WHY MAYWEATHER IS A TOP 10 ALLTIMER ALREADY!!

First topic message reminder :

Unbeaten for over a decade and a wonderful defensive fighter perhaps only with Ray Robinson to touch him in that regard or even Michael Nunn....Ring fighter of the year countless times and winner of over five world titles at different weights I can't think of a modern fighter who can touch this record. Considering Chavez is a near top 10 alltimer and didn't reign as long and also didn't beat three current at the time top 5 p4pers then it goes without saying that this guy belongs in an alltime top 10 list!!

First guy to beat Hatton, Beat DelaHoya at a weight that suited Oscar, Mosley and Marquez convincingly.......It's a record that can only be compared to the best.

So come on guys give Floyd his due. No matter what he's done outside the ring..This guy is a modern genius and deserves respect..

If you allowed Joe Louis 6-9 months off between each fight; combined with detailed pre-fight video footage study of opponents - he would never have to think in the ring again - and we'd have seen a great many more early KOs. He'd have looked "more in shape".

The science of physically training athletes has come on leaps and bounds since the 20s, including the understanding of the basic physiology of exercise.

As such - for a fair modern-v old comparison - you do it on a level playing field.

Take Haye back to Louis' era - Haye doesn't win the title. Gets blasted quickly by Louis. Take Louis forward to Haye's era - and NOT growing up in poverty, he's 2 inches taller, and 10-20 pounds of muscle stronger. He's JUST as technically proficient - and procedes to break Haye down and take him apart.

Either way Louis wins.

I still believe that some of the modern greats - ie Manny and Mayweather are sometimes underrated with respect to their illustrious forbears. That isn't to say that old-timers are overrated.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote: So much so that a boxer he fought was drinking whiskey between rounds (or is that someone else against Jack Johnson). Transport Louis in his peak and put him against Haye then haye wins imo. That is not to say that Haye is a better boxer. He isn't. He just benefits from being more advanced in terms of training etc. Humans have moved on...or more accurately, the science of athletes has moved on enabling humans to utilise their bodies better than ever before. That is the only advantage Haye owns over Louis and that is why haye wins.

It was brandy mixed with orange juice, and it was Gene Tunney.

Louis beat every ex champion between Tunney and himself. Which top notch heavies has Haye beaten ?

Louis hit more correctly, faster and harder than Haye. He also possessed a text book defence.

I'll ask you again : Are Arreola, Maskaev, Valuev, Ibraghimov, Rahman, Peter, or the Klitschkos faster than Tyson, Ali, Frazier, Patterson, Dempsey and Tunney ?

What prime athlete would drink booze between rounds?

Ale etc were faster than todays heavies...no question about that. Tyson although much smaller, destroys Ks. K beats Patterson and Tunney. Areolla should diet. Louis hits more accurately against opponents who were not that skilled in terms of footwork etc. The bum of the month contest and all that.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Boxing is boxing. A man in the twenties, fifties, seventies or the present day still only has two arms, two legs, a brain and a heart at his disposal. The human race has not evolved enough for today's fighters to be significantly superior physical specimens, and boxing specific training hasn't evolved enough to say today's fighters are significantly better trained. Any comparison should be on a level playing field - ie mayweather vs SRR would both have the same training methods available be it 50's or 00's, and either way there's no way mayweather wins. Likewise if you took a modern fighter and put him in an era of a fight a month would he cope? The old guys can't have been that badly trained or conditioned given how active they were compared to today's two fights a year 'super athletes'. And don't tell me all that regular competition doesn't refine your skills more than long periods of inactivity either.

Absolutely. Any comparison should be made on a level playing field. Thats what I meant when I said that in terms of skill and ability, many old timers were better that todays motley crew. But because of the advancements made over the past 100 years, that is the equalizer.

Take Haye back to that era and give him the same training Louis et al got and he would only be a household name in his own household. Bring Louis forward to this era and with his training, diet etc, he would be a ranked fighter at best.

regular fighting refines your skills, but it is proven that the body needs time to recover, especially in a sport like boxing.

What a great article, thanks very much for the link Windy.

Cheers

Rodney

Rodney wrote:Transport Louis in his peak and put him against Haye then haye wins imo. That is not to say that Haye is a better boxer. He isn't. He just benefits from being more advanced in terms of training etc. Humans have moved on...or more accuratel
____________________________________

Oh come off it Azania you surely dont believe this, If Louis era is percieved as weak then whats Haye's ?? Whose not even a lineal champ?

Fitzsimmons was a bigger freak than either Louis or Ali for my money.

Modern training is worse. They spar less, is the main reason. But I don't see any kind of difference between the quality in guys like McLarnin/Dempsey and Pacquiao/Lewis. This is party because, , great fighters are 80% born but it's also because training in 1895 and 2005 had exactly the same goal; to make fighters sharp and have stamina.

I would also be curious to know what and how a modern trainer could do to improve Primo Carnera significantly.

I would suggest that when he won the title from Jack Sharkey, he was about as good as he was ever likley to get.

Cheers Rodders

Bingo. Its the 20% that has inproved almost beyond measure. The goals are the same but the methodology in getting there has changed. If Louis et al had the benefits of today's science etc, they would be almost supermen. Add to that their grit, determination and will to win. Boxers of yesteryear fought for a living and to escape poverty. The relationship between boxing and socio-economics is very telling. It adds determination. Now with wall to wall tv, welfare etc, boxers are comfortable. They will still survive regardless. Not back then. It was sink or swim. That is a great factor in galvanising your thoughts.

rowley wrote:And don't tell me all that regular competition doesn't refine your skills more than long periods of inactivity either.
___________________________________________________________

SBS that is a large part of the argument for me mate. It stands to reason a guy will be a better fighter after 50 fights than 20 because he will have enountered more, different styles, crisises, cuts, knock downs, dirty fighters etc etc.

Now if a guy can have accumulated that experience by his mid 20s when he still has his youth, mobility and powers of recovery and recuperation old age cruelly robs us of surely he is better equipped than if he is 40 by the time he has this experience. Struggle to see how this is hard to grasp or can be argued against.

In today's game he would probably be punch drunk and headbutting walls.

In today's game he would probably be punch drunk and headbutting walls.
__________________________________________________________

Hopkins isn't but he is still able to be competitive at 46 year old. He is able to do this because he has experience, he knows how to buy himself a rest in fights, how to frustrate opponents and how to nick rounds. He has learned these things through being in the ring. My question is how good would be if he had this experience at 25 year old or 30 year old rather than 46. Fighters back in the 30s 40s and 50s did have this experience at 25 to 30 year old.

Genuine question do you think the Hopkins of the last few years is a better or worse fighter than the one how lost to Roy Jones and if you think he is better as most do, why do you think this is the case.

If Louis et al had the benefits of today's science etc, they would be almost supermen.
_________________________________________________

No probs Azania.

But how does Joe Louis improve ?? He cant punch more precise, you cant make him punch any harder or faster !

I believe my eyes. If training is so much better, why is boxing not so much better? The bottom line speaks loudest. Boxing doesn't look all that different to me, just a lot less of it

azania wrote:What prime athlete would drink booze between rounds?

Ale etc were faster than todays heavies...no question about that. Tyson although much smaller, destroys Ks. K beats Patterson and Tunney. Areolla should diet. Louis hits more accurately against opponents who were not that skilled in terms of footwork etc. The bum of the month contest and all that.

The brandy was for medicinal purposes.

As to Louis' ' bum of the month club. ' Sure, there were some poor fighters in among those whom he fought, just as there are on the Klitschkos' resumés. However, Sharkey, Max Baer, John Henry Lewis, Schmeling, Conn, Pastor, Buddy Baer and Walcott were all excellent fighters and all except Pastor are HOFers. Even Jimmy Braddock was enjoying a purple streak when Louis beat him, and Carnera, though limited in skills, was a huge and immensely strong man with a very decent jab - a forerunner of Wlad Klitschko in many ways. NOT ONE of them could be described as slow and plodding - no, not even Carnera who, though a bit clumsy, was surprisingly quick on his feet. Haye hasn't fought anybody in the heavyweight division with such good credentials as these guys. Ruiz MIGHT match Carnera, but that's as close as it gets.

Anyway, a brief synopsis of the thread thus far would reveal that you agree that the old timers were just as skilled as the moderns, that they hit just as hard, and that many of today's heavies are slower than the heavies of yesterday.

Sounds as though you agree with those of us who feel that the old timers were just as good as the moderns.

Rodney wrote:What a great article, thanks very much for the link Windy.

Cheers

Rodney

You're very welcome, Rodders.

You probably noticed that part two, along with some other excellent stuff, can be found at the same site.

Rodders

From the same site you may enjoy this one which articulates the argument many of us making on here pretty well. Also am not sure if you have read it but Mike Silver's Arc of Boxing is well worth reading, is a pretty expensive book but deals with this whole issue in almost forensic detail and for those of us who hold the view the sport has largely regressed this is pretty much our bible.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html

I'd have Haye/Louis pickem......I'd pick Haye to beat most apart from Lewis, Holy, Tyson, Foreman and Ali......

Simple fact Haye is bigger than Lewis, just as quick and has alot of power.....

Fact is a guy who gets dropped off Galento, Schmelling and wobbled against others is susceptible to a smashing Haye right and if it lands he probably doesn't get up........

Living on Cloud 9 guys who think Louis finds Haye easy....

Apart from maybe Walcott who did Louis beat in the same league..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'd have Haye/Louis pickem......I'd pick Haye to beat most apart from Lewis, Holy, Tyson, Foreman and Ali......

Simple fact Haye is bigger than Lewis, just as quick and has alot of power.....

Fact is a guy who gets dropped off Galento, Schmelling and wobbled against others is susceptible to a smashing Haye right and if it lands he probably doesn't get up........

Living on Cloud 9 guys who think Louis finds Haye easy....

Apart from maybe Walcott who did Louis beat in the same league..

Can't see Louis being beaten by Carl Thompson, wobbled by Mormeck, or periodically being outjabbed by Ruiz.

Galento, clumsy though he was, had one of the best left hooks in history, right up there with Frazier's. Schmeling's straight right hand was regarded, in his day, as a weapon to rival Max Baer's right hand.

Haye is an inch taller than Louis, but Joe is bigger in the tale of the tape than Haye was before bulking up. Louis, also, transferred his weight into his punches MUCH more efficiently than Haye, who often punches when he's off balance. Louis was also more accurate, and had a better orthodox defence.

Nobody claimed Louis ' has it easy ' with Haye. Anybody who thinks somebody claimed that is living on cloud 9.

Who has Haye beaten in Louis' class ? For that matter, who has Haye beaten to match HOFers Sharkey, the Baer brothers, Schmeling, Conn, Pastor or Walcott ?

Trussman, I know you don't like Louis or that people rate him so highly, but to say that the only fighter comparable to Haye that Louis beat was Walcott is an absolute joke, and you know it as well. What has Haye done to mark himself out as a better Heavyweight then Schmeling, Carnera, Baer or Braddock? Absolutely nothing.

Any difference in size between Louis and Haye is negligeble anyway. Haye may be a touch taller, but many of his other measurements are smaller than several past Heavyweight champions. Besides, if Louis can beat the 6'3" 215 lb Max Baer, a 6'7" 240 lb Buddy Baer and the 6'5" 260 lb Carnera, I doubt the 6'3" and 215 lb Haye is going to scare him too much.

You love talking about Louis getting decked (but the getting up to win) against the likes of Galento or Braddock, or being knocked out by Schmeling. But I think it's fair to say that at Heavyweight, those men would hit considerably harder than Carl Thompson or Jean Marc Mormeck.

As Louis was a slow starter, there is a slight chance that Haye could take him out early. But that aside, Louis beats Haye probably eight times out of ten, and I actually can't believe that so many people are claiming that Haye, who has eeked past a poor belt holder in Valuev and then knocked out two thirty-nine year olds (one game but limited, the other totally hopeless), would have anything more than a relatively small chance against Louis. It's just madness.

who has Haye beaten to match HOFers Sharkey, the Baer brothers, Schmeling, Conn, Pastor or Walcott
____________________________________________________________

Think you're doing Audley something of a disservice Windy

rowley wrote:who has Haye beaten to match HOFers Sharkey, the Baer brothers, Schmeling, Conn, Pastor or Walcott
____________________________________________________________

Think you're doing Audley something of a disservice Windy

Well with modern training ( do we know yet, what that is ? ) and nutrition Audley would probably topple Ali, jeff.

Of course, our Truss reckons Johnson outpoints Louis, also. Now that is certainly possible, and much more likely than Haye beating Louis, but I'd love Truss to explain how that fits in with a ' modern must be better ' argument.

Rodney wrote:If Louis et al had the benefits of today's science etc, they would be almost supermen.
_________________________________________________

No probs Azania.

But how does Joe Louis improve ?? He cant punch more precise, you cant make him punch any harder or faster !

I believe my eyes. If training is so much better, why is boxing not so much better? The bottom line speaks loudest. Boxing doesn't look all that different to me, just a lot less of it

Ali is considered the fastest heavy both in terms of ring footspeed and punching. Louis was no slouch also. Neither is Haye. The speed differential is in milliseconds. That makes a huge difference between a punch landing or grazing the whiskers. Modern training increases speed. Do the maths please.

rowley wrote:In today's game he would probably be punch drunk and headbutting walls.
__________________________________________________________

Hopkins isn't but he is still able to be competitive at 46 year old. He is able to do this because he has experience, he knows how to buy himself a rest in fights, how to frustrate opponents and how to nick rounds. He has learned these things through being in the ring. My question is how good would be if he had this experience at 25 year old or 30 year old rather than 46. Fighters back in the 30s 40s and 50s did have this experience at 25 to 30 year old.

Genuine question do you think the Hopkins of the last few years is a better or worse fighter than the one how lost to Roy Jones and if you think he is better as most do, why do you think this is the case.

They refer to Hopkins as a throwback. Throwback to what? You didn't see boxers in that era fighting at Hopkins' age and being competitive. Hopkins one can argue is a prime benficiary of modern techniqies in terms of diet and keeping in shape, looking after your body etc. Also he doesn't fight more than 3 times a year. Now imagine Hop fighting once a month. he would have been finished at 33. How would he be able to look after is body? SRR was never the same boxer at 33. Tiger Jones easily beat him (as seen last night). Yet Hop of 46 would have imo beat SRR at 33.

Pac is 32, PBF is 33. These guys are improving or in their prime. Why? By not fighting on a monthy basis and looking after what goes inside their bodies (that mayhave a different meaning for PBF if he gets send down though ).

Fact is both haye and Louis are susceptible to shots..Louis never took a rap like Haye's and probably vice versa...What we do know is that little men like Schmelling had the capacity to hurt Joe so the bigger punching Haye if he lands could take him out.

Louis legend is based on his longevity a bit like Calzaghe. Had Calzaghe been around then and lasted the same time no doubt he'd be better thought of...

Don't agree Ali was the quickest heavy of alltime..The best yes but anyone who saw Tubbs in the amateurs like I did could never agree with that..

Hands like a blur..shame he couldn't be bothered to get in shape..

Azania, saying that modern training inreases speed (in terms of punching) is purely speculation. There is nothing that proves this.

Also, you're saying that modern fighters punch faster due to 'modern training', but then say that Ali is the fastest Heavyweight puncher of all time. How can this be? Using your logic, shouldn't today's crop of Heavyweights (or at the very least, some of them) be punching faster than him?

azania wrote:Ali is considered the fastest heavy both in terms of ring footspeed and punching. Louis was no slouch also. Neither is Haye. The speed differential is in milliseconds. That makes a huge difference between a punch landing or grazing the whiskers. Modern training increases speed. Do the maths please.

Easier math to do is to count the number of punches thrown in three minutes, how many land, and how many do appreciable damage.

I have total and absolute confidence that Louis beats Haye hands down in these departments.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:What prime athlete would drink booze between rounds?

Ale etc were faster than todays heavies...no question about that. Tyson although much smaller, destroys Ks. K beats Patterson and Tunney. Areolla should diet. Louis hits more accurately against opponents who were not that skilled in terms of footwork etc. The bum of the month contest and all that.

The brandy was for medicinal purposes.

As to Louis' ' bum of the month club. ' Sure, there were some poor fighters in among those whom he fought, just as there are on the Klitschkos' resumés. However, Sharkey, Max Baer, John Henry Lewis, Schmeling, Conn, Pastor, Buddy Baer and Walcott were all excellent fighters and all except Pastor are HOFers. Even Jimmy Braddock was enjoying a purple streak when Louis beat him, and Carnera, though limited in skills, was a huge and immensely strong man with a very decent jab - a forerunner of Wlad Klitschko in many ways. NOT ONE of them could be described as slow and plodding - no, not even Carnera who, though a bit clumsy, was surprisingly quick on his feet. Haye hasn't fought anybody in the heavyweight division with such good credentials as these guys. Ruiz MIGHT match Carnera, but that's as close as it gets.

Anyway, a brief synopsis of the thread thus far would reveal that you agree that the old timers were just as skilled as the moderns, that they hit just as hard, and that many of today's heavies are slower than the heavies of yesterday.

Sounds as though you agree with those of us who feel that the old timers were just as good as the moderns.

Maybe thats what I should tell my wife when knocking back gallins of jack Daniel. The old timers were just as talented, if not more so, as today's fighters. They didn't benefit from today's sciences. That is the diference maker.

You didn't see boxers in that era fighting at Hopkins' age and being competitive
_________________________________________________________

Archie Moore would argue otherwise. Whilst I don't doubt Hopkins adherance to a strict diet and training regime helps his longevity does not really help him slip a jab or neutralise an overhand right does it, this is done by his experience in the ring.

My original point was how good would a fighter be if he had this accumulated knowledge in his 20s rather than his 40s because I don't care what unspecified nutritional wonders or training techniques are out there today human beings are fitter at 25 or 30 than they are at 45.

Still would pose you the question is the Hopkins who lost to Jones a better or worse fighter than the fighter of the last few years and if so why?

Look the simple fact is Louis is lauded because of his longevity . I'm sure Calzaghe would be more highly thought of if he fought back then...

Ali beat plenty of Louis types..........Me i'd pick Foreman to blow Louis away as if the Chuvalo's and Schmelling's can dent his chin then Foreman only needs to land once and considering George had a great chin he'd have plenty of time to find it...

Haye would have plenty of chance against Joe if we are honest........

As for Ali being the quickest heavy ever...Can't agree as anybody who saw Tubbs as an amateur was staggered at the speed of the guy...Pity he couldn't be bothered to train harder.....

Welterweight hand speed

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Ali is considered the fastest heavy both in terms of ring footspeed and punching. Louis was no slouch also. Neither is Haye. The speed differential is in milliseconds. That makes a huge difference between a punch landing or grazing the whiskers. Modern training increases speed. Do the maths please.

Easier math to do is to count the number of punches thrown in three minutes, how many land, and how many do appreciable damage.

I have total and absolute confidence that Louis beats Haye hands down in these departments.

When an opponent is begging to be hit and telegraphing wide looping hooks, its easier to counter and hence throw more punches. Can you imagine a LHW giving Haye, lewis, K Bros a run for his money or be ahead on points against any of them?

Chuvalo..................Galento should read!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis legend is based on his longevity a bit like Calzaghe.

Pretty patronizing, Truss.

Are you suggesting that only you have an informed opinion ? I'd wager that, since I have a passion for the history of the sport and you don't, I've spent many more hours than you have in studying film of the great fighters of yesteryear. Why, then, would your opinion be authoritative and mine purely derived from a legend based on Louis' longevity ?

You wish to debate Louis' boxing technique and the technique of his opponents ? If so, I can go with you all day, if necessary, and I'm happy to do so without dismissing your opinions in a patronizing manner.

Perhaps you'd return the courtesy.

Can you imagine a LHW giving Haye, lewis, K Bros a run for his money or be ahead on points against any of them?

_____________________________

Could you see Louis, losing to your Sanders, Brewster's, Purity's of the world ??

You think training with weights makes fighters "more explosive"? It made Roy Jones less so.

Archie Moore would argue otherwise. Whilst I don't doubt Hopkins adherance to a strict diet and training regime helps his longevity does not really help him slip a jab or neutralise an overhand right does it, this is done by his experience in the ring.

My original point was how good would a fighter be if he had this accumulated knowledge in his 20s rather than his 40s because I don't care what unspecified nutritional wonders or training techniques are out there today human beings are fitter at 25 or 30 than they are at 45.

Still would pose you the question is the Hopkins who lost to Jones a better or worse fighter than the fighter of the last few years and if so why?

Experience in the ring and training/sparing. How many fights has Hop had? He was slipping jabs etc after 25 fights. His style of boxing lends itself to longevity as he is very economical and wastes little. Plus his ring savvy gained thru experience and ring intelligence has helped him compensate for loss of youth speed. He adapted his style. His physical fitness contributed to that fact.

If Hop had the same number of fights crammed into a shorter space we would have been looking at another Widfredo Benitez imo.

Rodney wrote: Can you imagine a LHW giving Haye, lewis, K Bros a run for his money or be ahead on points against any of them?

_____________________________

Could you see Louis, losing to your Sanders, Brewster's, Purity's of the world ??

You think training with weights makes fighters "more explosive"? It made Roy Jones less so.

Actually yes. Louis was decked by lesser fighters that the above. RJJ declined due to his age and inability to adabt his style. His style of boxing could not be changed as it relied mainly on reflexes and less on conventional defence. Nothing to do with weights.

Who is bringing Sanders, Brewsters etc into it??????

I couldn't see Gans beating whittaker, Camacho or Chavez but so what???

If someone is rudey poo they are rudey poo and they'll lose to anyone with talent..

Just saying that two guys with the same talent base..The one with the better diet and training regimen most likely wins......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Look the simple fact is Louis is lauded because of his longevity . I'm sure Calzaghe would be more highly thought of if he fought back then...

Ali beat plenty of Louis types..........Me i'd pick Foreman to blow Louis away as if the Chuvalo's and Schmelling's can dent his chin then Foreman only needs to land once and considering George had a great chin he'd have plenty of time to find it...

Haye would have plenty of chance against Joe if we are honest........

As for Ali being the quickest heavy ever...Can't agree as anybody who saw Tubbs as an amateur was staggered at the speed of the guy...Pity he couldn't be bothered to train harder.....

Welterweight hand speed

Ali always said that his biggest asset was his foot speed. Tubby was extremely fast as his fight with Page demonstrated (Page - first class amateur but believed his hype) but lacking the footspeed and dedication to be the great he should have been.

azania wrote: When an opponent is begging to be hit and telegraphing wide looping hooks, its easier to counter and hence throw more punches. Can you imagine a LHW giving Haye, lewis, K Bros a run for his money or be ahead on points against any of them?

You clearly haven't seen many of Louis' fights or you wouldn't still be banging that particular drum.

Science works like this :

We take a hypothesis and we test it against known facts. We do not bend the facts to accommodate the hypothesis. If you believe that Louis' opponents were slow, plodding and unskilled, then, with respect, you either haven't seen enough of them or do not fully appreciate boxing ability.

' Plodding and telegraphing ' are adjectives which would better suit today's heavyweights.

As to ' a LHW ' giving Haye, Lewis and the K bros a run for their money, I'd say that Holyfield, a converted cruiser, didn't do too shabbily against Lewis in the second fight or against Bowe. Michael Spinks also did alright against Larry Holmes, too. Oh, and 46 years old Holy pushed Valuev all the way and Haye beat him. If you knew anything about Billy Conn you would know that he fought several times at heavyweight, and you would also know that Louis agreed to come in to the fight at 190lb. so that it would appear to be a better fight for the box office.

How about your man Mayweather going up through the weights. Have his opponents been poor ?

These are facts:

1) Humans are unchanged genetically since the 1900's.
2) Participation in boxing is down.
3) Boxers fight less often and face quality opposition less.

These are suppositions:

1) Modern training is better
2) Modern nutrition is better

Given the sorry state of large proportion of the Western world and our current heavyweight division, I am very sceptical about nutrition. Seems very faddy to me and it is certainly not rigorous science.

As for training - personally I can't see any difference in boxers from the 30's onwards in terms of technique and Dempsey looks very convincing on tape. The combination he used to floor Tunney in the second fight is picture perfect.

Boxing is getting worse and will continue to get worse. Mayweather is an ATG, but is a victim of his times insofar as he'll never reach the top 10, because he has fought enough and hasn't fought enough quality.

These are facts:

1) Humans are unchanged genetically since the 1900's.
2) Participation in boxing is down.
3) Boxers fight less often and face quality opposition less.

These are suppositions:

1) Modern training is better
2) Modern nutrition is better
______________________________________________________

Bamber, brilliant work mate, have summed up the whole argument in the space of about five lines

There are less fighters because with welfare programs and more healthcare around the World there isn't a life and death need to lace on the gloves.....Goes without saying!!!

Modern nutrition is better because scientific breakthrough has meant that products have been designed to promote testosterone and to get rid of estrogen from the body..promoting more speed and muscle.....

Illogical to pretend otherwise............Creatine, pregnandrost, tauro test are products that work big style..

Bamber, good to see that you're a member here.

I feel as you do about modern nutrition, but until I've done some research into it I'm unwilling to commit myself to a head on debate about it.

I certainly share your skepticism, though.

Illogical to pretend otherwise............Creatine, pregnandrost, tauro test are products that work big style.
___________________________________________________

What's the point of all this fast-twitch muscle fiber growth and andro supplements and EPO and isometric ball drills if the skillset from sparring and consistent fights aren't there?

Great post Bamber, happy you're a member, hope you're well

All the best

Rodders

Right, I'll try to be as succint and to the point as possible before getting as far away as I can from 606v2, as this thread is sapping my will to live.

Modern boxers are not in general more technically sound or refined than yesteryear's. For every Mayweather, we still have a Margarito and Froch, just as there was a Benny Bass and Mickey Walker for every slickster such as Gene Tunney or Benny Leonard back in the twenties. Each era has it's share of technicians and brawlers, and today is no different.

Likewise, the same goes for this strange idea that boxing is always fought at a faster pace now. The Klitschkos, categorically, do not fight at a faster pace than Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis. Likewise, there are not many past greats who Mayweather boxes at a faster pace than. As with the above, neither the modern nor old generations can claim to be on top in that department. Some fighters of today fight at a higher pace than ones of older times, but there are just as many cases were the exact opposite is true, too.

I'm hearing about modern nutrition, creotine and so on. If these factors lead to fat, out of shape, unconditioned and plodding Heavyweight 'champions' such as Peter, Chagaev, Valuev, Ibragimov, Arreola, Chambers and Tyson Fury then I'd rather be without them, thanks.

Nobody, as of yet, has actually explained what they mean by 'modern training methods.' I think though, that whatever these methods apparently are, they would not help with the mental aspect of boxing (just as vital as the physical side). Moreover, comparisons with the progression of track and field records are pointless. To deny that there are far more intracacies and vagaries in boxing than there is in those sports is lunacy, as there is nothing that an opponent can do in track and field to effect another competitor. And even more crucially, boxing is not, never has been and never will be a sport which is measured against a clock or by distance.

Azania, while being courteous and polite (which is welcome, of course) has contradicted himself a few times. Claiming that modern fighters punch faster by virtue of better training, but then claiming that Ali is the fastest Heavyweight puncher of all time, simply does not fit with his own argument. Neither does his claim that only in this day and age and thanks to modern training and nutrition can a fighter still perform well in his forties like Hopkins, as Archie Moore and Bob Fitzsimmons remained excellent world champions in to their forties. Not a personal attack on Azania, but at the end of the day we are having a boxing debate, and there are some holes in his theory.

That's it from me, I'm off. Good luck to the rest of you fighting it out.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Illogical to pretend otherwise............Creatine, pregnandrost, tauro test are products that work big style..

Equally illogical to pre suppose that the raw material is of a constant standard.

Higher rates of obesity in the western world than ever before, coupled with a generation of kids playing Nintendo and blogging instead of being outdoors ; competition from other sports which now offer similar financial reward to boxing ; higher incidences of drug use among young people ; filthy air, etc., etc., all create, at the very least, a case that those youngsters who make their way into boxing are not as fit at core level as would be ideal.

Nonsensical and disrespectful to write off great fighters on such flimsy hypotheses.

Leonard was fast enough against Hagler wasn't he?????

Skill set is greater now than it's ever been..

Are you going to keep changing the argument or what?????

Taken as read people still spar!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only a fool doesn't see that Boxing is a much higher standard now and that nutrition has improved..

Tour de france is done quicker, 10,000, 100m etc...

Is that because people are eating more sprouts.....?

Also don't forget that these days alot of the old substances are banned. How many times did illegals get cracked under a nose in the corner to wake fighters up..

Remember Mcguigan-Pedroza...

My guess is you could cheat more in the old days without TV..

Something to bear in mind

Thanks HumanWindmill and Jeff - more reader than contributor these days, but this old chestnut is hard to resist

Nutrition advice changes like the weather. Hi carbs, low protein, high fat - you name it we've heard it. I've just denied my young son food until 6 months old as per nutrition advice - even though he was trying to rob food off me - he hits 6 months and we're told the advice has changed and we might have hurt his development. My eldest boy was fed from 4 months as that was the advice when he was a baby.

They literally flip flop on this very basic issue and we are supposed to believe diet can be tailored to improve a boxer's skill set ?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Only a fool doesn't see that Boxing is a much higher standard now and that nutrition has improved..

Any need to be so damned rude and ignorantly dismissive of the views of others ?

Windy is in a strop...........I'm not being dismissive just reactive. Maybe I over stepped the line.

Look I've bodybuilded for twenty years the stuff i take now legal I might ad has given me a better physique than I've ever had!!

bodybuilding has advanced, footballers are fitter, cricketers, American footballers...........

So Boxing is the only Sport that hasn't?????


Don't be so sensitive..........Unbecoming.

Skill set is greater now than it's ever been..#
__________________________________

So Ali would get crushed nowadays then??

You can't come out with comments like that, but retract them for your pet fighter.

I can remember you being much more polite Truss, wheres the chip come from ??

Rodders

Oscar likes to make big fights happen.....................too.

fearlessBamber wrote:Thanks HumanWindmill and Jeff - more reader than contributor these days, but this old chestnut is hard to resist

Nutrition advice changes like the weather. Hi carbs, low protein, high fat - you name it we've heard it. I've just denied my young son food until 6 months old as per nutrition advice - even though he was trying to rob food off me - he hits 6 months and we're told the advice has changed and we might have hurt his development. My eldest boy was fed from 4 months as that was the advice when he was a baby.

They literally flip flop on this very basic issue and we are supposed to believe diet can be tailored to improve a boxer's skill set ?

eggs are also bad for you....wait a minute, they are now okay again!

People do change their minds about the right and wrong way to do things. I think the question is nothing to do with nutrition in this instance though. The question I ask is:

Were past athletes fit and able to go the distance - yes
Are current boxers - yes

It comes down to skill and the quality of the opponents of your era.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Windy is in a strop...........I'm not being dismissive just reactive. Maybe I over stepped the line.

Look I've bodybuilded for twenty years the stuff i take now legal I might ad has given me a better physique than I've ever had!!

bodybuilding has advanced, footballers are fitter, cricketers, American footballers...........

So Boxing is the only Sport that hasn't?????


Don't be so sensitive..........Unbecoming.

It becomes you less to be ignorant.

I'm not in a strop, but rather I object to somebody whose boxing acumen prior to the eighties has been proven to be limited referring to others as ' fools ' because they hold a different view.

YOUR view is the minority one among historians and fight insiders, most of whom know that if boxing were solely based on fitness then Ken Norton would never have lost to Larry Holmes, your man Galento would never have even been in the same ring as Louis, and Holyfield would have been annihilated by Valuev.

Frank Bruno had a great physique, and Witherspoon looked like the Michelin Man. Who won ?

I regard Ali as a modern fighter..............Modern era is anything from the sixties onwards.....Sixties was the start of the modern era....

Bodybuilders like Larry Scott and Arnold found new products that worked etc.....

So your argument is redundant..