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

Again, do some research.

The evidence is there, in books and on film.

There's always going to be the odd exception.

But generally, fighters were better conditioned. You don't have go back to Sullivan and Dempsey's era.

Look at the lower weights and the fighters resumes. They fought more rounds, more often and lived in much harsher environments.

Again, I don't really want to engage with you.

So we'll agree to disagree.

 

:good

 

Like Muhammad Ali.

still had 9 of his 29 fights HW.

Cw = 2 World title fights. HW = 4 World title fights.

[yt]?v=6oq4SqhpSd8[/yt]

 

Yes he did. Wlad was forced into survival mode and had to get on his bike for 2-3 rounds after crawling around on the canvas.
Peter couldn't do that to Chambers, James Tony and Robert Helinus.
How was he able to do it to Wlad? Imagine if it was Tyson in there. Wlad wouldn't of stood a chance.

No Peter was **** and he was one of the worst conditioned Heavies to ever fight for the title.
Fat 39 year old Toney had better Stamina than a 26 year old Peter.
Chisora pushed Vitali in ways Peter never came anywhere close to.

Peter couldn't 'out muscle' Eddie Chamber:rofl And Hilenius didn't need a single clinch to beat him every second of every round.

Looking terrible against Peter proves how bad Wlad is , not how good Peter is.

 

:good

:deal

And don't forget Dino, don't ever forget, that Maradona couldn't play football today.

Today's game's just too quick and advanced for him.

:rofl

 

It was mentioned a few pages back George Best couldn't wouldn't be good enough to play today:nut

Theres a reason all these guys avoid comparing boxers with boxers and only compare boxing to track and fieldatsch

 

How often does this subject come up?

Comparing athletics to boxing?

atsch

They don't think logically about their theories.

Because if they were right, it would appear that today's HW's are the best HW's of all time.

Today's LW's would be considered the best LW's of all time.

Yet today's best fighters clearly aren't the best fighters of all time.

Athletics as a whole might have progressed.

But boxing skills haven't progressed.


Today's best guys are no better than the guys of the 80's and 90's, and certain techniques aren't as common today, as what they once were.

A runner today can be on a better diet.

He can run on a better surface.

He can train in better equipment.

He can be fitter and stronger.

But a left hook, is a left hook.

Balance is still balance.

Timing is still timing.

There's no evidence that a guy today, can throw a better body shot than a guy from 30 years ago.

 

Watching Strum last night reminded me he's always knackered and he's one of the top boxers around today.

Hopkins workrate when he was Stums age was just crazy. No comparison at all.

 

:good

 

The thing about today's athletes, not specifically to boxing, is that they at least have every opportunity to become better athletes if they so desire. It doesn't necessarily mean they always seize the opportunity.

In most cases, they can have access to better :

- Nutrition (availability & quality).
- Knowledge about anything.
- Equipment.
- Physical treatment.
- Training techniques.


Many of today's athletes are just not as dedicated with a will to continuously dig deep inside in order to maximize their potential, even if all the conditions are met to be able to do so.

 

I can never get the argument that fighters today have not improved while participants in every other sport have. For those who believe exactly that, how do you know participants of other sports have improved?

 

You can't compare boxing to ANY other sport.

It's a scientific art, where many techniques have to be mastered.

Sports science, nutrition, facilities and equipment play a major part in athletics.

They don't in boxing.

Sports science and nutrition, can't make your timing better.

They can't improve your footwork.

They can't make you throw a better hook.


It really is as simple as this:

If boxing progressed in the same way, then as each decade rolled by, the fighters would get better and better.

Which would mean that today's guys are the best fighters of all time.

Which is absolutely laughable.


If you had a time machine, you couldn't go back in time 50 years and get a marathon runner that could compete today.

But you could damn sure go back and get a fighter from 50 years ago that would beat a fighter from today.

 

If you couldn't tell, I wasn't being overly serious in that thread. I just made it to stick it to the Calzaghe haters and they sure came out in full force.:yep To briefly go back to it, Jones did turned down an opportunity to fight Calzaghe for his SMW title so he could take on more glamorous opponents like John Ruiz and Antonio Tarver. Make of it what you will.

I'm not trying to change your skewed opinions that are clearly based on your personal distaste for the boxer or for a longing for some idealized "golden era" etc. I'm confident that no amount of reason will change your perception. Go ahead and believe that he sucks and is only fighting bums, if it makes you happy.

I just felt it necessary to address some flawed logic, misconceptions and flat out lies that you were posting.

You tell me to "do some research" but are offering nothing but your unsubstantiated personal opinions.

Anyways, since you have intimated your desire to no longer discuss this matter then I will bow out as well.
Have a good day.

 

This, more or less, sums up the reasons why pure athleticism, alone - better or not - isn't enough for Boxing to have evolved, like other sports might have.

 

If you admit that were trolling that's fine.

Of course Roy turned down Joe to fight Ruiz and Tarver. That's a fact. But it obviously wasn't a duck. Joe had done nothing then.

Regarding this thread, it just baffles me how you couldn't see Wlad having problems with the HW's from the 80's and 90's.

Lennox had two bad defeats, but if you look at the Rahman defeat, it was a lapse of concentration.

Any HW will go, if they get caught.

But with Wlad, it's happened three times, and he was lucky against a crude guy like Peter.

Now in fairness, he's got a variety of shots at his disposal, but the fact is, he's not pushed enough to put them on display.

His dominance is partly due to being a good fighter, and partly due to the fact today's HW division is weak.

Like I've said previously, he's racked up all of these wins, but for the most part, they're horrible, where he's fighting ultra safe, just doing enough to win. But if his competition was stronger, he wouldn't be able to do that.

People think he's this completely different fighter from the early 00's. He isn't. He's the same guy, but what's in ultra safe mode. We've seen him with Haye etc.

Now look at Mike just before he went to prison.

Look at Holmes, Lewis, Holyfield, even a guy like Golota.

They would all have given him something to think about.

There's no way he'd be considered the best HW in the world, if we were in the 90's now.

Go and look who he's fought since the Byrd fight.

Why does that impress you?

He hasn't beaten any top fighters.

His biggest wins are probably against Byrd and Haye.

I'm not saying he's not a good fighter.

But when you look close at his resume, it's nothing special.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But I think it's just ignorant to say he wouldn't be troubled by Mike, Holy and Bowe etc.

Regards to the conditioning, the proof's there.

How many out of shape fighters were there years ago?

I don't know how much boxing you've watched, but fighters didn't seem to gas like today, and they were far more dedicated. They didn't balloon up in between fighters.

Again, they'll always be an exception, but as a whole, fighters from the past lived the life more.