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

Protein bars and elliptical machines with built in TV monitors? :conf

 

Thanks for clearing that up. Tyson Mysteries and Black Dynamite are the only two shows my sixteen year old son and I look forward to watching together.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RywdaV0Q8pk

 

I always think of this when people compare sportspeople across wide time gaps..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCZZAheNSU

 

:yep

 

Episode 1:
http://www.adultswim.com/videos/mike-tyson-mysteries/the-end/

Episode 2:
http://www.adultswim.com/videos/mike-tyson-mysteries/ultimate-judgment-day/

 

The point is that the athletes get better, not that the great ones exist in every era. The average top 12 long jump at Olympics 1936 was 7.56m. In 2012, even the worst jump was better than that, with the average being 8m. Owens' Olympic record jump of 7.56 would have earned him only 7th place at the 2012. In 20 years that same jump will probably not be enough to even make it to the finals.

On the same Olympics, Earle Meadows set the Olympic record pole vault jump of 4.35m. The worst jump at the 2012 finals was 5.5m. Two years later, even the long standing untouchable 6.15 record of Sergei Bubka eventually got broken. Regardless of how you look at it, the sport evolves and the athletes evolve, and they constantly get better.

Fast switch to boxing at the same Olympics, Herbert Runge was the heavyweight champion (HW limit was everything over 175lbs). Does Runge beat the super heavies from the 2012 Olympics? It's not reasonable to even have a serious discussion about that. The sport evidently evolved, the athletes generally got bigger and the SHW division was invented. Does the average HW beat the average SHW? He doesn't.
Then let's compare Herbert Runge to the top guys at 2012's HW. Does he beat Usyk, Russo, Mammadov etc? I think it's safe to say that Runge doesn't stand a chance. He would probably lose at the very early stages of the tournament.

Some of the top pros at HW of that time were Braddock and Joe Louis. Do they realistically stand a chance against the Klitschko brothers, David Haye? Of course not. It doesn't take much to make such concussion. To be honest, I started viewing boxing forums relatively recently and it's shocking to see so much bias and even more absence or logic and common sense.

 

Some of the top pros at HW of that time were Braddock and Joe Louis. Do they realistically stand a chance against the Klitschko brothers, David Haye? Of course not.[/quote]

You seriously believe that Joe Louis couldn't beat David Haye?

 

Louis would crumple Haye.

 

It's like I said, boxing has evolved, it's evolved in the past, and it will keep evolving.

It evolved when fighters like James Corbett changed the sport from bare-knuckle brawling to the start of the "sweet science".

 

Please explain how boxing has evolved since from an eye test it has regressed when it concerns skill..

 

It means people today eat healthier than people in the past, I guess?

But that can't be the case, because obesity rates are higher.

I mean, if people really are healthier today than they were in the past, why are there so many fat people?

 

Yes I have. There's some great stuff there.

 

is possible that people are more muscular today than before due to the access of MORE food.

 

He couldn't beat a lot of today's boxers, not to mention Haye. I don't know if that's way you show respect to the legend or it's some kind of pattern that you stick to but it's obvious that he doesn't stand a chance. He was the best back in the day but from today's perspective he's slow, static, he doesn't move well, he isn't very good defensively, his feet isn't good. In other words, he stands no chance.

Even Wladimir Klitschko, who may be the best today, may also be better than the guys in the upcoming generation, but let's say 10 generations from today, it will be probably laughable to suggest that he beats the dominant champion of that time.

Interesting how some people here never question the progress of Olympic boxing, yet claim how the pro aspect of the sport hasn't evolved and that's even regressed. There's obviously the pattern (the 'greater' goal probably being siding the old champs in the mythical match-ups or whatever) regarding this topic which has to be protected at all costs.