Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

The fact that Old Man Hopkins goes out there and beats guys 1/2 his age shows that the art of boxing has been disappearing with the new generations of fighters with few exceptions.

 

But that can't be true, because Usain Bolt can run faster than Carl Lewis could.

 

Loudon, you have no original posts, but I've shot down all your "arguments". Please feel free to repost them I'll direct you to the appropriate standard reply.

 

You never learn, Loudon, you're stupidity is breathtaking. I've answered this repeatedly. I've backed it up with facts, 1-3. Why don't you show evidence to dispute that. Swimming, sprinting, and every other quantifiable sport. Are you really so braindead to think boxing is magically different.

 

This isn't for you loudon, you're stupidity cannot be curtailed. But by responding with your braindead tripe, you allow me to post facts once again to help more intelligent, self disciplined posters. You have not and cannot controvert those facts, or offer any intelligent counter whatsoever. In a moment, I'll post it again.

 

And I really hope you don't live in a democratic county, or at least you don't vote. We don't need mindless cretins incapable of processing rational arguments clogging up the polls.

 

This is largely dealt with in "prime" argument (I'll post again shortly). Many boxing attributes peak late, and experience never peaks. Hopkins has retained enough of his skills that his superior experience allows him to win.

 

Then give me a quantifiable exception to the rule or sit down and shut up boy.

 

Thank you to both the imbecilic posters and the rationale ones. Its important that this thread remain in discussion and rational boxing fans become more educated on the topic. This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons. For true appreciation of the sport, we need to speed this detox process and help fans come to grips with the truth.

 

For all we know those guys would do great in the past but I don't think that it is all about size and evolution, maybe they are just good boxers? That is why they dominate today, because they are better then the rest of the field. Otherwise the fights would be much more competitive seeing as their opponents should have also evolved and some of them are roughly the same size.

 

this. x5

 

good read. would read again.:good

 

Little boy sp's stupidity is just astounding

My stupidity? Time and time again in this thread you keep saying "you dont know what you're talking about,you dont know boxing" when it has emerged you really don't have a clue at all. See below

None of them have ducked mandatories. You don't know this as you have no clue about boxing or reality

It's fact Lennox Lewis dropped his IBF belt because he didn't fight mandatory Chris Byrd.

Your credibility is in ruins.



1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as those sports have.

How do we measure progress in boxing? I'm stunned. Do you want to name constant boxing records that are being broken?
It was Wladimir Klitschko who said "I use to go in there and try to land a good punch. But now I realize boxing is like chess" this was also how the old timers thought but as you can tell by the quote he had 'modern' philosophy in the beginning and how that worked for him.
There was nothing "modern" about his former trainer Emmanuel Steward who once said about boxing "We need to get back to basics"

Again nothing to prove this argument except "It happens there it must happen here". You can't truly measure progress in boxing idiot.

2.Size. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well

Size in other sports is only due to weight lifting and diet. And I say size is good height to weight ratio; eg.Tua or Ibeachui. Although when it comes to diet, boxing since Jack Johnson days have always maintained a really good diet. Secondly since when does weight lifting make a big difference in boxing? I have not seen anything to prove this but I'll again quote the current HW champion Wladimir Klitschko; "There is no weightlifting because it doesn't help you go 12 rounds.The cardiovascular work makes your muscles smaller, but endurance goes up"..hmm whos right angry andrew or WK.


3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other website document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

How about you get the percent of decent fighters rather then bums?
Sam Peters for instance has a decent KO% yet if you disregard all the push overs and take down the stats of all his decent competition he has 1KO from 10 or 11 fights and even that KO is due to Maskeav being end of his career. Rightfully statistic's don't prove a thing because the same thing can be said about David Tua.

Statistic fallacy. You're not clever nor bright. You continually spew the same things over and over when it's not even right.

What I have said above is all FACT and backed up word for word.
You haven't presented anything FACTUAL in regards to boxing but rather other sports but you're too dumb to see that so I'll have to point it out.


Won't even bother with the rest..ya dumb and you have no credibility.

 

sp, again it would be better if you numbered your "points", but you're too irrational to do that, so I'll attribute number based on the gaps in location. Your "point" #1 goes to my common reproaches #4, read below to see why irrelevant. Point #2 If you were capable of reading you'd see I completely refuted that both factually and in relevance in common reproaches #1. Point # 3, Give a counter example or valid stats or just STFU moron, and accept you've been schooled. Point #4 aopiefapommfaefoffnafn. < That makes as much sense as what you wrote. You rambled incoherent blather that just said "na na you're wrong" without giving attacking the proof I offered. "Point everything else" All of it is "the world is flat" bs. You can say anything you want, but if you refuse to offer any evidence, logic, or stats as to why you believe it to be true, then you are believing it as faith. Don't try calling it logical or intelligent, because you have shown you are anything but. Oh, and:

 

Thank you to both the imbecilic posters and the rationale ones. Its important that this thread remain in discussion and rational boxing fans become more educated on the topic, and your postings help keep this topic alive and in people vision. That will help educate them on this issue. This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons. For true appreciation of the sport, we need to speed this detox process and help fans come to grips with the truth.