The evolution of boxing

No, I've laid out the rational groundwork for why what you say is wrong. Feel free to try to counter the points I've made above.

 

???? what are you on about, professionals ARE THE CREAM, amatuers are nothing, it is amateurism that has made your fighters of today pussies, Mayweather isn't tough, he is a *****.

 

And I have laid out my rational groundwork time and time again here, go back and read through the thread.

 

You got insulting with me while I was still going out of my way not to point out just how irrational your positions were. Burt then levied an insult against me, and I responded by pointing out his errors. Having said that, I really don't care what you think.

 

...

 

You really haven't? Show there are fewer boxers. And if you can, show there are not any sports with quantifiable results that have also declined in participation. If you can do that, then you have a rational point to debate. Otherwise, feel free to try and debate me, but you're not coming up with any actual "points". You can say you have a rational argument, but it doesn't mean you have one. If this was a standardized test, you'd be failing right now.

 

pro cycling is mostly against the other teams not the clock and i think it is the tactics more than the fitness or bikes that mercx would need to adapt to(you just don't attack a big group and try to ride 100km of mountains alone anymore).

agreed that 12-15 rounds is a big difference, for the most part they would have fought shorter fights too so would have some experience of it but your point still stands.

bradman is an interesting guy, i have been reading about him today, no doubt he could adapt to modern cricket comfortably. common sense says that if pitches are that much better and bowling is similar quality then we would have seen a consistent rise in averages through the years yet of the top 10 averages 6 were retired by 1960 and only one played post '80, not to knock bradman as his mark is so much higher than anyone elses, i just noticed that earlier.

 

Willie Pep beats any featherweight today and Robinson beats every welterweight today.............. so yes the 1940's were better cos they were really tough and really good, forged in the fire of constant combat.. Ask yourself this... If I got you when you were 17 and trained you to fight gladiators in the colliseum for ten years and then I get you in with a slave who has trained for years but also had 30 fights and he was still alive.... how prepared would you be to save your life by killing him... ? would you be more nervous than your slave, who has more fear of life than he does of death ??????...... it is combat... and that means only the hardest survive if its for real... todays fights are far from real compared to what Pep had to endure let alone a slave gladiator.

 

Someone had a good post, maybe on here, saying that the skills needed in the frequent fight period were different than the skills needed in the less frequent fight period. That made logical sense. So, I can give you this, if Robinson was fighting Mayweather after each had just had 20 fights over the course of a year (i.e., old school style), I can see Robinson beating Mayweather. Because that is not the form of fighting Mayweather has been shown to excel at.

 

I'm not disputing you saw it, but can you link it? It seems dubious and I'd like to examine their methodology.

Its relevant but not crucial. Even if that is the case, then as I've said in other posts, I'm sure other sports with tangible results have seen as great a decline in participation as boxing, and yet still see better, bigger athletes and records breaking. The talent pool from which the am's and pro's draw on is much larger than before. Its logical that there is a huge amount of self selection going on in going into boxing in the first place.

 

OK, a lot of hyperbole flying around here. Let's not get carried away.

First off, the total numbers of pro and amateur boxing participants is totally relevant and I've not seen any reliable sources quoted yet. Please someone, furnish us with the stats.....(I can't be @rsed!)

Secondly, the rules of boxing have changed so much that men of the 30s-40s were participating in something different to pro-boxing in the 2010s.

Thirdly, I'm absolutely positive that a fighter in ancient Rome, fighting with leather wraps and to the death, would do away handily with all the SRRs and RJJs you can muster.
Evolution is adapting to conditions, not simply improving ad infinitum.

If anything, boxing has evolved into something different, not something better.

 

Good post, I'd more or less agree.

 

As far as h2h? Wlad (and others) destroy Louis and Charles, (and Kovalev lhw Charles) under any conditions. Mayweather beats Robinson in a fight under today's conditions.