical acuity, timing, stylistic range, constant adjustments on the fly, mental strength, etc is comparable to a sport where athletes run around a track as fast as they can.:good

No, I'm arguing that he was that good regardless of his dieting regimen (which is quite laughable that we're having the arguments about the benefits of a steady diet). My argument has been that you're making way too big a deal out of what role a diet plays in the effectiveness of boxing. Class is class. One fighter may not need to train for **** and could still beat the hell out of another who trains all day and night because he's simply better. The examples are endless.

 

You are aware that Dempsey won the title by beating a guy that was 6'7 and 245 pounds, right? So size alone couldn't and shouldn't be used to justify a victory.

By all means, Lewis should be favored over him, but Dempsey is quick and packs a jolting punch. If he got inside Lewis' guard (especially the more stationary Lewis from his late career), you can always get the massive upset. Y'know, similar to what happened twice to Lewis in his career?

By the way, Dempsey is listed as 6'1, so Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman only have an inch on him in height.

 

Wow....:tired

I wonder why they all do this now...

They should just eat junk food right...

Eating well and taking the right things is useless...:tired

 

Why Couldn't Jesse Owens Compete if he Trained under Modern Conditions?

 

I was asking for those specific fighters, i.e. Chavez and Morales. And I've already continued with that line of argument over the last few pages, so why not go through them and get back to me after you've done so.:good

 

From what i've seen lewis beats dempsey - good big man beats good small man