''We don't want to admit it, but athletes gets better'' ...& Mike Tyson Mysteries

Great post!

:good

 

In my opinion the only guy from that time period would give him a serious problem would be Lewis and Lewis by every definition is a modern HW.

 

Boxers are athletes.

But a boxer has to master how many boxing techniques to be a top fighter?

It's a fact that in general, athletes are getting better.

But boxers aren't getting better.

 

:good

 

Just because they were fighting more often isn't necessarily an indication that they were more conditioned, it's mostly because they weren't being paid very much and needed to fight often to make a living. A guy like Dempsey who was making bank, sat on his ass for most of his championship reign.

This change you are referring to doesn't reflect in the body composition of the athletes at HW. Just look at a guy like Joe Frazier for example, 5''10 205 with a little belly average speed, physically weak and that's your HW champ of the world.

 

Of course Joe Louis would stand a chance against The K's and Haye etc.

There's countless examples to give where fighters from years ago would beat today's top guys.

 

If your theory is correct, then it should be laughable to suggest that the best HW's from the 70's could beat today's best guys.

Yet it isn't laughable is it?

It's very probable that the heavies from the 70's could beat today's heavies.

 

Skills haven't progressed every year.

Plus Lewis would have had his hands full with Larry Holmes.

 

List the best fighters of today from all weight classes.

Then do the same from the 80's and 90's.

Today's guys aren't better than those two decades.

 

Well that's a strange opinion to hold.

Look at who's beaten Wlad.

Look at who he's fighting today.

Then look at Larry Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Mercer, Bowe etc.

 

You're deluded and need to start watching boxing.

Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Liston etc would have had no chance whatsoever of beating Wlad and Vitali?

Your post is embarrassing.

Wlad who was beat by Sanders etc?

Ha!

 

Some fighters yes, but I'd say the majority of pro's from the 40's onwards were more dedicated, and they honed their craft in the gyms.

Of course they needed to fight more, but that meant they spent less time away from the ring, which meant they were always in shape.

Fighters back then didn't spend four months out of the ring and had 10-12 week camps. Some guys fought once per month.

 

Look who's beaten Lewis, Tyson, Holmes...

Evaluating a boxer who is 62-3 with 52 knockouts based on his his 3 losses is about as ignorant as judging a boxer who is 3-62 and has been KO'd 52 times on his 3 victories.

He already beat the breaks of Mercer, first man to knock him out.

 

That doesn't mean they were in better shape, it just means they were fighting more, probably for the reason I stated earlier. By your definition Travis Fulton who has had more than 350 combined boxing and mma fights should be demonstratively more fit than his less active contemporaries. Here's a pic of Fulton:http://www.mmatko.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/travs3.jpg

 

I'm basing it on his entire career.

Not only has he been knocked out three times, he's also been life and death with Sam Peter. Has he improved that much since? Not really, he's just been fighting poor opposition.

We know Lewis and Tyson have been beat and Bowe had off days, but it's ignorant to assume Wlad wouldn't have had major problems with those guys.

We know all about Mercer, but I'm talking the 90's version.

You don't think he'd even be troubled by the versions of Holyfield and Bowe who fought each other?

I think an early 90's Holmes would have caused him trouble, and a motivated Douglas.

They'd all give him much more to think about than the likes of Wach etc.