Your Unshakeable Boxing Opinions

That Most of the kinds of heavyweight champions that came after 1985 could not have existed at all in any other time.

Athletes are simply trained and developed differently now. Bodybuilding is now an accepted dimension to Modern training. Take away PEDs, illegal enhancements and what do we have? Thinner slower, less athletic men.

Fighters like the Klitchkos might not have been viable at all since it took until the steroid era for that type of fighter to become relevant. And it has nothing to do with numbers or people getting bigger all by themselves. American people towered above the rest of the world for decades yet it took until the steroid era for giants to finally take over heavyweight boxing. They had been around all along!

 

I imagine that this level of delusion is a full-time endeavor to maintain.

 

We tend to attract those types on this forum. Is it something in the water?

 

Pierre Benoist's scorecard of 119-110 in Paul Williams vs Sergio Martinez's first fight is the worst in a high profile fight that has ever been produced.

 

Rios-Abril 1 was a far worse decision than Pacquiao-Bradley 1.

 

Watched that one live. Absolutely dreadful cards.

 

I belie

 

Ve Harry Greb WAS a dirty fighter as all the historians said and the two recent bios of him are trying to clean him up for personal reasons.

 

I think boxing in the US is more corrupt today than at any time. Las Vegas fix is in New York same. Either that or all over the US judges & refs are beyond incompetent. I believe bought and sold. Vegas is a snakepit the last 41 years

 

It works both ways dosnt it then. The level of delusion that has you believe that modern athletes are the first on earth to Become dominant champions (with what always used to be too high body mass index for their height) all by themselves without physically enhancing beyond what was previously possible is at the very least as much of a stretch.

The best clue of when illegal enhancements came into practice must be once the healthy height to weight to age requirements fell out of line proportionately to how they had for decades among Championship heavyweights.


For generations speed suffered, stamina suffered and fighters ceased to be effective if a fighters weight was not finely balanced. A fighters age used to come into it. Now older fighters go on and on...even average ones.

But this isn’t a stretch?...

An optimum weight for men of a certain size was kept very similar. It all change dramatically around the time of "modern training".

Among heavyweights, according to modern body mass index charts from 1952 until 1985 every time the lighter champion won he was within a healthy range for his height. From 1959 to 1985 every time the bigger man lost he was over his healthy weight for his height.

Yet after 1985 both winners and losers can be off the chart. Being far heavier than is recommended for height is no longer detrimental at all. It used to be consistently detrimental.

But hey, let’s be delusional about it and embrace “evolution” of the human species...

 

Beautiful Chok ! !

 

Sandy Saddler was better than Willie Pep ... the man SS defeated 3 times.

(Somehow this is a controversial viewpoint.)

 

Dominance has nothing to do with this discussion. One can be dominant in a weaker era and still not compare head to head to a non-dominant but elite modern fighter who is 40 pounds larger, 40 pounds stronger, taller, longer.... I don't quite follow your reasoning here.

More likely, it has to do with abandoning the former, silly superstition against strength training... and strength training brought more bulk.

Is this poorly written or poorly thought out? Don't quite follow every turn here but I will try to respond. Stamina and speed can be greatly mitigated by a bigger, stronger opponents who knows how to use his mass and strength. Of course, the opposite is true, also. However, recent history has born out that the spectrum has bent more toward the former. To put it more simply, it's great if fighter A can out-stamina fighter B. But if fighter B uses his size and stays relaxed he can make fighter A work twice as hard... and in turn be the one who is winning the stamina game. And then there is the factor of power, which does not translate from size in each case, but certainly does so as a trend.

 

That Tyson's fights with Stewart ad Seldon were very obvious dives, which must have been arranged not because he wouldn't have beaten them anyway but because he was on the comeback trail and it was especially important hat he look invincible at those times.

The Seldon dive seems pretty widely acknowledged, but I can't count how many times I've seen someone try to support a point by saying that Tyson blew away Stewart in one round.
No, he didn't.

 

I know what you're saying, Danny Green had a similar incident occur not too long after he beat RJJ, but then Wilder vs Scott also looked fake as anything, but when looked at closely, was a 100% legitimate knockout. It's a bit of a grey area, but you're right, no one's going to go out on a limb and start defending Seldon