How do some fighters learn so quickly and become world class

I'm positive a super athlete like Charlie Powel would lose to Jerry Quarry. Didn't Jake Paul beat a super athlete NBA guy? - boxing is a different sport, needs different gifts and all at the top are GIFTED make no mistake.... but what makes the best the best is an imagination and a great teacher when it comes to boxing, there are endless men of violence probably as capable as say Foreman but they didn't have Archie Moore or a "creative" side to them.

 

I haven’t addressed it statistically but I wonder if there is any strong correlation between fast rising stars and those who crash just as quickly - or at least those who enjoyed relatively brief durations at the top.

Louis rose very quickly and the Schmeling loss might’ve meant the end for fighters any lesser than Joe Louis - but Louis of course was special - and the Schmeling loss actually contributed to how great Louis was to become later.

Whether a fighter can make good upon a loss of course depends on how a fighter and/or his trainers treat that loss and/or process their first exposure to true adversity.

At any rate, Benitez was your classic, naturally talented, fast rising wunderkind but he didn’t necessarily enjoy longevity at the very top of
his game.

 

You’re sticking your neck out with that wild conclusion John.

You’re a better man than I.

 

While Blackburne learned chess during the Civil War he remained a top 10 player for 40 years and a top 20 player for 50. So he did prove himself in other periods. In 1899 at the London supertournament when Blackburne was nearly 60 he split his games with Lasker and swept Pillsbury. While chess globally was in its infancy British chess was probably at its peak when Blackburne was playing. After Blackburne and Amos Burn they did not have another top player for over a century.


If we say Blackburne took awhile to become truly elite and his competition just sucked that is still an unprecedented feat. I don't think anyone learning chess as an adult has come anywhere close to the top level. The fact he did it right away is just an added wrinkle.

 

It's definitely an accomplishment.

I was curious, so I checked the models relying on computer accuracy tests. Those would put Lasker and Pillsbury in the 2500s by modern standards. Extraordinarily high, but still in the lower GM ranking. Not sure whether Blackburne would be quite that high; he had some brilliancies, but also got shredded against Lasker in match play, if I recall correctly.

Anyway, if we put Blackburne in the same stratosphere as those guys, then it would be the equivalent of becoming a GM after starting at 19. That's not quite as insane as becoming one of the two or three best players in the world today, but it's so rare that there may have only been one guy in the 70s who did it.

EDIT: If we assume he was only as strong as Zukertort or Chigorin, it might be a little more reachable at the 2200s, but that's still pretty insane.

 

It’s an element of “talent” that can be harder to gauge. Usually when it comes to that, people look at physical tools. But a “feel for the sport” is an important talent. Some guys just simply learn the nuances of their sport faster than others.

Its really impressive when guys like Qawi, Marciano, Liston, Rahman, etc…who didn’t learn formal boxing until a late age, reach the highest levels of the sport.

 

I don't believe that. I believe Lasker is the smartest individual to ever pick up a chessboard. I consider him the GOAT. Those players didn't have computers or theory previous generations had developed. That superiority is built on the back of prior generations and doesn't mean they are neccessarily more talented. I more take the elo at face value across eras. And Blackburne at his peak was low 2700s and for most of his career was high 2600s.

Theres over 1500 GMs in chess. While I'm sure its not easy its not the same thing as becoming one of the best players in the sport.