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

:deal

That's what I'm talking about.

 

I think Louis was excellent at controlling distance and, most importantly, he hit like a mule's kick with both hands. I understand some people picking the Klitschko brothers over Louis because of their size but Haye isn't that much bigger than Louis and isn't nearly as skilled. I don't even see this as a competitive fight. By the way, Louis woud have also beat Purity, Brewster and Byrd imo, for what it's worth.

 

Pole vaulting has no merit in this discussion and if you don't know why you're ******ed.

Humans haven't "got better" as such. If today's athletes had the same training, equipment and opportunities as the 30s ones the times/distances would be similar.

Athletes now can train more, take better PEDs and get better equipment. That's why the times are better. So yeah they are "better" but not due to some sort of human evolution over the span of 60 years.:nut

And boxing is a completely different entity all together. Show me someone today who can throw a left hook like Frazier? Show me someone with the movement of Benitez? I'll save you the time, you can't.

 

That's right of course. I haven't claimed otherwise.

Wilfred Benitez? Well, Rigondeaux moves better than him.

No reason to throw the insults around, it doesn't help the argument but says much about yourself.

 

Yeah what you say makes sense. My logic was there are not as many fighters as they were and less fights taking place compared to the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Back then I believe there were a wider range of options (fighters) available. If the fighters from yesteryear had the advanced technology, training, dieting etc as nowadays, no doubt they would have gained from it. Yet I bet if modern fighters used old school training tactics they would also benefit.

 

What about athletes who are bigger, stronger and faster who can also perform to a level where they are the best in their sport and also some of the best in history.

Examples

Usain Bolt....Cristiano Ronaldo....Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.....The Klitchsko brothers and also to an extent Manny Pacquiao....

 

my xrist, 90% of all athletes even just back to th 50's and 60's ALL drank and smoked cigarettes PHUKIN daily. ohh yes they did, ask your parents.
the also ate like **** and werent in half the shape of todays athletes.

**** it wasnt a 10th as serious, 90% of them HAD regular JOBS too

 

curious, WTF dies little pac have in common with ANY of the best of the best athletes you mentioned above ? pac ha never ONCE taken on the very in best in ANY division, so that eleminates him immediately. thats a cold hard fact

 

You can be roided to the gills, but if you don't have skills or grit, athleticism will only take you so far. Just look who the Klits lost to, they weren't 6'6"-7' foot giants like they were.

 

With the same PEDs, I most certainly do. Basketball is a little different because height plays a major role and yes players are much bigger. Rules have changed a lot too. We're in a sissy era where you can't guard with extended arms, lots of flopping, etc. Football is even worse. You can't tackle the quarterback anymore. The don't touch me rules on receivers, etc.

 

Mayweather would've been raped had he fought in Leonard's era

 

Boxing overall has severely regressed in skill.

To argue otherwise, well.. YDKSAB.

 

Yep and you got it all figured out.
Your circular reasoning suggests you in fact DKSAB or you are one of the many old cantankerous farts who stopped watching boxing during the vague, subjective period called "the golden era".

 

You are like morans you say that if old guys where fighting today they would be biger and better yet you say that cardio would be better in old days. There is saying bigger man allways win if skillsets are equal. Same with evelution of fighters they are biger and beter. And if u say that ali was super skilled u r wrong he was freak of nature and had cat like reflexes would it be enough to defeat todays best, debatable. tyson himself is good example he was 220 pounds and destoyed tall fighers who weighted SAME as tyson. Once they where in 230's it became harder to him. Tyson was actually begining of new era where fighters started more weightlifting and came in hevier. Also yes skillset has gone up just look at clumsy foreman and one trick frazier also rope dope would not work today and if u woul use it against klitschkos result would be like kevin johnson fight. They were competitive and fun but thats it. Also yes foreman second time around was overall more skilled with hreat jab but sadly without youth. Holmes also had new era fightinng style but lacked size to beat someone like tyson who was big fast strong aka modern figher. When holmes fought in 90s he was much hevier he addjusted. But lets face it had he fought lennox he would be brutaly kod .

 

:good