1934 Baer vs 1988 Tyson

This is entirely without content. Address the actual subject of contention (i.e., the scientific basis for any so called "modern training") or don't.

 

I think there were a couple slips (against Stewart and one of his really early tomato cans) but yeah.

Bruno, much like Morrison, was a flawed fighter whose flaws damn sure did not include his power. If he couldn't floor Tyson with one shot I'd like to see who could.

 

Ha! This is like a caricature of bad-faith burden-shifting. When are you going to answer the questions I posted to you in my past few posts? I've repeatedly asked you for your basis of knowledge in asserting that there is no such thing as modern training, and you have repeatedly refused to do so. Now you want me to produce studies? You and I both know that it would be exceedingly impractical--virtually impossible--for researchers to ever establish that a given "modern" nutritional or training method is superior to any other method. And while I know that you know this already and as much as I hate repeating myself, the absence of any such evidence is absolutely, positively not evidence of absence here.

PS -- Let's be clear: We're only having this argument because instead of more sensibly writing that you are highly skeptical about the supposed virtues of modern methods, you insist on proclaiming that there are no such things as modern training or modern nutrition. Doing so makes you seem uncharacteristically silly, as it's pretty obvious that you don't know enough about these topics to credibly make such authoritative claims.

 

You and I both know that it would be exceedingly impractical--virtually impossible--for researchers to ever establish that a given "modern" nutritional or training method is superior to any other method.

I certainly do, but do you? What makes a belief scientific is not whether it's is true, but why it's believed. You've just admitted in the frankest terms that you have no evidence for what I took to be your position, but you now seem to be saying (?) that I need to allow for the possibility that "modern" methods are superior through sheer serendipity rather than by dint of hard empirical evidence.

If that's what you're saying we're definitely done here.

 

What an awful false dichotomy! If there isn't experimental proof demonstrating something to be true, it can only be true by mere serendipity? Surely you can't possibly mean that. I know that you recognize the potential value of other, non-scientific forms of evidence in enabling people to learn about the world around them. We develop bodies of information and understanding about things long before they've been tested and confirmed empirically.

But if you are now willing to allow for the possibility that modern methods might be superior despite the absence of experimental empirical evidence, then it appears that you might have just taken a big step in the right direction!

 

The problem with Baer is he was annoyingly inconsistent. One fight he would look superb, the next fight he would look like a damn clown. Baer on his best day goes the distance with Tyson and loses a UD in a war. Baer on any other day get's stopped in 3.

 

Yeah,...so let's keep these heavyweight threads rollin' boys!!