Does Gamboa have more talent than Sugar Ray Robinson?

Wow, you show an inability to realize styles and attributes as well. Funny that.

Mayorga won because his style was suited to taking a purely technical boxer like Forrest out of his comfort zone. Please tell me what is so physically impressive about Mayorga aside from his chin that would make anyone believe that the advancements in technology had anything to do with his style. A fighter like that is born, especially considering he started his career out in lesser cicrumstances without these advances you speak of, yet he fought with the same style and ferocity.

 

So now steroids are our further advancements!

Just stop, you're killing me. That didn't even play into your point, yet you still decided to mention it, which plunges your case even further down.

 

Still engaging with the loser I see.:yep

 

Note my earlier point? Instead of attempting to understand what people are saying, he twists words and attempts to make arguments.

As said earlier - Anyone with a brain sees you for what you are.

 

I just cometely explained what you said. If you're too ignorant to see the conclusion that your statements come to, any way you slice it, than I can't help you. You're really very unintelligent for such a "researched" person.

 

Sorry, but it's actually getting kind of fun by now. There was actually a time when I thought this might be quite a debate, until I got the real gist of his points. It's sad, but whatever. I'm just waiting to see if he'll realize it and just give it up. Or at least stop posting the same rhetorical nonsense he's been spouting in recent posts.

 

These types don't give up. Has Bigtime ever given up?

 

LMAO...What a Thread.

 

No, you completely IGNORE what anyone else says.

DanePugilist mentioned that he believes training methods have evolved, you ignore this.

You simply come back to points that suit your purpose and ultimately the only person who agrees with you is Amsterdam, he's only agreeing with you because I made him feel like a little girl in another thread.

You're trying to make this a personal argument, hence your jive turkey talking, but it's not even having effect, the only thing you're showing is that you're argumentative and would argue any point just for the sake of it.

You can keep believing you're right in this aspect, I've shown enough examples and trends to explain my point of boxing evolution, you're just not bright enough to grasp them, sorry?

 

I recently tangled up with a few members of this board over the notion of evolution in sports performance but managed only to reach provisory results. Valid points, I think, were raised on both sides of the issue.

In a nutshell, there are reasons why olympic records are being broken as we go with times. Such reasons include but are not limited to advances in training, nutrition, etc... There are few reasons why boxing would set itself apart as a sport and wouldn't follow the trend (that was the argument).

The emulation factor also comes into play with various results. The thrive on surpassing the "best" contributes to always push the standards higher. This form of motivation makes sense when we speak of performances which are measurable in absolute values (like high jump, 110 m hurdle, javelin throw, etc.). It makes less sense in sports where comparing performances through time is subjective, like boxing.

On the other hand, there are periods through the history of sports (specifically boxing) that have reached higher degrees of competition. A highly competitive environment like the 80's version of the WW division contributes in no small way in pushing the standards higher. This form of emulation doesn't necessarily follow a progressive curve and counterbalances to some extent the advances in sports training and nutrition.

Finally, some detractors believe that the advances in sports training and nutrition have not benefited enough boxers to counterbalance the fact that boxing had a deeper talent pool back in the 40/50's.

The point is valid to some extent but poses a few problems: (1) how was the number of licenced boxers in the 40/50's assessed, where's the data?

(2) There are many examples through history that show no correlation between the size of a given talent pool and the number of elite athletes emerging from the said pool. One example: through several periods of the cold war, Cuban boxers dominated the olympic scene. The talent pool from which all the Cuban medalists emerged back in those years was fairly small in comparison to the USA and to several European countries. The Cuban talent pool was also totally closed.

 

I think it's plainly sentiment that sees boxing take a stand as being a timeless sport.

In all other sports, every single sport down the line, performance has increased, records are broken, athletes are more versatile, better equipped and trained.

How would Lebron go against Jordan?

How would Sampras go against Federer?

How would Montana go against Manning? (either one)

Boxing is no different, people can say "Analyse the footage, everything you need is in the footage" but that holds true in any sport.

I can watch Tennis and see a guy like Sampras play a serve-volley power game and decimate all of his opponents, I can see his serve kick and seem too fast for opponents to read.

Then I can watch Roddick with in effect the same game, more power, faster serves, be picked off easier by guys like Federer who have an all around game.

I can watch NFL and see the accuracy of Montana, his ability to call plays that matter and his ability to rally his team to victory... then I can view the fact that his average throw is shorter than Peyton Manning, that his max throw in terms of training is shorter than Peyton Manning.

Footage shows nothing except how good a player was against his contempories.

A guy like SweetPea will never understand nor realise this, because he's too busy attempting to argue a defeated point without realising why.

 

I understand that notion but I think there are other variables, some of which can have a counterbalancing effect.

In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to think that prime Ali would beat prime Klitschko. Ali's time wasn't all that far off Klitschko's to begin with and his fights were generally more disputed than Klitschko's who stands alone on top of the division.

A highly competitive environment like Ali's makes it that every boxer pushes the others to higher levels of competition. Conversely, if one always win too easily, chances are he won't improve.

 

The competitive environment argument is certainly not without merit, which is why you'll never see me say "New is better than Old"

What I do say is "You can't analyse new vs old because of the changes"

The competition argument further enforces this point, you can't tell how Wlad would do in an era filled with competitive fighters, just like you can't tell how Ali would do in this era.

I just don't want people to misunderstand what I'm saying here, when I mention the evolution of boxing, I don't mention it to say "New is better than Old"

My thoughts are simply that you can't analyse how two boxers would perform against each other if their primes were 20 years apart.

The intangibles are too plentiful and the differences in each era are too plentiful to truely know and footage does NOT give you anything comprehensive, as previously mentioned, footage from other sports shows just the same thing, yet statistics are so different.

 

Sweet Pea, hahahaha

 

Thats all fine and good, but its fun to analyze fighters from different generations imo. It seems like a cop-out to say that we can't analyze "what if" scenarios. Are they ultimately pointless? Sure. But is this whole forum ultimately pointless? Yes! We come on here to talk boxing, and thats what we want to do when we're here so why should we not be able to mention Aaron Pryor and Mayweather in the same sentence? Its fun to think of the possible outcomes.....