How come boxing hasn't progressed naturally over time the way the 100m has??

you may be right about europe as a whole, i should have put gb instead

its just not more popular, if you think boxing is at its most popular you are wrong, the average man on the street couldn't name 5 modern boxers

if you think those countries don't have rich histories then you don't know the history.

i don't think you understand that pre 1950 there just weren't hundreds of different sports to make a living from,

 

modern boxers should generally be stronger, but adding muscle sacrifices speed so you cant be stronger and faster, less skilled is more subjective, there are less highly skilled fighters than at most points in boxing history, but floyd and ward are close to the best in their styles

 

Certainly. Just look at this human turtle.

This content is protected

If he hadn't had all that muscle mass, he probably would have won a gold medal or something.

 

Jack Dempsey would be the best boxers in his weight class. If he were around today. He of course would be a crusierweight.

 

boxing speed is not how fast you sprint tho, stupid point. and also he got beat by bolt, who has less muscle than the average sprinter(irrelevant point)

 

at Hayes running a 10.3

Hayes in Tokyo would be "more like" a 10.06 automatic, considering that was the official time in 100ths. The original stopwatch was 9.9, and 10.0 was the rounded figure from the actual automatic time. 10.0 was NOT the hand time.

Hayes' relay anchor leg from Tokyo was probably around 8.7 (although some claim it was as low as 8.4 to as high as 9.1). This is comparable to Powell in Beijing, and quicker than Lewis in Barcelona.

Either way, if you transplanted Hayes from 1964 into the 2012 London final, without even factoring in professionalism Hayes wouldn't be too far from the medals.

There were often big differences between hand and auto the further back you go, but generally they became more accurate as time went on. Tolan and Metcalfe both ran 10.3 / 10.38 in 1932, so the difference wasn't always as dramatic as .2 or .3. (Bolt running 9.0 hand is ridiculous btw). The most notorious dodgy hand timing of modern times is Steve Williams' 9.8 / 10.19, which was widely acknowledged as someone dropping a bollock, and far from the norm.

Paddock's 10.2 should rightly be viewed with scepticism, but considering that it was over 110 yards it can't have been that slow. Even at say 10.4 or 10.5, it's not that bad for a college kid without starting blocks who thought jumping across the line was better than dipping.

 

Lol, you chump. The muscle it requires to transport a 95 kg object across 100m is totally different to the muscle it requires to extend your arm really fast, or even--planting your feet and putting your whole body's torque into the motion--to throw a monstrous hook. Running the 100m doesn't bear much resemblance to either of those motions.

 

I think we broadly agree, but you're interpreting the evidence wrongly: the fact that the average man doesn't know 5 boxers is no measure of how many people are boxing -- it's a measure of how mainstream boxing is, which is dependent to a large degree on the proportion of people that box. If 100 people box in a nation of 1000, everyone will know of five boxers. If 100 people box in a nation of 1,000,000, far fewer people will know any boxers at all. I don't mean 'more popular' in the sense that a greater percentage of people globally do or watch boxing; I mean that a greater number of people globally box.

 

i see what you are saying but quality is important too, for the highest quality boxers you need the most gifted athletes, the best training and fights against quality opposition, the top boxers in 1930 would be amongst the best athletes on the planet, today this is not true. i have seen it said many times that the quality of trainers has also dropped, although this is not something i can confirm. the gap between am and pro rules now along with less fights and more protection leads to a large drop in ring experience between a 30's and modern fighter early in their careers(when you learn the most).

 

You develop fast twitch fibres through heavy weight training and add in plyometrics and you will get faster, that's a fact. Muscle doesn't equate to strength. You can be stronger and faster, that's what every athlete in the world lifts weights for. Speed is a function of neuromuscular recruitment ability and tendon stiffness, things that are improved by weight training. Get your head out of your arse and the 1920's, the old myths about weight training should be well and truly dead at this point.

 

Yes it ****ing does you numpty They are both stretch shortening cycle activities relying on work done by strong muscles on tendons to produce power. They both rely on core stability and transfer of forces throughout the body in the most efficient manner without losing too much heat through hysteresis.