1934 Baer vs 1988 Tyson

There's nothing more polished or effective in what Ruddock does in your video example. Ruddock was simply more fortunate his opponent was a sitting duck, dead on his feet after the first punch. Ruddock is able to measure him with huge wind ups from the hip that you would be screaming "bloody murder" if Baer threw.

I love the Primo example as some sort of knock against Baer. Baer actually throws some good combos there after that beauty of a knockdown; his opponent is much larger, and literally turning his back and running away, and even trying to exit the ring. Of course that made things awkward, are you capable of understanding the context of the things you are seeing?

You don't think if Ruddock's opponent was 3 inches taller with wide shoulders and huge arms, turned his back and ran away in the middle of an exchange, that it wouldn't look awkward? You don't think if Baer's opponent was helplessly slouched with his hands down, he couldn't hit him with a clean follow up?

Come on...if you have to be ridiculous, your point is ridiculous.

Bruno freezes during exchanges, Baer does not. Baer is a more formidable Ruddock, who will actually tag Tyson back with huge shots in exchanges. Mike wouldn't just be teeing off on Baer, he would respect his power and be accepting the clinch frequently to reset, it would be a long hard fight.

Congratulations, you at least formed a response without relying on strawmen this time.

 

Meaningless question. There is no "modern training" and there most definitely is no "modern nutrition".

 

Sincere question: How exactly would you know if there were? What is your basis of knowledge here?

 

You appear to be asking two questions here:

1) How does one seek out the best academic papers on a given subject? (Or put another way, how do you go about cross-disciplinary study of a specific question outside your expertise on your own)?

and

2) How does one warrant negative ontological claims? (For example, "Woolly mammoths are extinct" or "No human has ever lived to be 250 years old".)

The synoptic answer to (1) is, first you see if there is even any field that studies the matter you're looking into, then you try to find out what that field's top-tier journals are (this in itself can be easier said than done if you're not immersed in that field yourself) and if you get that far, you cull those journals for that field's seminal results.

Even if the field exists as an academic discipline, that's certainly no guarantee that it produces much good work (frankly, at least 95% of economics and sociology is worse than worthless) but in the case at hand we don't even get that far because no relevant dedicated field exists in the first place. (I am not quite saying there are no studies at all that purport to produce significant results on these questions, but I'm glossing over a lot here to avoid writing a post that's 17 times longer than anyone cares to read.)

This brings us to (2): How do I know there are not significant results that eluded my efforts to find them? The abridged answer to that is, pretty much the same way you know none of your co-workers are androids. With negative claims, it's basically a question of when you're justified to stop looking, and the short answer to that is, not just when positive evidence is absent, but when you have every reasonable expectation that the evidence would be easy to find were it to exist (as for example in the case of woolly mammoths).

When you think about what kinds of things the experimental design would necessarily have to involve, and the number of things it would have to account for to produce any robust results, it very quickly becomes exceptionally silly for any scientifically literate person to expect any such results to exist.

 

No, I most certainly was not asking how one would go about seeking out academic papers--at least not intentionally, anyway (as an aside, I'm fairly confident that I have a great deal more experience seeking out and reading empirical studies than you do). I was asking about what you, Sting like a bean, know about the topics of athletic nutrition and boxing training that gives you the confidence to make such bold negative claims. You regularly make authoritative claims that seem intended to project an air of expertise on these topics but it's still not clear that you actually know much about them.

You seem to be conflating the absence of evidence with evidence of absence, a pretty basic logical fallacy. This is puzzling since you readily acknowledge that it is exceedingly unlikely that we would ever find any experiments that provide sufficient leverage to study these specific questions, even if modern training and nutrition methods are indeed far superior. BTW, just to be clear, are you positing that there have been no training and nutrition-related advances concerning athletic performance in general or is your skepticism limited to boxing?

PS - What is your basis for your claim that at least 95% of economics and sociology are worse than worthless? I hope you're not categorically dismissing non-experimental research--that would be pretty silly.

 

Because now I'm an adult and I'd get my ass thrown in jail for assault. Alas.

 

In a fantasy fight can anyone last past the 5th round with Tyson ?

 

Lmao. Except

Lmao.i agree. It is the rule except f you are ali,foreman,holyfield and lewis

 

Smith went into survival mode and just held Tyson for the whole fight. You mean to tell me that if he hadn't done that and tried to brawl with Tyson, that he wouldn't have been stopped?

 

If you can't see that Ruddock punches with much better form than Max Baer, I don't know what to tell you. And I didn't say Max Baer was like Bruno, just that Bruno was about as hard a hitter and a better technician and that a fight between a prime Tyson and Max Baer would end something like Tyson/Bruno. Unless Max Baer turned into an accurate combination puncher, I see no reason to think he has any chance at beating a prime Tyson.

All of the above is good in theory, but come on, if I had a magic genie and could wish for a fight between a 1934 Max Baer and a 1988 Mike Tyson that everyone on Boxingforum24 could see and you had to bet your next few paychecks on who wins, everyone with almost no exceptions would bet on Tyson to win by a stoppage very convincingly. I don't care how hard you hit, throwing a telegraphed right hand from the canvas while leaving your chin open for business does not a formula for success against a prime Tyson make. Even though Louis and Tyson had different styles, Tyson would beat Max Baer for many of the exact same reasons Joe Louis beat him. And Louis did it relatively easy.

 

You don't know what to tell me because you can't make a case for it. You would sound like an idiot trying to point out how one wide left hook from the hip is so much more polished than another wide left hook from the hip.

Of course the punching techniques in those clips are different because Baer is punching up against a moving target who has giant waving arms in front of him, and Ruddock is teeing off against a shorter man, slumped in the corner utterly defenseless.

I'm not convinced Bruno is as hard a hitter, he didn't sell out like Baer, he was too cautious. And being a better technician is worthless against Tyson, who ate tech guys up if they couldn't or wouldn't exchange with him.

He was an accurate combination puncher. Just not in the sense you are thinking of.

Tyson over Baer on the UNDER is a bold bet, I doubt any of you guys would make. Especially if we are talking a prime Baer who had never been stopped, dropped, or visibly hurt.

By his right hand being shattered and completely useless? Yeah, I would wager Tyson should be able to stop that Baer.

 

Or maybe he'd have put Tyson on his ass? Afterall the average hitting Douglas knocked him the **** out......

 

He's already been outed as being Mike Foreman, the ultimate Tyson Fanboy, responsible for creating threads such as "Why Mike Tyson would've beaten Foreman, Ali, Liston, etc." The thought that anyone can even as much as trouble him is seen as ludicrous to him. I wouldn't take him to seriously.

 

This is even way beyond your Holmes vs Norton fight wasn't close or competitive.

You do realize today's athletes do have a better understanding about nutrition and most have their own nutritionists right?

 

Yeah I remember that one fight where Max Baer was using a really good jab, boxing and moving, throwing swift, accurate combinations......

Oh wait