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

Fighters had access to film of their opponents as early as the 30's, as Schmeling's demolition of Louis indicates. The plyometrics, explosive weight training, and similar methods improve specific physical aspects of the game, but have little to do with skill, pain tolerance, reflexes, and the other factors I mentioned. And just because it's trainable, it isn't necessarily trainable scientifically--again, unless there are studies to back up the efficacy of certain types of mitwork (for example) on improving reflexes better than other types of mitwork.

Your point about the tapes is salient. By all means, look at them. Frazier and Holmes were (each in their own way) technically superior to the heavyweights of today. Ali's reflexes were on another plane compared to Peter or even Klitschko. And his chin--well, you don't take flush punches from Shavers or Foreman with a bad chin. Lest you complain that these guys don't punch hard because they're old timers, remember what an old Foreman did to modern heavies.

 

Ring intelligence is increased by watching fights, by learning from the technical coaches, from analysing footage and from getting effective sparring. Modern day fighters have FAR better access to all of these things. Are you seriously trying to tell me that older day fighters had access to modern sports science, and everythign that goes with it. The knowledge of the human body, the knowledge of supplements. Its different worlds. Its just common sense. I dead set can't believe that you guys truely think that we haven't progressed in this regard. In regards to your comments on Track and Field, and the events you listed, the more technical skill involved in a sport, the greater the opportunity for it to progress as time goes on. It just gives more opportunities for the athletes to benefit from modern techniques. I don't have links handy for proof, but I don't need them. Go watch training footage of modern fighters. Go read a book on their training techniques. Then do the same thing for the older day fighters and make a direct comparison. See for yourself.

 

Anyway I am going back to work now. I was lead to believe by other posters that you guys were some f the most knowledgable on the site. I am disappointed to say the least. Your opinion just totally defies logic and common sense. I wish that I could somehow match these fighters head to head, to see your faces when the fighers of old were demolished. Unfortunately, as we cannot, it is a stupid arguement. My only hope that people with common sense who read this can see that OBVIOUSLY with all the advancements in modern sport, and the absolute professionlism that we now have in place, and with the greater technical knowledge of the sport that it would surely have evolved. You won't hear any more from me regarding this. You are entitled to your opinion, and i have no clear way to prove you wrong, however I very strongly disagree.

 

I've read books from the 1790's all the way until the modern manuals. I've seen.

All of the training techniques you've listed for training ring intelligence were available to fighters in the 1930's. The supplements and knowledge of the human body you mention immediately afterward don't have anything to do with ring intelligence development. So where is the special scientific improvement in ring intelligence?

As to technique in track and field--we're trying to distinguish here between athleticism (which weight training, plyometrics, "functional" training and their relatives develop) and technique. If you want to make the argument that modern athletes are more athletic, you need to cancel out the technique, which is what I did. So again (to give a for-instance), if Goerner can equal the current nonequipped deadlift record using 1920's training techniques, the idea that modern athletes are stronger becomes more tenuous. It doesn't matter that you don't believe he's SUPPOSED to be able to do that--he did. Similarly, the 19th century track and field guys were as adept with older equipment and techniques as the moderns. They proved it by actually racking up the performances.

 

Sullivan was a hero in his day. Wlad would hurt him big time.

 

You're simply refusing to listen to what we're saying.

When you asked for measurements of athleticism, I provided a few. You refused to believe they were real. When you said that modern technique training is better and more scientifically valid, I was ready to listen and asked for proof. You did not give me any that would demonstrate the "scientific superior training" argument. As for manuals--how many have you seen from before the 80's? I've seen a fair share, and there is not a huge gap between them. You haven't even given analysis of the footage--in your opinion, the clearest demonstration of modern superiority.

If you're going to malign our knowledge without providing facts to support your argument, that's fine. I won't lose much sleep over it. It disappoints me, though...I expected a stimulating debate. Amsterdam, for instance, argued your point far more convincingly.

 

Said I wouldn't come back but here I am. I would love to research the stats, and to provide a more informed arguement with links, however I simply do not have the time. As said above, I am presenting my case on my own experiences, things I have learnt, and most of all common sense. Hypothetical arguements I learned long ago are a waste of time on ESB. It will prove nothing. Regardless, if i had the time I would love to debate the issue. Unfortunately I do not, and can only post on ESB 99% of the time from my work PC. That is why I have nothing further to say on the point. Would love to here what Amsterdam had come up with though in regard to this issue.

 

Does MSTR need assistance from Magnum?:think

I don't really want to engage in this, but I will say one thing that goes along with my material -

Not only would Wlad blow Sullivan out in a matter of 20 seconds or less, but smaller guys around Sullivan's size from the more advanced era's would probably do the same, maybe 40 seconds when dealing with the fact that they don't hit as hard as Wlad and when dealing with that Sullivan was a bad man.

It'd actually be like putting a guy like Couture in with Wlad under boxing rules, just no comparison at all. Sullivan fought in a clinch fighting bonanza style and the style is not the problem, but the lack of technical skill involved with even further era standard boxers.

I can go get Magnum though.

 

I'm confused... Who is Magnum? Well, whoever he is if he has the time and ability to drive this point home then I say go for it.

 

Magnum is legendary.:deal

 

come on! sullivan didn't wasn't the bruce lee of early boxing. he didn't take the skills to another level. he was a tough guy with rudimentary boxing skills. but against someone of the modern era who has the skills and the power he has not the slightest chance. the first right hand wlad throws - he's out. maybe just the jab would do it. he could injure him seriously. or imagine him against tyson, sullivan has never seen such movement and explosiveness. he would probably **** himself.