1949 heavyweights v. 1999 heavyweights

My dude....

Here's Louis vs. Walcott in HD. I think you need to watch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACd6_LFHF8M

 

Everyone here should watch the Ted Talk video I posted. I actually found it in this very forum, can't remember who posted it first.

It explains good arguments for both sides of the "fighter size" argument. It's informative and factual.

 

It's just any fighter in general will find Walcott harder to hit than Byrd.

Byrd is dope, but Walcott had moves that could really mess you up your orientation, accuracy, and timing, in ways that Byrd couldn't.

 

Look at this.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BCdtWkSgtpq/?taken-by=reznickproductions


Byrd is good at making people miss by putting his head low, but he can barely throw a counter with his head all the way down. Walcott seems to be way faster with slips, footwork, angles, and counters.

 

You challenge a lot of assumptions, that badly need challenging!

 

Actually, I just watched the program (thanks, very good!) and it said Usain would still have been faster, just much closer.

And generally, the argument seemed to reflect everything I've been saying. Increased talent pool, increased training methods, etc etc.

 

Youre right.

Instead of being 14ft behind Bolt, he would have been one stride behind.

14ft is huge in sprinting. This realization took the conversation from Owens being in a class below Bolt, to being his #1 competitor.

 

The decades old and unbroken records in weight lifting were thrown out after the restructuring of the weight classes. Kurlovich and Pisarenko were C&J 265 kg and above 30+ yrs ago. None of these Iranians today that outweigh them by 20-30 kg can match that. Why is that? It's because they can't juice out of their brains like the old USSR boys did. In Men's 100m track it took almost 15 years for Ben Johnson's record to be surpassed by another convicted drug user "Tiny Tim" Montgomery. I read a book several yrs ago where TM's then dealer/coach Victor Conte detailed his very sophisticated training and drug regime, it was called something along the lines of "project world record". It turned TM from a relatively average runner whose PRs were above 10 secs to the beast that broke Johnson's record. That same coach has stated on the record that rampant drug use is the main reason for the improving times esp by the Jamaicans. It's no wonder that Jamaica is the laughing stock of the international community when it comes to their lax drug testing regulations. How many times is Usain Bolt getting tested outside of his meets? Does anyone know?

Like you said size in basketball hasn't really changed. the average height of the NBAer in the 60s was 6'6 w/o shoes, today it's 6'6 with shoes. The average weight per position hasn't changed much either discounting freaks of nature like Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille oneal. Interestingly enough though the trend over the last few yrs is teams getting smaller.
The best PG today is Steph Curry who is 6'2 185lbs, the best PG of the 60s was Jerry West at 6'5 225lbs. If you define athleticism in that sport by speed, vertical jump, strength, reflexes, coordination etc then Chamberlain, a guy that started his career in the 50s, is at the top.

I can't comment much about American football because I don't have an interest in it but I'm sure just like every young sport, the increase in professionalism and popularity has led to the recruitment of a wider talent pool. That and changes to strength/conditioning training and drug use makes up for the difference you see now and the in the 50s or whenever when it was a bunch of chain smoking part timers who might have dabbled a bit in training here and there.

As for football it hasn't changed much. You take a prime Pele or Maradona in a time machine and bring them today, they will still dominate.

 

You think Tua is a more formidable puncher than Louis or Rocky?

Have you seen the KO reels of all 3?

 

Which I'm glad of, personally. Jesse Owens is one the all time greatest athletes. If anyone can stack up well in sports after 80 years, it would be him (and Joe Louis). I've always maintained that if Louis had optimal training etc, with his power being the great equalizer, he would have more of a chance against the modern top dogs than anyone outside the last 30 years.

Its just everything else that program detailed showed just how much of a headwind would be against the old timers in head to head competition against modern athletes.

 

And I think most of the classic guys like Janitor, Perry and myself believe that generally, modern fighters are better, but that the special ones from back in the day have more talent than the best today.

 

Fair enough. Part of me wants to believe that too, honestly (at least in some special cases, like Louis). Ultimately, I think we can agree to disagree:good