Does a prime Jack Dempsey beat the Joshua of today?

I think the concept/practice of interval training probably fit into boxers' training before it was accepted in running.

Interval training in running would be disputed more because it's probably less intuitive.
For example, a man training for 5,000 metres would be reasonable to believe running 5,000 metres OR MORE in training would be the way to go. He might be sceptical of incorporating shorter distances and breaks, as it seems so different to his event. Intuitively we might know it's going to increase fitness generally, but specific to a longer event, we might doubt.

Whereas in boxing, anyone who's been in a fight knows that bursts of energy, and "getting one's wind back" quicker, being equipped to fight more intensely if pressed to, is advantageous.
Boxing is designed around rounds and rests anyway, and boxers can aim for micro-versions of that within rounds to good effect. It comes natural to the event.

 

I wonder what post-workout drink he uses ......

 

Raw testical juice of a dead bull with a dash of cilantro.
Read about it in Septembers Tablet to experience similar gains.

 

'Roids !!!!

You can tell by the genital shrinkage.


This guy was an natural drug-free ancient (though clearly excessively on the red meat diet) :

[url]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03296/Cerne_Abbas_giant__3296793b.jpg[/url]

 

Yes, I don't doubt that.
But if you go back far enough, I guess training priorities would be different anyway.

For example, in the bareknuckle days, soaking my fists in brine and bull's p!ss might be a more pressing concern.

 

Years ago someone posted what was alleged to be John L Sullivan's training regimen (I think under Muldoon) and if I recall correctly it included alternating sprints and jogging.

Unfortunately there are no clear photos of Sullivan when he was in his prime and he looks pretty out of shape in the post retirement photos.

 

My main point in all these debates is this: The proof is in the pudding. IF modern training (2017) is superior to, let's say "golden age" training (1940/50), then it's superiority is unnecessary, the results of which are approximately NIL.
I only have to watch guys like Kid Gavilan and Henry Armstrong to know improvements in peak conditioning have not occurred or at least not resulted in anything substantial in regards to compare "old" against "new".
The end result on fight night hasn't improved.
Peak is peak.
Top shape is top shape.
100% is, virtually, 100%.

 

That's a good argument actually.

 

I would not know how to match a guy like Dempsey up with Joshua. I don't see how.. Too different an era. Like comparing the airplanes of the past to now.

 

Absolutely.

My argument is against the oft-repeated arguments that say, for example, "2000s fighter beats 1930s fighter because of modern training" .. OR .... "1930s ATG would be five times better with modern training" .... or that "1930s trainings knew nothing" or "2000s trainers know everything" ...
The idea that some special modern training exists that creates vastly more formidable boxers.
I doubt much of the training even exists (as clearly distinct from its past versions), and I certainly doubt the alleged superiority of its end product.

I'm not doubting the scientific/medical advancements that clearly help.

 

I think it would be more like comparing baseball to cricket.

 

Big Joe Joyce likes to soak his fists in petrol, times have moved on.