I'd like to see someone analyze some Corbett footage and break down how he lives through this fight. Please, someone.... I have done this on a couple of fights, never released them. I've been meaning to do more and start releasing them for comedy's sake if nothing else... When I get the time, I'll drop some bombshells of wisdom and insight hahaha
If you just managed to place them in a ring , say a 1892 Corbett and a 2003 Jones my question is what rules ? Not a cop out but a serious question .. Corbett was a bigger man .. close to 6'2" and a solid 185 or so back then without any supplements, ect .. he was exceptionally fast, smart, well conditioned .. you kind of have to favor Jones based on modern styles and all we have seen but Corbett is one guy that if trained today would excel in my opinion ..
If you put Corbett or Jones in a time machine and transported them to the others' era, Jones wins in a blowout. But thats not really fair. If you take Jones back and take away evolution of humans and the advanteges of modern training and nutrition OR If you bring Corbett forward and give him these same advanteges... Corbett wins in both scenarios.
But that isn't fair either... The question was that guy at his best against the other guy at his best. How much fight footage is available of Corbett? Is it just the one against Fitz? How many other fights are available? If so, then the Corbett apologists are basically relying on gleaming reviews and contemporary writers' word, because the fight footage doesn't impress. Give Jones a 20 round limit and those tiny gloves and looser rules... Let Corbett come to the 00's with the stricter rules and shorter fight. In either case, Jones wins.
We'e got another scientific illiterate who thinks appreciable evolutionary change can occur within three or for generations. This is like saying I couldn't beat a ten year old kid if the fight is scheduled for the next day because I'll have aged and he'll have grown in that time. How do people manage to avoid learning so much? It's like a kind of inverse genius. As for so called modern training and nutrition, that's a simple matter as well. There isn't any. People who don't actually have any scientific training tend to believe all kinds of silly things just because they are constantly repeated by other people who know no better. A few examples: *Humans use only ten percent of our brains (this isn't even a coherent claim) *Great apes have been successfully taught sign language *Hypnosis is real *You can't divide by zero *There is good reason to suspect that "race based" differences in intelligence actually exist *There has been no global warming since 1998 (or variously, 1997 or 1995) *There is a demonstrated gender based "wage gap" *Athletes are "scientifically trained" All false, or at best wholly unsupported by anything remotely resembling robust evidence.
Hypnosis is indeed real. Look no further than members here hypnotized by writers from 100 years ago, despite what they're seeing with their own eyes. They believe what someone else tells them over what they see. There's your robust evidence.
I'm just going to dismiss this with a wave of the hand as fluff. There is simply no substantive content to push against. If you've got nothing to say you can say it without touching your keyboard.
Well, that's actually the primary reason I finally made an account here. I got so damn sick of all the nonsensical comments about "evolution" "modern training" and "modern nutrition".