Who wins? John L Sullivan or Wladimir Klitschko?!!!

Pea don't put words in my mouth. I never said Cotto is better then Duran or SRL, so don't make up arguements on my behalf thanks. I clearly said that it is very difficult to compare the fighters of different eras. However, I can see watching footage of SRR, that he wouldn't compete in todays era. The advancements in the sport have been far to significant since that time. Its not a fair comparison. As for Roy Jones, he is a great athlete, but he became so good by analysing fights, and honing his technique in the gym over many years as an amatuer. The reason he is so good is because boxing technique and training has evolved. If he was born in the 1950's are you saying he would have been as good? Because if so I firmly disagree. Although with sports such as boxing, basketball ect it is hard to measure talent, simple perception is good enough. You can't seriously tell me that guys that played baketball in athe early parts of the sports origin could compete with the size and professionalism of todays athletes. I think you are grossely overating the athletes of yesteryear if so.

 

The problem is with holding your hands extended further, is that it becomes harder to counter punch, and someone with excellent movement can catch you easily with combination punching. I studied Wing CHun, except in a hybrid form (brown belt, trained 4-5 days a week for almost 3 years). We learnt boxing, muai thai and BJJ, excpet we also were told in stand up (because it was bare hand) to keep our guard held out to a degree (more then boxing but not like traditional martial arts). The first time I fought a boxer I got cleaned up, because although it is effective at range, when trying to counter combinations you are blocking your own view of the punches, and it is very easy to hook over the top of your guard.

 

:yep JOHN L takes it ! Just cuz es IRISH !:bbb

 

I absolutely have seen him play. Both of them. And quite a lot. Shaquille far outpaces Wilt as a natural athlete, there's just no comparison. His balance, power, explosiveness -- all superior to that presented by Wilt.

Wilt has a greater statistical portfolio, he was a relative underachiever in the playoffs. Shaquille was a more forceful presence on both ends, and even in a modern weights program, I don't think Wild could match Shaq's power.

You act as though Wilt played in the stone ages. This isn't arguing Sullivan vs. Lewis -- it's two guys who played 30-40 years after each other. Different eras, to be sure (which plays to my point), but not outside the realm of comparison.

 

When I watch Ray Robinson, I also look at the opponents he is fighting and how good they look. My opinion is that he couldn't compete with todays athletes. The strength, the professionalism and the advancements in the technical part of boxing would be too much. It is my opinion, and you are entitled to yours although I disagree. Yes I said boxing was evolving, but the guys you mentioned were the best from their era. Cotto has yet to prove how good he really is so its an unfair comparison. Do I think that Roy Jones is better then Duran and SRL then YES, although his resume suggests otherwise. Anyway, Agree to disagree, it basically comes down to personal opinion. There is no possible way for either of us to prove it otherwise.

 

I wouldn't say better. Better then some but not others. Floyd could beat some of those guys p4p, he just isn't as exciting a fighter. Boxing is becoming more defensively orientated IMO. Roy p4p is better then all of the guys mentioned. Cotto is still untested. With improvements he could become our generations Duran, although he still has a way to go yet. Chad Dawson IMO is destined for greatness. I think he has the skills to one day be considered in the ILK of the fighters mentioned, although once again he is still developing. It was basically a fantastic era in boxing. I have no doubt it will come again, and when it does the fighters will be that bit better then those you put forwards. It takes time though. I think like all cycles, it peaks then falls and peaks stronger again. I think that it peaked in the eighties, and will surely peak again.

 

gotta disagree on the "speed and leap" there lampley everything else is about on point

 

By today's NBA standards, Chamberlain's quickness (I'll admit to being wrong on fullcourt speed, but I misspoke) and leaping ability are just "good". Certainly not great. Certainly not at the Shaq level, particularly considering the difference in bulk.

What Wilt had was a very long, smooth stride. He really could run. He was a one-footed leaper as well (hence the track success), which is flashier in the open court.

However, his reactions and overall explosiveness was never, ever on a par with that of Shaquille, nor of Kevin Garnett. Those guys also boast superior hand/eye coordination, although by Shaq's (and Wilt's) free throw shooting, you wouldn't know it.

Pea, you have yet to acknowledge the Elephant in the Room. During Wilt's day, the NBA was not fully integrated. Just look at some old highlights. Lots and lots of white faces. The NBA has achieved racial balance, now, after many years of evolvement, and Wilt played during the beginning stages of that.

 

In the sports where athletes aren't allowed to use new gadgets to improve their performance? A few off the top of my head:


Deadlift -- "Raw" deadlift record currently at 800 pounds, with steroid testing. 1920's record was 790 (Hermann Goerner)

Highland Games -- Most of these (unlike modern track and field) retained the same equipment since the mid 19th century. Most remain pretty close to older records.

Paul Anderson's squatting -- His squat records, adjusted for equipment, are more or less comparable to the records around today.

George Seward -- 9 1/2 second 100 yard dash from a standing start on dirt without modern shoes. Good times today even without adjustment (and you would need to adjust quite a bit). He did it in 1840.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then there's the fact that the sports you mentioned (and those above) are specialist sports that yield demonstratably superior training routines. Boxing is a subjective sport in which any testing is done against inconsistent opponents, and thus boxers' routines cannot be expected to be remotely as efficient as some of the above. The same is true to some degree of all man vs. man skill sports. Add the dozens of intangibles that cannot be trained in a scientific fashion -- technical skill, pain tolerance, "heart", a fighter's specific style, ring intelligence, reflexes, and many others -- and the physical qualities that you list are secondary. The boxing world is littered with athletic fighters who failed against weaker opponents because they lacked one or more of the above.

It's silly, really, to say that modern fighters run over the "old timers" because a group of track and field guys with highly specialized routines designed to augment a narrow band of abilities can break records under very controlled conditions.

 

If you are saying that a fighters style, technical skill, ring intelligence, reflexes and conditioning can't be trained or benefit from a much better knowledge of both the sport, nutrition and all elements of sports science then you are very badly mistaken. All of these aspects of the fight game can most certainly be trained and enhanced. If you don't think so then I would question your knowledge of boxing and especially your knowledge of training techniques. Of the sports you listed above, I would be VERY SCEPTICAL of the accuracy of these so called achievements. Not only that but there will always be exceptions, the ones you have pointed out are not only dubious but to an extent irrelevant. World records are constantly being broken in a very wide array of sports. To suggest that it is only happening in track and field is ridiculous.

 

:good :deal

 

The game is so much more professional now though. The skills of fighters gone can be passed down, and the next generation of fighters have the opportunity to build on this in their now extensive amatuer careers. You can't seriously believe that Oscar who would have fulltime nutritionalists making his every meal and monitering his diet at all times would be comparable to a journal kept by John Sullivan? If so you are surely deluded. Guys now have the opportunity to pour over tapes, to spend the months between fights analyzing their opponens skills and behaviour, to bring in specific sparring, to train their explosivness using polymetrics, explosive weights training, and have the most educated conditioning coaches money can by, to ensure they are in the best possible shape when they enter the ring. They have full time coaches monitoring and taping their every move in the ring, fixing up their technique and developing them to be the best fighters humanly possible. It is in total honesty not even comparable. I cannot believe how much some of you are severely overating the fighters of old. Watch the tapes FFS. The technical deficiencies is as clear as day.

 

There are no "scientific" ways to train any of these, except possibly basic coordination. Improving muscle-to-muscle coordination as Hatfield did with Holyfield would be possible, but this is limited. There are no super-secret "ring intelligence" exercises developed in a scientifically valid way. Just the skills that fighters have always been taught. If you allege otherwise, please point me to the research.

Also where did I mention conditioning?

Very well--show me valid sports medicine research demonstrating methods of improving ring intelligence, reflexes, etc. that were not used by older trainers. Further, demonstrate that the tests were done with consistency--factoring out the inconsistency of opponents in sparring.

I suspect you're skeptical only because you expect progress in athletics as natural, and did not give any thought to the technique, equipment, and "supplements" improvements through the years.

In most cases--Dinnie's T&F records, Goerner's deadlifts, all Highland Games scores, and even Seward--they were verified as official records.

Deadlifts and squats are two of the most widely practiced exercises in the world, and the hammer throw and stone puts used in the highland games are direct links (technique-wise) to the 19th century's track and field records. Hardly irrelevant.

And again, unlike many of your examples they are adjusted to factor out changes in technique, equipment, and drugs.

I didn't say track and field. I said specialist sports under very controlled conditions requiring a narrow band of abilities. T&F and weightlifting are the two most prominent examples of these, so I used them. You could include swimming if you like.

Which other ones are you referring to? Caber tossing? Baseball-throw-for-distance? Karate powerbreaking? There aren't many major sports that fit the "measurable" criteria.

 

As for the first part of your post it is just flat out wrong. Skill is definitely improved in training. What do you think gys are doing when they work the pads? Do you think they watch videos just for the hell of it? NO. Its to improve their technical knowledge, to gain ring intelligence, and then make it a factor when working the bag, or when hitting the pads. I have seen Kostya Tszyu and heard of other fighters doing specific reflex training. Every part of training is to improve those abilities. Have you ever trained before? Because if so then surely you would realise that most of the technique is learnt in the actual training. Sparring is simply an opportunity to practice the techniques and to hone the skills learnt in training. Your opst is wrong for so many reasons.