Why Mayweather would beat anybody of a similar size in history...

atsch......

 

What really gets me about this ****** is the thread title. "Mayweather would beat anybody of similar size in history"

It's quite a bold statement, that is going to take more than a few pictures of tennis players to back up. You are not only comparing him to what you would consider "cavemen" that are so physically inferior to Mayweather in your imagination, but also modern legends.

I'd like to hear the explanation has to how Mayweather is the h2h greatest of all-time amongst fighters "his size", which is in essence what you are saying.

 

What you don't seem to understand here is that these events are not being performed under "controlled" circumstances- the equipment in track and field events like the ones you list above has changed wildly in recent decades and has had an enormous impact on times and marks. I know this from personal experience as a track and field athlete myself.

1. Modern pole vaulting uses wildly different equipment now than it did in 1964. The poles are made of different material with different properties that maximize their effectiveness.
2. Modern athletic track shoes did not come into common use until about the last 30 years, and have been improving continually with advancing design since then. Why don't you buy yourself a set of modern athletic racing-spiked shoes, head out to the track, and compare your time wearing those with your time in regular tennis shoes? Before I ran track, I didn't think it would make all that much of a difference what kind of shoe you wore at all, but after actually getting out there and competing, I can tell you it makes an enormous difference. My 3200 meter time was probably about 10 seconds slower even in regular running shoes than it was in racing shoes. They're MUCH lighter (again, you don't realize how heavy ordinary shoes are and how much drag they create until you try this out) and are specially-designed for superior traction.
3. In swimming, the introduction of modern speedo racing suits has revolutionized the competition, with marked technological improvements leading to greatly-reduced drag and resistance to the water, and have given athletes who wear them such a substantial advantage that there has been serious lobbying to regulate or even ban them.
Here are a couple of articles discussing this topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/sports/othersports/11swim.html
http://www.fluent.com/about/news/newsletters/04v13i1/a1.htm
4. Your soccer example is incredibly silly. Cristiano Ronaldo has bigger biceps and pecs than George Best, and therefore is self-evidently better at a sport in which use of the upper body is illegal?
4. Your tennis example is cherry-picked. Rafael Nadal is certainly a mountain of muscle, while predecessor McEnroe was a bit of a stick, but Nadal is the exception, not the rule. This is the man who was world number one for the last four-and-a-half years:

This content is protected

What a hulking beast, eh?
Admittedly, modern tennis play has improved over that of past generations, but again, it is because old-time players were using tiny wooden rackets that didn't allow them to hit with anywhere near the speed, versatility or control that the modern, carefully-designed ones do.
These are the kind of rackets that Bjorn Borg, likely the greatest player of the 1970s, used:

This content is protected

And these are the rackets that Roger Federer uses:

This content is protected

It's like saying modern gunfighters are inherently superior to those of the 1700s because they have machine guns and the 1700ers had muskets, or that modern race-car drivers are inherently superior to 1940s race-car drivers because their cars are so much faster. This inherent superiority some people believe modern athletes hold over old-time athletes is a misnomer; science has advanced, not human beings. As I have illustrated in part in this post, scientific research and advancement has led to superior equipment and technique in sports you cite, allowing for superior times and marks and the like; the people themselves have not changed.

However, in professional boxing, the equipment and technique used are the same in every essential way as they were in 1940.

 

Techiques of training have improved (specific for any move you have to do). COnditioning has improved. Nutritionist...dietetist...

 

Conditioning? Odd how fighters were going 15, 20, 25, 40 rounds back in the day in comparison to elite fighters like De La Hoya gassing after 9 rounds nowadays. But hey, science has improved in the modern world so we'll just disregard fact and assume it applies to boxing as well.

And training techniques have been the same since the 40's as well. If you think otherwise, give examples or shut the hell up.:good

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

get a life junior.