Heavyweights & age through the era's

Might it not simply be the fact that they fight a lot less frequently?

 

So having two or four times as many fights, would have had no bearing whatsoever?

 

Its no good making it in the general forum, its us that you have to convince.

 

You are actualy right up to a point here,the amateur careers of modern fighters are the equivalent of the early profesional fights of the old timers.

It still dosn't mean that the modern fighters are equal though.

Not impressed with 100 professional fights, how about 300?

Now lets start comparing fights at the elite level,which is the most important measure.

Has any modern fighter fought 30 ranked contenders?

Has any modern fighter fought 14 linel champions?

Has any modern fighter had 45 fights in the same year?

You are not going to win this.

 

I don't see the point of citing heavyweight ages to draw broader conclusions about boxing and boxers.

Why not calculate the ages of all the champions of the major organizations (WBA, WBC and IBF) from strawweight to heavyweight and compare those to different eras?

We're in the age of the superheavyweight. Big people mature later, and super-big people mature later than the 6-2, 212-pound guy of the 1970s or the 185-pounder from earlier eras.

Look at NBA centers, look at NFL linemen. Those who stay healthy hit their playing peak much closer to 35 than 25. Not so true of smaller soccer players cited for comparison by one poster.

I skipped ahead but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't pointed out the number of amateur fights in many cases has increased. For every Ray Mercer with relatively little experience in the amateurs (and his 'smokers' on bases went unrecorded, as often happens with military fighters) there are dozens who had 100 fights or more -- particularly with the rise of the Eastern Euro super-heavies.

If we're in a bad era, and perhaps we are, with heavyweights then we are also seeing some fine all-time contenders in the lighter weights. It's not a bad era all around.

I also think at a certain point in time fighters who fight less often spend longer in the gym getting ready for fights. The six-week and even three-month training camp wasn't the norm in an era when guys would fight three times a month, obviously, as they were fighting often for rent money or pocket change while the top fighters of today can buy a house and a car and have money left over from one fight after they have reached a certain point in their careers.

Also, a guy like Marciano or Ali or Dempsey wasn't going to wear himself out as much fighting like-sized guys that the bigger super-heavies of today encounter when they fight guys their size. To get ready to fight a Wlad or a Vitali or a Tyson Fury also means a training camp working against bigger guys, while the aforementioned greats were having shorter training camps often sparring against light heavies.

What does it all mean? None of us know.

 

Not true. During my stay in athletics I knew plenty of sprinters and jumpers who were able to hold their level of performance well into their 30's or even early 40's. And track is nowhere near as cerebral or skill-based as boxing.

There are more than a few examples but I remember especially long jumper Mike Powell coming out of retirement, weighing too much and still going high level distances in practice. He probably knew he would never go 29 feet again but he could go at least in the high 27's, which would win most meets. The problem was, when you have been the best ever, why continue? My point being that he retained top flight world class abilities into his late 30's.

Seeing this happen, and adding in what experience brings in the sport of boxing, one can see how high level longevity is possible.

 

Or maybe he would get tested more....?

 

LOL...Well you completely glossed over my answer to your Brady/Manning analogy.A better analogy, seeing as they both endure punishment on a steady basis like a boxer, would be an NFL running back. And despite the talk we hear of the 'evolution' of man to the Super Athlete the career of an NFL running back is still the same 3.5 years on average its always been.

Addressing the Brady/Manning talk. The reason they're still playing at the level they are, or playing at all is because of better surgical techniques used today and better rehab. Do I also need to mention because of higher slaries these athletes can train in the off season instead of say driving a beer truck. A generation ago, those same QB's have either been retired for years, or they're not the player they once were because they couldn't recover from the injury to be the player they once were.

I mention the Olympics. OK...Mike Powell, was once the best in the world, he never will be again. I would be very interested to read ANY book stating that the 38 year old athlete is superior to the 28 year old athlete. Yes I realize that certain athletes (Mark Spitz) for instance train hard using modern training methods, and bettered some of there own older marks. But he still was to slow to make the swim team, much less medal.

I mention PED use. They're a part of modern sports athletics by some athletes whether you choose to address this or not. Are they the whole reason some athletes exhibit a rebirth as they age in extended peak performances? Certainly not!! But to suggest that they may not be a part of some athletes training regimin, would be disengenuous.

I would suggest that because of better paydays these modern fighters don't have to fight as often, meaning they're not hurt all the time. I don't see modern fighters being any more experienced then they're compatriots in the past. Just better paid. They don't have to fight as hard or as often. The overall competition is much weaker as a whole, simply because we have many less fighters. Athletes don't age like fine wine.

 

The use of PED'S in EVERY modern sport is a proven fact. In baseball they call in the validity of home run records broken, one after the other after standing untouched for 30+ years.

A HUGE number of professional and amateur athletics have been busted using. The use in boxing I would imagine, is as great or greater ,when considering the lax governing rules and testing methods.

You get bigger, stronger faster. You recover quicker from workouts allowing a higher training level. Peak performance is extended for the athlete. Today we see a advanced age for the average contender. For the first time in athletics history. It is not the sole reason, but I would imagine it's ONE of the reasons we see this age now.

 

Fighting 14 linal champions means they were weak?
Fighting 14 lineal champions may simply mean that there were more fighters of championship calibre around.
Dominating journeymen posing as challengers when you are into your late 30's [Wlad] indicates the dearth of quality fighters in a division.

" My reputation"atsch

 

I don't think talented young fighters from the old days were as burnt out as you might think. Sure they were finished younger but they packed more into less years because the competition was there and fights were easier to make because there was so many extra fighters.

Promising 23 year old kid with 60 fights was much like the Mexican fighters now. They had the advantage of being both physically fresh, seasoned and experienced. Unlike modern fighters this experience was over the professional distance. 95% of these fights would be away from the microscopic scrutiny that modern fighters face as they developed on the road building up a name quietly. Each town offering up its best small circuit prospects and seasoned veterans rather than deliver (almost exclusively) modern day dissilusioned cannon fodder for prospects to cut their teeth on.

Contenders fought much more often than champions and would fight each other over and over in different towns to make a living. With so few belts up for grabs a contender ready for a title fight still kept busy. A small promoter would book two out of town rated fighters to headline a show. Without the exposure of a major big fight town like New York, London, Chicago or the tag of official eliminator for a world title it could be treat like a small fight on the road. They might go for it in the last round but would often box conservatively in order to keep it close enough to make a return, put on a show and avoid too much wear and tear. Some would call this wearing handcuffs to make a show but it was beneficial to everyone. Top fighters got a real look at their closest rivals without too much risk and benefited from their moves, skills, pace. Later they might meet in a big fight where they would go into camp and put it all on the line but there is no doubting the experience gained in putting on measured balanced performances enhanced the development.

War time contenders especially had to hold back because without active champions they had to stay busy. But look what came out of that system ......Sugar ray Robinson! ezzard Charles! Archie Moore! Charlie burly! Jake lamotta! Willie pep! One generation producing so many ATGs whom all treaded water against other name fighters many times over away from the spotlight for years and were better for it.

 

" I'll stake my reputation" . As though that were something anyone would want to keep?
Who would wish to be perceived as,a rude, ****y, no nothing ****** who has all the mouth from the safety of a computer?

ps I'm not your friend, I detest, snotty, arrogant, immature ,self- absorbed ,mouthy kids.

 

Great post Mcvey ! He has no friends on here. And he is indeed the snot-nosed- bratty kid, constantly stomping his feet... Parents must have forgotten to give him enough attention !

 

Modern fighters spend more time in the amateurs?
My old fell who boxed in the 60's as a pro had 6 amateur fights in 2 weeks at one point and 150 overall.
I'll also say that amateur boxing today doesn't really resemble pro boxing whereas in the past it did.
Better sparring? Where did you get that from?