Marciano (and his predecessors) would probably get KTFO today

I'm not calling anyone, certainly not Sugar Ray, overrated. They were what they were - the best guys back then. Just like John Bray was the fastest runner back in 1900... (and, yes, boxing is different from running - though some fighters, at time, seem to forget that).

But numbers don't lie - people can now run faster. And it's not inconceivable that boxers hit harder, faster and can hit for longer (on gassing, see one of my previous posts in this thread). And so even legends like SRR (before he started accumulating losses) could find themselves facing tougher opposition than they ever did.

 

Two points. Frazier and Ali are NOT Marciano's predecessors. I think the differences between Ali and Frazier and the current crop of fighters are much smaller than when looking at the earlier guys (just as differences in running records over the last thirty years are much smaller than the ones I posted).

As to the other two, I can see Vitali beating Joe Louis and Wlad dominating Marciano (size matters).

 

I'd back the fighter whose trainer has a better understanding of how the human body works, and can exploit it to his fighter's advantage in training camp. In particular I'd back a fighter who doesn't overtrain and is not killing himself by fighting too often. The disadvantage that fighting too often has might not be visible if he's up against guys who do it as well (as was the case in the olden days) but is sure as hell is going to make a difference when he's up against a guy, who's been preparing for just one fight for the last six months and is peaking at just the right time.

You're beating a straw man - I never said that.

I admitted the possibility (based on several comments I've heard) that modern fighters gas more because they get hit by harder punches. Clearly that is not meant to explain every case of gassing - i.e. asthma might be more relevant in Briggs' case and laziness in Peter's or Lewis' (at least in their final fights...)

The fact that they box less, is undeniable. The fact that they spar less is debatable. Any evidence to support your claim? Ultimately, what I'm trying to argue is that sparring gives you experience as well. So comparing experience levels simply on the basis of the number of fights is likely to be misleading... (because you implicitly assume similar amounts of rounds sparred).

Happy we agree on this one More generally, what I was saying is that you were making a statement about feinting now being less popular than it used to be. I was saying that it's debatable (at best) and that I could have easily used the names of boxers you provided to spin the argument against you.

I was giving the old boxers the benefit of a doubt and admitted that skills might not have changed dramatically. However, there's a subtle difference between that and admitting that pre-Marciano fighters are MORE skilled than their contemporaries. In general I think that skill levels have gone slightly up, and fighters are now focusing on more efficient techniques.... (and the feinting point we can debate to death - so I'll just reiterate: it is not clear it is being used less, and is equally unclear it is really very useful).

You're relying on a different version of Dempsey's biography than I do. I have wikipedia on my side ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dempsey)[/url]. What have you got on yours?

Archie Moore worked in a shipyard as well btw.

I'd like to believe what you say. But I have trouble. And, btw, cyclicsts typically have dope administered by team 'doctors'. So the fact that you have doctors around and do lot's of scans proves nothing.

You've put the equal sign between pushing their bodies much harder and overtraining there's a difference :yep

If I overtrain, say benching, I don't give my muscles enough time to regenerate. I end up weaker than I could have been and effectively benching less and as a consequence taking smaller risks. If I train smart, I can actually get to much higher weights. Hence I'll be stronger, but the risks associated are bigger. Happy?

What this thread argues is that all other things are not equal. So the devil is in the detail - but thanks for the input. :good

 

Two good points that I can only agree with.

However, what is also true, is that if you look at top performances of professional athletes these have been steadily increasing in most sports. So, unless you assume that boxing is an exception, which you could do based on your second argument, there's still truth in my original claim ( though the evidence might be less stark than what I provided).

 

I'd argue that the world record is not broken, because we don't have a world record and there is no objective way of measuring performance.

In other sports - that we can objectively measure performance - records have gone up. So unless you believe boxing is an exception (for which several posters provided valid reasons) the 'implicit' world record (or in general the level of the top guys) should be increasing as well...

I see no proof to the contrary. Would you see proof by looking at professional runners?

I'd put some money on any of the really big guys - e.g. the Klits or even Valuev.

 

I agree that such comparisons don't necessarily make lot's of sense (and are never made in sports in which we have clear performance benchmarks). You're the best if you beat everyone around you - that's enough for me...

Yet people somehow make such comparisons all the time. My problem is their arguments run counter to what I find logical.

 

I won't be around so I won't be crying. However it could very well be true...

I think in general we give much more credit to people once they retire or are dead. It's harder, somehow, to admit true greatness if the person is still around... I wonder how many people would shout that Ali was overrated if his losses happened today? Many on this forum, for sure!

 

Kirk just teleported Marciano to 2008, put some money on him and saw him get KTFO. He's trying to recover now...