that is exactly what you are saying, the adjustment argument is stupid, fighters adjust for the circumstances they are in, john l sullivan could adjust between 4 rounds and finish fights, and between lpr and queensbury rules. as far as benny leonard, hooks were thrown, he moved.
Even new standards in guts, heart and determination get set with the passing of time...xyz figher fought through abc problem therefore I can do it.. no one ran a 4 minute mile until it was done and then everyone ran one
there isn't a similar weight fighter today who ko's sullivan in 4 rounds, thats the stupidest thing youve said yet why does it take heart and determination to run a mile? it takes legs and lungs
just been reading about diets in 1900 america. artificial preservatives, salt, sugar, caffine, corn syrup, beef fed beef and other bad things either didn't exist or were consumed far, far less, especially by children. these things all have a negative effect on the development of brain and body. maybe modern fighters aren't unquestionably physically superior to a century ago they probably are, because of childhood illness, smoking and drinking offseting the food, but even the most obvious reason for modern = better is not without flaws
Vitali Klitschko vs Sam Peter with footage resembling that of the early 20th century, Klitschko reminds me of Jess Willard: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrmj6eAFGc[/ame]
So let me ask you this in regards to progress and natural development over time... Would Joe Louis be a Heavyweight in todays world or even any time in the last 20 or 30 years? If not why not?
mcgrain would give a more complete answer than me, that said joe was 6'2, 76 inch reach, tyson 5'10, 71 inch reach. today louis would probably start as a cw and move up, use weights, and fight at hw about 10-15 lbs higher than he did in his prime
Actually you raise a good point about Carl Froch and boxing styles.. I have always considered the American boxing style to be quite different from the British and European styles...in fact the British/European style is more akin to the style of the 1930's and 1940's perhaps explaini9ng Frochs style... I am British but have long bemoaned what happens to the vast majority of British or European fighters when they meet their American counterpart...vast majority but there are exceptions. You may disagree with me on this whole matter but I do think it is fair to say for the most part British schooled fighters do fight different to US fighters...right or wrong?
i used froch as an example because of his style, but also because he has slow hands, yet is effective vs all but the very best i agree with you about the british style in history, freddie welsh and jim driscoll were from the same place and time, but welsh trained in america early. jim may be regarded as the greater but this style was carried over from bareknuckle. if there is an old style that would be innefective today it is probably driscoll, but even then he is an accurate puncher with a decent chin, workrate and reflexes [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZeevUgKUfc[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LSDYJOFp7Q[/ame] edit, froch is one of the few modern fighters i get excited to see, and certainly my favourite brit since naz
bowerboy; do some research of your own before making statements like you are. I could understand if you were genuinely clueless but you're not; you have an agenda and no matter what anyone says to you you're not gonna' change your mind. Typical 'I have a question but already have my own opinions and answers' thread. Your 'British style' post is all over the shop. Stylistically I'd say Froch most resembles American Heavyweight Pete Rademacher.