In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

His presence lowers the level of discussion. It is a waste of time talking to him and I have put him on ignore.

 

Apparently, the 2050 HW champion would be able to crush Tyson Fury with absolute ease.

However, the 2060 HW champion would be able to easily beat the 2050 champion.

That’s what we’re dealing with here.

 

Alot of the eastern europeans like to keep their lead arm out there, almost like fencing. Most boxers had that stance back in the 1800s to 1940s, after that it started disappering. But it is good to have a little crouch to the side so you´re head is off the center line. If you´re crouched straight forward thats not good, but that slight crouch to the side is a quite common thing thats lost in modern boxing. You don´t have to move much to slip a punch and you´re chin is more protected by the shoulder in that position. Also the opponent can´t punch in a straight line to hit you. You could see the difference in the hopkins vs dela hoya fight. Oscar was straight up with his head in the center line, while hopkins had that little lean and better foot position. That fundamental is shown in the first half of this video.

This content is protected

 

1991:

This content is protected

2017:

This content is protected

26 years.

Where’s the progression?

 

I'm trying to see things from his point of view, and I appreciate that he attempts to back things up with what he sees as evidence. But he's overly reliant on stats, as if numbers alone can prove something, and he can't seem to see the difference between a sport like boxing with multiple factors and sprinting with just one.

I'm not an old school fanboy by any means and frequently find old school opinions exasperating, but you only need to use your eyes and a bit of common sense to see that there's been minimal if any progress in boxing over the past few decades. It's all variations on a theme.

Someone like Toney displayed some of the craziest punch evasion I've ever seen, and there's nothing remotely similar in today's middleweight division. Lots of solid fighters, but no one that makes you sit up and think how crude the older guys were.

Then again, you look at Dempsey and you can clearly see massive improvements in punch quality between then and now. I think it's a matter of being able to view things objectively and not allowing any bias to enter into your judgement.

 

This Both toney and mccallum, rigoriously studied old school fighters like robinson, charles etc.

 

The reason i am so stat focused is cause bookies are stats nerds themself and the end of the day they now best about boxing, cause they make a living out of their expertise. Of course they are not right all the time but generally speaking I trust their methods of analyzing the sport much more then just watching old tape and just saying its like that because i see it like that and i dont have anything to really back that up.
Of course not all stats are perfect or correct but i think having anything is better then having nothing.

 

Trouble is stats can be twisted to anything you want to say if you try hard enough. In and of themselves they're mostly meaningless unless they're measuring objective things like speed over a set distance, weight lifted, distance thrown etc. Boxing isn't like that because it's a direct competition against other humans, not against set records. That means you need to use your own judgement to evaluate it, which is where things get tricky since no one is without their bias or blind spots.

Bookies don't aim to predict fights correctly; they attempt to make a profit based on how much money is being wagered on the respective fighters. Tons of British fans backed Haye to beat Wlad so the odds on that fight were very even. The same was true of Wlad vs Fury. I ended up making a ton of money on both those fights because I knew who'd win and it had nothing to do with stats, and everything with making a correct judgement call on the fighters based on a ton of intangibles.

Stats have their place but they need to be grounded in a firm understanding of the sport. Otherwise they're just as likely to lead you astray than point you to the truth.

 

no the odds were not even
https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/klitschko-vs-fury-odds-form-6920416.amp

haye vs wlad was quit close, but even nahhh
https://betting.betfair.com/betting...odds-hayemaker-the-clear-outsider-010711.html

4-1 and 3-1 are far from even. Of course they adjust the odds by how many people are betting on a certain fighter, but they still need to put out odds that represent the likely outcome.

 

I can't remember precisely what the odds for Haye vs Wlad were but they were a lot more favourable than they had any right to be. Wlad should have been the prohibitive favourite, but anyone betting on him, even just to win, were quite amply rewarded.

Anyone betting on Fury got a decent return as well.

 

The biggest issue with him, is that he’ll spend hours debating on statistics, when he could spend just a fraction of that time watching some old footage.

I can’t stand ignorance. If someone doesn’t agree with my opinions, that’s cool. That’s what the forum’s for. But this guy is an absolute ignoramus.

He doesn’t want to debate.

I said to him last week that if he was to look at the MW’s and SMW’s of the early 90’s, from 25 plus years ago, he’d see how great the fighters were and how strong the divisions were compared to the current ones.

His response?

“Yeah, I know that the ‘Fantastic Four’ were great”

SMH.

 

There’s no way this fool is going to watch that fight.

 

Statistics aren’t a gauge to how strong a division is or how talented the fighters are.

Go and watch the Toney and McCallum video.

Go and educate yourself on the subject.

Statistics are for other sports.

Recorded sprinting times tell you that today’s sprinters are the fastest sprinters of all time. But there's no statistics available to tell you that today’s SMW division is stronger than it was 25 years ago.

Your brain is saying to you: “This guy’s a nostalgia nut. The SMW division CAN’T have been stronger 25 years ago. It can’t have been. The athletes are better today”

Well, go and see for yourself. Because fights aren’t decided purely on athletic performance. They’re not having a race. They’re putting their skills against each other in a physical game of chess.

If you have the time to debate on here, then you have the time to go and watch some footage.

Watching some footage will actually add to the debate. You’ll get more from it.

 

you re overly concerned about size. Its not the be all and end all.

 

It's sad, but true.