In Mythical Matchups Involving Pre-1960s Guys, You Cannot Just Make Them Bigger.

One of the hilarious contradictions McMoustache fans have, is that they claim that modern training and nutrition has devolved and is inferior, but then on the same note in H2H they throw extra muscle and combination punching onto McMoustache 'due to the benefits of modern training and nutrition' to make the fight on equal terms

 

its a known fact that alcohol, poverty, riding the rails and syphilis is far superior to the bull**** we have today

 

Basically, it all comes down to how you're making the match up.

If you're comparing how they were at their bext, then their height and weight should be that of when they were fighting at their best. This scenario is basically like bringing them together, as by a time travel machine, each as he actually was in his own time.

On the other hand, if you are asking how they would do against one another if they had come along (been born into) a the same era and peaked together, on the hypothesis that which ever fighter is moved to a different time develops (physically, psychologically, professionally, ect.) in analogy to how he had developed in his own time (ie, in the same proportion to the opportunity to develope in a different era as the fighter evidenced in proportion to the opportunities of his own era), then I think -- given changes in average height (USA) up to about 1960, and also changes in nutrition, training and bout lengths -- that it is justifiable, in this scenario, to imagine older heavyweights as significantly larger than they were.

Basically, weight is an proper accident (in the Aristotelean sense), and what belongs to substantially to the boxer is the potential for weight. Given changing conditions, to be fighting at 218 lbs in 1900 probably indicates a different potential for weight than in a boxer who is fighting at 218 lbs today; this is not relevant if you are 'time machining' the fighters, matchng them exactly as they were in their own time, eg. 1998 Lennox Lewis vs 1903 Jim Jeffries; but it is relevant if you are speculating how they would do against each other if one had been around in the others time, eg. 'How would Lewis had done if Jeffries had been around in his time?'.

 

Again, I think this is as bad as speculating about Dempsey adding 20lbs of muscle in some ways.

Fighters ahve always done absurd things toi their bodies in order to cut weight, and quite frankly, some of the old timers would have head more scope left to cut weight than others.

 

Good point, McGrain

 

Here's a question to ponder- How "big" would these modern day heavies be if they were training for 15, 20 and 25 round fights and fighting every week?

 

You are right but:

There have always been shenanigans when it comes to making weight. The weigh in was often scheduled as far ahead of the fight as the rules would allow to within an hour to facilitate this. Also, different fighters responded to the rules differently. Some fought at a weight where they could remain well hydrated and others risked their health by coming into the riung dangerously dehydrated. The former would obviously shrink down more than the latter today.

Barbados Joe Walcott is an example of a fighter who dehydrated himself dangerously to make the lightweight limit. Now I don't think that we could make him into a featherweight today, but we might be able to make him into a functional lightweight.

One final ironic twis is that some early heavyweights dehydrated themselves in the misguided beleif that it would improve their stamina. Jeffries for example probably entered the ring heavier than he was at the weigh in.

 

I can only imagine a 6-6 235 pound Jack Dempsey bobbing and weaving against the likes of Holyfield and Tyson

 

Well, this is true, I can't literally take, e.g., Jim Jeffries himself and add pounds to him. I can consider Jim's size (and other attributes) that he did have and, looking at the general run of people and of boxers and heavyweights in Jack's time, and in other times, try to imagine what Jims potentials were, how well he developed them given the opportunities of his time, and try to imagine how he's be if he came along in another time, developing in analology of proportion to how he developed in his own time.

I will admit that the Jeffries I imagine coming in, say, Lennox Lewis's time is not so determinate as is the actual Lewis of the '90's and early '00's, ot the actual Jeffries 0f the late 1890's and 1900's.

Let me take an example from another sport. Would Honus Wagner, born 50 years later, likely have hit quite a few more homeruns, if he had developed in that time in analogy to how he had developed in his own time? I think that's a fair assumption; I think it would be very unreasonable to think otherwise. Would he have hit a lot of homeruns'? I think this is probable, understanding the phrase 'a lot' very broadly. Now, would he have hit over 300? Over 400? Over 500? There you've got me; and there's a big difference between 300+ and 500+ homeruns.



So I think the 'came along in the same time'-type match-up is not utter chaos; at the same time, it is more a matter of imagination and opinion than 'as they were at their best'-type match-ups (which, themselves, are pretty thigh deep in imagination and opinion; but 'came along' matches take it up to about the shoulder level

This content is protected

).

"mythical matchup" Well, that phrase doesn't phase me at all; I like myth, as myth. I think it's a good way of describing the 'come along at the same time' match-up, and I don't think it invalidates it or denigrates it at all. I'm of the school that what marks myth as myth is not that it isn't true, but that it's about something that's ever true. Every boxer performs from some interacting combination of natural assets, deliberately cultivated habits and response to the evironment of his or her time. Perhaps the nature and virtues (ie, those habits perfective of their operations) can be considered the 'mythical' element of the fighter, as they are imagined coming along in a different environment?

 

forged weighin probably. A lightweight of his time could not by any means become a lightheavyweight . Was Fitzsimmons a very fat LHW ? did he start as a child ? he had no IGF / steroids to grow that much.

 

That would be awesome.

 

Forty pounds of juiced muscle didn't improve Shannon Briggs any.

 

This is indeed true, when comparing fighters of yesteryear you have to assume the size/strength will be comparable

Then again some fighters don't weight drain today, namely Mayweather, Pacquaio above 135lbs, Erdei, Barrera and there are advantages to not draining, ie not being drained and losing your optimal strength/stamina at the expence of giving up size