How does Ruben Olivares & Carlos Zarate fare against today's Bantamweights?

I think the answer to this question is that fighters don't weigh the same that they used to in any division. Fighters imo actually look much faster pound for pound (on average, there are insane exceptions like Patterson, but the guy was a genetic freak) when you adjust for actual weight, rather than scale weight. Fighters used to come in with same day weigh ins, which actually does give them a small advantage in terms of speed pound for pound as they won't be as "weight drained". This also means they used to come into the ring only a few pounds heavier than they were on the scale, if that. Naoya Inoue drained roughly 17 pounds his last time out, and a champion he KOd in the first round, McDonnell, drained 26 pounds in their fight.

In this video, Duran is probably around 141 pounds in ring:

This content is protected

In this video, Naoya Inoue was 135 pounds in ring:

This content is protected

(he was 131 vs Donaire in the first one)

Inoue appears faster. Inoue also very likely takes advantage of modern "sports science", a term we'll use to keep from offending my good man JOKER.

Like I said, obviously some guys back in the day had blistering speed even by modern standards. But if you adjust for in ring weight, I think on average fighters are a decent amount faster now, despite being a little more drained due to putting on the weight.

Also, I should mention, my goal in this thread was never to say "modern fighters are so much better", I just wanted to discuss the BW legacy of Inoue vs Olivares, with the axis that the eras had equal footing.

 

This is a stronger version of "his era was better", obviously it's more reasonable, but it's also unfair in two ways to Inoue (and reasonable H2H speculation in general). I'll address a logical issue and then I'll address two ways I feel the point is unfair.

1. Allow me to conjecture and then explain why I feel "top 15 all time" for ranking a fighter on a person's resume is logically flawed. Conjecture: If two people in any given era dominate and become very highly regarded, there's a good chance they'll be ranked in the top 10 by a lot of people in the modern day. Let's say the era was the 1960s, so boxing history was much shorter. This means that these guys were sometimes rated around top 5, maybe even top 3, by a decent number of fans in that time. Now, imagine a guy you rank as the 6th most achieved and 2nd best H2H bantamweight gets knocked out. So now, the new guy is obviously going to be rated very highly by fans. After all, he KOd a "top 3 all-time H2H bantamweight". This leads to situations where less dominant fighters are actually rewarded more highly than dominant fighters. The examples will mirror the reality of the era we're discussing but change some numbers for dramatic effect. Example 1:

Fighter A achieves great acclaim. He is regarded as top 5 in achievements and top 3 H2H by many fans. He is then KOd by a fighter who was seen as a very good contender, and this fighter now skyrockets in the "all time ranks". <---- Reasonable
Fighter B is then KOd by fighter C, fighter C is now regarded as a top BW and beat an "ATG slayer"
Fighter B then wins a rematch vs fighter C. Fighter B is now regarded as an ATG as he beat a top champion in his day and previously slayed an ATG. <----- This is the issue. "ATG"s only exist relative to their era in reality. If a guy who just destroyed a "H2H top fighter all time" was just beaten by another fighter, that implies to me that fighter A either wasn't quite as indestructible as people thought, or fighter B just had his number and isn't so great. Which is actually more likely: Three of the best BWs to ever live all happened to fight within a few years of each other, or the first guy was great and the second guy had his number?
Fighter B loses to fighter D
Fighter B loses to fighter D again
Fighter D is now an all time great or close to making the ATG list <----- The claim becomes even more exceptional. Now four of the all time top 15 fighters fought in their primes at roughly the same time as each other in a sport that has been going for 140 years. It seems much more reasonable to suggest that fighter B simply had fighter A's number or even that fighter A's competition wasn't quite as great as people thought. The 4/15 claim, while not absurd, is extremely exceptional and would be hard for a rational man to believe when the chances of such a thing occurring were laid out in front of him.

Example 2:

Fighter D retires as champ
Fighter E wins a vacant belt and beats contenders F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z. Of that list, only fighter H is regarded highly in a historical sense, but all fighters are contenders.
Fighter E retires undefeated
Fighter E has beaten no ATGs, and will now be regarded as inferior to B for not beating two ATGs, despite the fact that one of them is mostly regarded as an ATG for beating him, and was beaten multiple times.



I'll post the rest later, I have to catch a bus fast![/QUOTE]
You think he choked when it mattered most. I'm not sure why defending vs Herera mattered more than challenging Rose to achieve his dream of becoming world champion, but fair enough, your take is your take. Mine is after achieving his dream and quickly accumulating a wealth way beyond anything he was ever accustomed to, bigger gaps between making weight for fights, meant that his well publicised partying combined with the first half of his 20's giving way to the second half, he struggled at the weight and the Olivares that lost to Herera wasnt the same fighter from his first 60 odd fights.

As for your other points, I think I know what you're saying, and to a large degree I agree with you. Ali is the highest profile heavyweight ever. Does that explain why 5 of most peoples top 10 heavyweights come from a 20 year period in the 140 history of heavyweight boxing, rather than it being a coincidence that they really do? I think that's the point you're trying to make? That Castillo and Herrera get overrated for beating a weight drained Olivares is a viewpoint I have a little sympathy with actually. They were still extremely good fighters though.

However, most boxing historians, including decent ones who have done hour upon hour of painstaking research, have either Jofre or Olivares as the no.1 at BW. Jofre only ever lost to one man, Fighting Harada in 2 x close fights. Rose won the title by outboxing Harada. Olivares dominated and destroyed Rose in 4 rounds. Alan Rudkin had close decision fights against Harada and Rose. Olivares destroyed him in 2 rounds. I'm not saying Olivares would beat Innoue in a time machine fight, differences between the eras with weign ins, PEDs, etc make fantasy matches a minefield of uncertainties. You'll have your own criteria for ranking fighters on an ATG basis. For me, a fighter who is 8-0 at BW with Innoue's wins doesnt get close to Olivares, yet.

 

Okay I agree, Inoue wins the body builder title at 118. Against Zarate he gets the Zamora treatment and gets knocked out inside 8

 

Cool, ty for the response - I see the points you're trying to make. I think, not only are the older fighters just as fast lb 4 lb, but the fights themselves were generally contested at a faster tempo, over a longer duration, under much harsher circumstances, etc.

Here's a thought: Old guys often fought in smoke filled rooms over 15 rds. which says something about their conditioning, surely.

 

Muscle and low body fat % is very important in athletic events. More muscle translates to better performance up to a pretty large amount of muscle, a higher bound than bantamweights would have to worry about. If it didn't, boxers who look like Olivares would still be competitive.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26838985/#:~:text=Much research supports the notion,performances during sport specific tasks.

"In punching, force is transferred from the lower-body through to the first. The core muscles are a vital link between lower- and upper body, and help transfer force during punching actions. Core strength also plays an important role in generating effective mass, this is known as the 'snap' of a punch."

https://boxingscience.co.uk/strength-training-for-boxing/#:~:text=In punching, force is transferred,'snap' of a punch.

 

You can lose despite an overwhelming advantage. The advantage is still an advantage. Does Usyk beating Joe Joyce mean height and weight don't matter in a boxing match? Does Rahman KOing Lewis mean technical skill doesn't matter in a boxing match?

 

I'm sure you would agree that Fury would be better if he got in better shape and trained year round. He has tons of overwhelming advantages, like his height, skills and seemingly his power now. This lets him get away with his poor training regiment.

Inoue himself has gained from putting on muscle. At 108 he looked like Olivares but with less bodyfat, and he (while powerful and fast) wasn't nearly as powerful or fast as he is now.

 

The love affair with fighters of old has got to stop. These cats fight 10X a year and there's a reason for that and it has to do with the level of opposition.

 

So does the love affair with the current fighters as well... ya dig?

 

Who says I don't respect fighters of old? I just think like many things in life, people cling to the idea the past is better, when it's just not true.

It's like Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle. They don't hit 10% of their season homeruns against today's aces — power pitchers who throw 95-102 mph heaters.

And Judge would hit 100+ homeruns against the pitchers of Ruth's era.

But we all know that you're still triggered by the Bam thread I made.