Frank Warren was asked the difference between now and when he first started....

So what exactly is the point of them being that fit then ?
What's the point of them being fitter than the guys who actually had to do more work ?

Anyone can say "I can do that, I know I can, I've never done it but I can do it" ... talk is cheap. I can go around saying I can fight a 15 rounder with the small gloves on, 6 times a year without injuries, doesn't prove jack **** until I actually do it though.

On one hand you are saying "look at other measurable sports, it proves boxers are fitter " :huh
On the other hand, in the measurable aspects of fitness for boxing, the modern fighters aren't even stepping up to be measured. Until they do there's no basis whatsoever to deem them superior in fitness.

 

So what is the pre-war equivalent of Barerra v Morales?
Would the Klits gas if the fight was over 15 rounds?
Who could put in a shift like Calzaghe did at 175 lbs?

 

Battling Nelson vs Ad Wolgast.

The fight went 42 rounds and the participants both averaged 85 punches per round.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00F15FB3A5D16738DDDAA0A94DA405B808DF1D3

Pity I cannot see a film of that one. :good

 

The full fight is on film, but it is verry hard to get hold of.

 

I didn't know that!!!

 

Because they're trained to go 12 rounds. They are instructed to throw a certain amount of power punches per round and fight at a tempo which suits them. Making a transition to 15 rounds wouldn't be an issue.

 

I did find a link to geocities which did have it but its down now..

 

That just means that the modern fighters MAY be as fit as the old timers.

 

They're that fit because of guys like Sugar Ray Leonard, who had less fights, longer rest periods and longer training camps, and set a precedent because of what type of shape they came in. Immense physical shape that someone who was fighting 6 times a year couldn't live with, because of the constant stresses of training and fighting.

But they could still physically do it and just because they don't, it doesn't mean they can't. It's essential that they are optimum condition for every single fight and to do that, they need to have these long rests in between.

The measurable aspects mentioned are completely biased to the previous era and not worth mentioning. Like Janitor said, if you think what people like Henry Armstrong did was special, go back another 50 years or whatever. You'll find fighters who were did even more remarkable things and, going by these measurable aspects, were in better condition.

Fighters today are highly tuned and comparable to a top F1 car. They won't last 27 years, but for the short time they race, they will be perfectly tuned. It's the same with fighters, which is why going peaking as little as a week early has such a dramatic effect on their bodies. Conditioning and nutrition now, in all sports, is a science. Whilst fighters from the 1940's were busy in the ring and had lots of fight, they never came close to the precision training that fighters today have. Not even close.

Like I said before, take any fighter you want from any past era, Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Pep, Ali, Williams - Anyone, and if they had Alex Ariza working for them, they would be a better fighter.

 

True, but that also works both ways. I see your point though.

 

Not necessarily true.
If they were fighting real often it wasn't necessarily against demanding opponents every time out, and they weren't necessarily training all-out in-between fights.
Actually, for an example, Willie Pep had 250 fights or something but many were against guys who couldn't even hit him, and according to John Garfield who posts here sometimes and was around Pep in the 40s and 50s, Pep clowned around in the gym always.

Those old-timers were just as capable of reaching a peak and understanding about rest and recovery. In fact, perhaps having more fights they knew more about it than fighters who have less fights.

Rocky Marciano trained months for fights. He fought twice a year in his peak.
Jim Jeffries had only about 22 or 25 fights his entire career, and his camps lasted five or six months.

Some fighters were beaten down by hectic schedules, some thrived on them. Some fought less often. Some got in tip-top shape for big fights and used others as easy tune-ups.

Not necessarily. Tyson was at his best fighting often.
You mention Sugar Ray Leonard, who fought 9 times in 1979 culminating in a win over the champion Benitez, a 15th round KO where Leonard looked in peak condition.

It's wrong to say all the old-timers were fighting too often in their primes and were being worn down, and never achieved peak physical shape.
For example, Max Schemling fought once in 1930, once in 1931, twice in 1932, once in '33, three times in '34, twice in '35, once in '36, once in '37, three times in '38.

Ok.

But people were saying that about fighters 100 years ago. This is not new knowledge at all.

They always knew about conditioning. It always was a science, but it's not bloody rocket science.

I've seen Alex Ariza's workouts and it is really fundmantally old-school hard training and commonsense.
I've been into fitness and conditioning for decades, and I know nothing really changes, it just gets re-packaged and re-named.

 

And yet they can't even fight 12 rounds at a consistent pace, whereas fighters used to do 15 at a great pace, 20 rounders, and even 40+ whilst fighting far more regularly.

 

Read whatever you like. My point is the training stays roughly the same. Contrary to your claim that training methods are changing rapidly.

Saying a coach needs to keeping reading a load of peer reviewed journals to be good at his job is like saying a writer needs to read a load of critical literary theory PhD. papers to be a good writer. It just doesn't hold true.

Whenever I look at what elite athletes are actually doing, and read what supposedly "new" science is prescribing, and get past the bluster and hype and jargon, it's always the same old principles that are old as the hills. It's the same stuff always.

 

I agree with you. I'm not saying that these hectic schedules, as you say, were negative or anything like that. I just don't think it's proof that the fighters back then were fitter.

Leonard's best period was from late '79 to '81. In that time, he fought 7 times. Pre-Benitez, he was just keeping active and making steady improvement. As an elite fighter, he was as active as todays fighters.

I think it's actually more complicated that rocket science

The actual science which goes in to conditioning a fighter, if done properly, is unbelievable. Things like taking blood samples to monitor how the body reacts to certain amounts of training, how fast the body recovers and at what times during the day the fighter should train. It's incredibly scientific. This is the type of thing Ariza and his own team are doing and it obviously works.

What Ariza is currently doing, with training and nutrition, has never been done before in boxing and the science being used, is on a different level to what is often re-packaged.



Like I've said a couple of times already, there's not a fighter in history who wouldn't benefit from the science that Ariza applies.