McGuigan says modern fighters are much fitter

If Haye wins I'm off

I'll be sharing beers with Hagman discussing our respective reasons for exile from ESB.

I'd be gutted, can't stand the ****er!

 

When talkign about the heavyweights, you have to consider the sizes of modern heavyweights in comparison with past heavyweights like Marciano. Take Lennox Lewis for example, he often seemed to be dead tired after 12 rounders,and even his hard ten round fight with Mercer. But he was a big heavyweight, even by modern comparison. He was a muscular heavyweight weighing 245 pounds plus, that size had to take away from his conditioning, regardless of how hard he trained. Marciano on the other hand, would be a small cruiserweight in todays boxing, and so didnt have the extra size that moder heavies have to carry around with them.

 

I've respected your hardline stance! And Haye would likely retire right after, so normal service would be resumed.

 

Still think he compares pretty favorably. Presuming the stat you gave is accurate.

One of the better cruiserweight fights in recent years.

Adamek = 40 punches per round
Cunningham = 57.5

So he's somewhere in the middle. Over 15.

 

Precisely!!!

 

I don't think anyone could deny that heavyweights of today are much less fitter than in any other era in boxing. Even the same people that say fighters in general today are fitter than the ones in the past. It's because they're FAT!

 

Thats a decent point you make, but it's only one fight and two fighters. And I still think size would have a part to play. Both Cunningham and Adamek are both still a lot bigger than Marciano, weighing 10 punds heavier than him and having and having a lot bigger height and reach. They look big, even at cruiserweight and if not for the modern 36 hour weigh in rule they would probably both be heavyweights. The extra weight cant help their conditioning in a hard fight.

 

Some are fat yes, but im not just talking about heavyweights, im talking about modern boxers in general. Im on the fence as to whether Mcguigans statement is true or not, but theres certaing factors that you have to take into account before saying which set of boxers were and are better conditioned.

 

I picked that fight as off my head it was fought at a higher pace than most cruiserweight fights. I still think I could prove further that this stat of 50 punches compares favourably even against a lot of light heavies. I also think Marciano threw with bad intentions, compared to Cunningham who is a non puncher and knows it and Adamek who is more of a boxer/puncher so thats a factor too. 50 punches a round over 15 does not strike me as anything other than above average and considering Marciano's style perhaps better than that.

 

There is no clear yes or no answer. Heavyweight boxing... especially now is almost a different sport altogether. Heavyweight fighters of today are less fit, true. But that aside, boxers apart from that weight class are not in better fighting condition than the ones of yesterday... they may be better at lifting weights, doing 100m sprints and have better diets but they phisically would not be able to fight for as long and as regular as the old school fighters. It would take the modern fighter a few years I'd guess, to get to that standard.

As I've already said, there is conditioning and there is fight conditioning.

 

:rofl

On the original article if Barry is right about the 2% bodyfat, Frampton could easily move down a division. I think he's exaggerating though as imo the only way to reach 2% is to totally eliminate carbs from your diet.
On the subject of older fighters being fitter than modern ones, at what decade did the fighters become less fit?:think

 

Theres quite alot of Champions and contenders today who would struggle in a 15 round fight never mind the insane amount of rounds they did in the early 20th century.

 

I don't think any of the 'new' training methods have increased the fitness of fighters THAT much. The thing with boxing is, what worked 70 years ago still works today. To me it mostly comes down to individual lung capacity and how confortable you feel in the ring. David Haye is 'fitter' then James Toney, but Toney hardly ever got tired, while Haye's stamina is not the best. Tommy Hearns and Miguel Cotto could be 'fitter' and in better shape then Ray Leonard or Jeff Fenech, but could never have their lung capacity and ability to fight through fatigue.

I have yet to see any fighter match Henry Armstrong's fitness. Hank literally fought 45 minutes non-stop. There's not many people who could match that no matter what training technique they use. Armstrong just had superior lung capacity and he was doing it 60 plus years ago. The wear and tear is totally different today and so is the expectations of the body.

It's not really like we have a lot of fighters today throwing 160 bumbs a round. Watch someone from the 50's and 60's and they average the same output and even more. Watch Nonito Donaire and then Eder Jofre and there's very little difference.

Boxing is the type of sport where the 'new techniques' and 'technology' hasn't had that much impact. It's mainly because the sport is so based on hand eye coordination, skill, timing and technique. If the new technique were that much better and fighters were that much 'fitter' then they would look just as more advanced as the participants in other sports like track and field.

 

2%?! **** off.

 

The cynical view is that the article was partly inspired to plug his son's strength and conditioning work (which I am sure is very good), but a nice plug in a national paper if you can get it.