Past is always better?

Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

Suppose it happens in all sports to a degree but it is serious in boxing.

Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50..
AdamT


Posts: 798
Join date: 2014-03-27





.

Decreased participation, fighters fighting less frequently, overly cautious match making.

That would be a very brief summation of why I believe the general quality of boxing is in decline. If time allows I can and will expand on each point.

AdamT wrote:Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

Suppose it happens in all sports to a degree but it is serious in boxing.

Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50..
AdamT


Posts: 798
Join date: 2014-03-27



 

.

Ian Rush is better than Rickie Lambert

DAVE667 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

Suppose it happens in all sports to a degree but it is serious in boxing.

Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50..
AdamT


Posts: 798
Join date: 2014-03-27



 

.

Ian Rush is better than Rickie Lambert

He still is

Doesn't detract from the fact.... Mayweather, Manny, Oscar types excel in any era....

Fitzsimmons is Top 10 in many lists Adam...Look on youtube to see how limited he was...

Grandpa thought Pender would beat Hagler .. Fleischer thought Dempsey battered Ali all day every day!!

Life and 606 are full of people who don't want to let go.....

AdamT wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

Suppose it happens in all sports to a degree but it is serious in boxing.

Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50..
AdamT


Posts: 798
Join date: 2014-03-27



 

.

Ian Rush is better than Rickie Lambert

He still is

I know, I keep hope he marches up to the dugout, grabs a shirt a screams, "Give it here, I'll show you how it's f*cking done, you c*nt!"


Or something similar

If he did Rogers would say...

"Couldn't ask for anymore from the players"........Like he does every two minutes !!

Given what he has to work with...he's technically correct. He can't ask for more from them as they don't have it.

Because boxing is getting progressively worse?

The skill level isn't...........

Every decade throws up some all time greats. Before it was more. Today there are only 2 who will challenge for a Top 30 ATG spot.

Strongback wrote: Today there are only 2 who will challenge for a Top 30 ATG spot.

Go away....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The skill level isn't...........

Is that why when Floyd stands still he gets his head punched off.  Then there are fighters like Duran who could slip and parry punches when standing in range and at close quarters.  Those skills don't exist anymore.  The fighters don't fight regularly enough to develop them.

These kind of debates seldom end well because, from my experience, too many people give in to the temptation of taking 'sides' and end up going to unnecessary extremes. For instance, Adam, do you really think anyone on here wouldn't put Mayweather in their top fifty, mate? Can't see that myself, even the likes of Strongy, Haz and Catchweight who are far from awed by him.

As Rowley's touched upon, often the argument isn't so much that all fighters from back in the day are better than the ones we have now - it's more that boxing as a whole was in better shape back then than it is now. There have always been protected / cautious fighters, or fights that the fans would have liked to see which never came to pass, but I think it's fair to say we've seen an upturn in those things in the past couple of decades or so.

There's fewer registered professionals now than there has been in past eras, yet we've got a whopping seventeen weight classes (you can't deny that this contributes to talent being more thinly-spread across certain divisions) with four (or five if the Ring champion doesn't hold another sanctioned belt) world titles in each, as well as a 'cold war' between promoters / tv networks which mean that fighters can avoid the wrath of fans when it comes to not facing certain opponents. With all that in mind I think it's fair to argue that, in certain cases, hyped fighters of recent years might have been dealt a bit more of a favourable hand in terms of how easy it's been for them to look sensational than fighters of yesteryear had.

That said, you'd have to be pretty daft / stubborn to ignore that there are always going to be advances in nutrition, training, sports science etc. That's not even going in to the murky issue of, erm, 'supplements' which we know is a problem (or to some, just an unavoidable and necessary evil) in the sport. If someone is going to argue that, in the majority of cases (not all, but the majority) the title holders these days are physically stronger, better-conditioned and more finely-tuned athletically than their past era counterparts, I wouldn't object to that or query it at all.

But someone made a great point on here a little while ago that there are too many fighters (supposedly world-class ones) around now who just look like "athletes who throw punches", rather than really skilled boxers. While fitness, physiques and conditioning may well be generally (again, I'll stress the generally bit) better now, I think there's a fair argument to be made that the subtle skills and techniques which make someone a really top class 'boxer' have died out or at least are seen less frequently. Big-time trainers who are still relevant now such as Brother Naz and Freddie Roach (who both learned the ropes from old-school trainers in Bouie Fisher and Eddie Futch) have made that point, too.

Nathan Cleverly, Tavoris Cloud and Jean Pascal have all held Light-Heavy titles in recent years (Pascal was even the man who beat the man for a while). They all might be physically fitter than Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, have a more impressive physique than him with a lower body fat percentage and be able to do more in the gym, but don't try and tell me with a straight face that in any of their fights you see the same level of cunning, skill and textbook, effective manouvres as you do when you watch Eddie.

My point in that respect is that it's often seen almost as a mark of delusion when someone argues that a fighter from a few decades ago could beat one of the top guys now, with or without all this superior training, nutrition etc - but it shouldn't be. Likewise, it applies the other way - there are some people of a slightly snobbish disposition who act as if picking a modern fighter over an old-timer is basically an admission of having no knowledge of the sport, which is just as bad. As long as neither pick is made on the premise of a) all fighters automatically being better due to 'evolution' and training methods now, or b) all old-time fighters being automatically better than these big jessies prancing about today because they were real men then who came to win, then what's the problem?

Within reason, of course. You can't put Bob Fitzsimmons in with Andre Ward, Joe Gans in with Terence Crawford or Nonpareil Jack Dempsey in with Gennady Golovkin and expect them to have any chance outside of a puncher's one, in my opinion (it only takes one punch, sometimes, and now then a freak one lands). Nothing to do with human evolution (we've been around for 2-3 million years, people!), being bigger and stronger etc in those cases, more to do with the fact that the aforementioned guys fought in an era where gloved, Queensberry-era boxing was still developing and finding its feet.

Have said before that, for me, Gene Tunney is the real pioneer of stylistic boxing and I think he was just about the first great fighter who I'd look at and think, yep, they've got the skill set and the more refined style which was gradually shed after the London Prize Ring Rules era ended to compete in any era, regardless of training methods.

If you take guys who followed just after Gene, such as Barney Ross, Young Corbett III, Louis (!) and compare them to the ones who came just before him, I think you'll note a marked difference in the general, overall quality of technique, stance etc. As such, I genuinely believe that, as long as it's a pick made for the right reasons, someone giving the nod to a fighter any time from Tunney's era onwards over a modern guy is fair enough and possible. And as countless others have said, nutrition, weights and sports science can't help you judge distance, take a punch any better, make you braver / gutsier, make you any more likely to stay cool under pressure etc.

There's great fighters in every era, and I'll repeat, I think a lot of this apparent constant favouring of old timers is more accurately a belief that the state of the sport overall was healthier in past eras, rather than people looking to degrade boxers of today for the sake of trying to appear knowledgeable. Besides, the idea that it's easier to make a better, more accurate judgement of someone's career and achievements once they've been gone for a while is a sensible enough one, I think.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The skill level isn't...........

Is that why when Floyd stands still he gets his head punched off.  Then there are fighters like Duran who could slip and parry punches when standing in range and at close quarters.  Those skills don't exist anymore.  The fighters don't fight regularly enough to develop them.

Yep the Hearns fight showed Duran's slipping ability...

Look.....I'm not arguing with an idiot..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The skill level isn't...........

Is that why when Floyd stands still he gets his head punched off.  Then there are fighters like Duran who could slip and parry punches when standing in range and at close quarters.  Those skills don't exist anymore.  The fighters don't fight regularly enough to develop them.

Yep the Hearns fight showed Duran's slipping ability...

Look.....I'm not arguing with an idiot..

A step too far for Duran a natural lightweight as you well know.

Tommy met his match in Haglar and Barkley. That punch Barkley hits Hearns with as he is going down is wicked.

Do us all a favor Strongy...instead of spouting pointless rubbish like "Top 30 this and that"...

Write down the 30 fighters that are higher than Manny and May...........

So we can all laugh at you..

I think the old days might have been better for the fans. For example, Muhammad Ali, the biggest name in boxing managed to defend his title four times in 1975, and then four more times in 1976. How many top fighters fight that often these days? Even attention starved champions like Chad Dawson only fought twice a year. The much maligned Joe Louis was even more active than Ali, I think he made seven defences in one year. Top fighters just are not active enough these days.

More strength in depth in boxing as a whole is why people rightfully think that.

How many "ATG" fighters (I'm talking top 50) have squared off in the last 20 years? I'll answer - out of the top 50 ATGs about 2% I'd say off the very top of my head... and most of them have involved the Pacman/MAB/Morales love triangle.

AdamT wrote:Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

That's a seriously disrespectful attitude to take and I'm surprised you've not been taken to task on it more thoroughly.

You're a fan of the modern era, prefer modern fighters, fair enough. However you have no right to call people who've watched by gone fighters and have opinions which contradict yours biased old farts. One could just as easily argue you're too biased to give credit to previous fighters. Who are you to decry the opinions of the Bert Sugars and Nat Fleischers who advocate the past as old farts? I'll take their bias over yours.

AdamT wrote:
Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50..
.

Blatant, hyperbolic fallacy.

Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate. Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began. This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.

Was it better? Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The skill level isn't...........

Is that why when Floyd stands still he gets his head punched off.  Then there are fighters like Duran who could slip and parry punches when standing in range and at close quarters.  Those skills don't exist anymore.  The fighters don't fight regularly enough to develop them.

The first part of that post can't be an honest summation of Mayweather, were it true he'd have beaten countless times by now, during his absolute peak he spent large parts of fights sitting on the ropes countering taking nothing in return.

Duran and Mayweather have different skill sets so comparing the two isn't a fair reflection. Duran does have an under rated defence but it isn't at the level of a Pep, Whitaker or Mayweather but what he did have was a more spiteful streak to him which helped his offence.

The skills do still exist, Rigondeaux, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez, Jones and Hopkins have a skill set comparable to anybody in history but being modern and current we don't look back with awe, they haven't been retired long enough for that.

Robinson and Armstrong didn't acquire the specific skill you mentioned because it wasn't part of how they fought so should we mark them down for not being able to slip and parry in the pocket?

These never end well on the cricket forum, and they're a lot more civilised. This will end badly.... Now where's that popcorn emoji

Better is better.

There have been some exceptional fighters over recent years but they simply don't fight as often as the old timers - or climb as many (metaphorical) mountains.

One of the biggest problems is the proliferation of weights and the widespread use of powders/potions that allow fighters to motor through them.

How often these days do we truly see two evenly matched fighters (physically)? Rarely. Every win comes with a caveat.

AdamT wrote:Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

Suppose it happens in all sports to a degree but it is serious in boxing.

Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50..
AdamT


Posts: 798
Join date: 2014-03-27



 

.

All Floyd had to do was fight Pacquiao a couple of times (like Ali and Leonard fought Frazier and Hearns). Why defend a fighter who doesn't give a monkeys about being great? Why do you care when he never did?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Do us all a favor Strongy...instead of spouting pointless rubbish like "Top 30 this and that"...

Write down the 30 fighters that are higher than Manny and May...........

So we can all laugh at you..

McGrain has Mayweather at No. 47 on his ATG list. But then again he likes all sorts of fighters and thinks Louis was a bit good.

In the course of time Mayweather will not rank as high as his skills deserve.

I was not calling anybody on here old farts

I was jesting about people taking old biased writers like Bert Sugar for example as gospel.

It seems in boxing credit comes when you are long retired. Lewis gets a lot more respect each year that passes

AdamT wrote:I was not calling anybody on here old farts

I was jesting about people taking old biased writers like Bert Sugar for example as gospel.

It seems in boxing credit comes when you are long retired. Lewis gets a lot more respect each year that passes

I think Lewis's standing will actually fall in time. He's benefitted from the subsequent era being the worst in history.

Im not into ranking fighters because I think its a pointless excercise, especially ranking every single fighter in history when nobody is really qualified to do it. I prefer comparing eras I have witnessed first hand rather than pretending I have watched every single fight in history several times over while secretly hitting refresh on boxrec.

Without a doubt the 1980s was superior to this current generation by an absolute mile. Better fighters and better fights (along with a less ridiculous set up). Beyond that I dont really know as I wasnt around to witness or appreciate the era's properly. Comparisons are nothing new though. But in an era where the best fighter is practically defined by refusing to face his main challenger and a former middleweight Roy Jones, not to mention a morbidly obese James Toney were able to hang with many of the top ranked "modern heavyweights" I think I would defer to the old farts rather than those that give cruiserweight Joe Louis a bit of a punchers chance.

Right, as I said, an actual historian being dissed because he supports a point of view that contradicts your own. Sugar actually has some pedigree to respect, y'see.

DuransHorse wrote:Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate.  Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began.  This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.  

Was it better?  Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Sprinting is rife with with drug cheats. Difficult to take any of the results since the chemical warfare era's began without a massive pinch of salt.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Right, as I said, an actual historian being dissed because he supports a point of view that contradicts your own. Sugar actually has some pedigree to respect, y'see.

I fully respect his view that Jake LaMotta is better than both Monzon and Hagler or that Rosenbloom is better than Jones, he might know a thing or two but he's a biased old git.

Sugar knows his s..t John Wayne but some of his stuff is biased.

Did he not pick Louis over Ali basically because he idolized him when he was younger?

Hammersmith words it better than I

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate.  Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began.  This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.  

Was it better?  Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Sprinting is rife with with drug cheats. Difficult to take any of the results since the chemical warfare era's began without a massive pinch of salt.

Yup. I was once as big a fan of athletics as I am of boxing but the drug cheats killed that sport stone dead. Boxing is heading the same way (for me at least).

Haz most sports are riddled with drugs and have been for decades.

AdamT wrote:Haz most sports are riddled with drugs and have been for decades.

I don't believe PEDs riddled boxing decades ago (that's a Trussmanism).

In the 80's boxers had to make weight - HGH (which blighted athletics) was of little use to fighters striving to make weight.

After championships became watered down and titles exploded, the boxing champion, as we once knew it, bit the dust.

Over recent years the pound for pound nonsense took off (as fans could no longer identify who boxing's best fighters were by looking at who had a belt). Without ratings (worth a damn) networks began matching the better known fighters together - despite the fact they were spread across different weights.

I believe that this - more than any other factor - led to the explosion of PED use. The resulting fights have largely been crud (as boxing always works best when two men are matched together at their natural weights).

Just a few random thoughts to chuck into the list:

No doubt, with more available sports to choose from there are fewer fighters now. But to a degree, it's fewer american ones, as until passenger flights, international fights were a rarity and like in nfl and baseball, sometimes world champion and american or Americas champion were largely one and the same. But they were fighting for one belt in fewer divisions. They fought more frequently, they needed a level of toughness, mental fortitude and ability to recover that today's fighters don't. Maybe that means that the toughest rose to the top rather than the most talented.

There are more countries with professional boxers now than in the past, and larger populations on the whole. There haven't been the decimation of male populations from world wars and flu pandemics, like there were in the teens and the twenties.

There is an argument that old school skills have faded from the game, and that those that have learnt  them... Mccallum, toney, Hopkins have proven that they are still very effective. But maybe they were damned good fighters anyway... there is also an argument that if these old techniques were so damn good, why did they fall from grace in the first place. Perhaps floyd's next opponent should come out fighting like john l Sullivan and see how it goes.  If you're going to train someone, you might as well teach them the good stuff.

Ultimately you can only be the best of an era, its unfair to compare someone from the 1910's to a modern fighter, you have to assume if they were born now they'd have better nutrition, different training etc. What's the point in slating heavies of previous generations for being cruisers, when they wouldn't be if born today, or slagging their style when it would be different today. It is entirely possible that even making those allowances that their physique/make up might lend itself better or worse to the modern game.

You can give credit to a Tunney for being a game changer, but how would he have fared in later eras where his 'style' wasn't an advantage? Would dempsey have adapted to a modern style of fighting if brought up on it?

Human beings are intrinsically nostalgic and favour the music, clothes and sportsmen of their youth, and those their father talked of. Many great sportsmen are only truly appreciated after they've gone. People remember the good better than the mundane. There is undoubtedly a degree of rose tinted spectacles and also in some cases snobbery in some who treat the past as an opportunity to display knowledge. This also applies to so called authorities and experts on the game who might have great knowledge but are human beings themselves... Albeit of the old fart variety, obviously.

There are arguments on both sides of the debate as why the past is better and why it isn't.  It's a foreign country, they do things differently there. There are some who see the world in black and white and I often wish I did too as life would be simpler. Sadly it's usually shades of grey, boxing is no different.

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate.  Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began.  This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.  

Was it better?  Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Sprinting is rife with with drug cheats. Difficult to take any of the results since the chemical warfare era's began without a massive pinch of salt.

Pac and Mayweather are both suspected by certain groups of taking chemical enhancements. More so than Bolt? Farah? Ennis? There are suspected high profile cheats in most sports.

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate.  Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began.  This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.  

Was it better?  Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Sprinting is rife with with drug cheats. Difficult to take any of the results since the chemical warfare era's began without a massive pinch of salt.

Pac and Mayweather are both suspected by certain groups of taking chemical enhancements. More so than Bolt? Farah? Ennis? There are suspected high profile cheats in most sports.

Yes and all with a good reason.

I mean practically every top recorded time outside of Bolt was made by a sprinter that was caught cheating. So either Bolt is the freak of freaks or something doesnt quite add up.

Much like Lance Armstrong dominating a sport when all and sundry were getting exposed as cheats all around him.

As for boxing, well the testing is optional. I think the idea being if we dont look for anything we wont find anything. Ostrich and sand.

I'm sure its rife in many sports but when you consider the opportunity to gain, the macho gym culture and the pitiful nature of the testing it would be staggering if it wasn't rife in boxing. Of course you could say its a level playing field as likely as not, they're all on something.

I dont know about that. The wealthiest fighters can afford the best treatments, medical men and disrection with the relevant authorities.

Be worse in the D-bol era of the late 60s, 70's and 80's....

No drug testing then...

But then as Haz states....Boxers only fought for the glory of the sport back then and they were all gentleman..

So maybe not..

catchweight wrote:I dont know about that. The wealthiest fighters can afford the best treatments, medical men and disrection with the relevant authorities.

Undoubtedly. It was a flippant comment. The rich guys get the best sheet in town man, and all the best p*ssy. The last part of which is somewhat gratuitous to the argument.

Armstrong is an odd one, a serial doper in a time of serial dopers, his career is tainted beyond recognition but he was still a phenomenal athlete. Says it all about his era when in 2005 I think it was that Cadel Evans finishing 8th was the highest placed cyclist who wasn't linked to doping.

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate.  Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began.  This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.  

Was it better?  Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Sprinting is rife with with drug cheats. Difficult to take any of the results since the chemical warfare era's began without a massive pinch of salt.

Pac and Mayweather are both suspected by certain groups of taking chemical enhancements. More so than Bolt? Farah? Ennis? There are suspected high profile cheats in most sports.

Yes and all with a good reason.

I mean practically every top recorded time outside of Bolt was made by a sprinter that was caught cheating. So either Bolt is the freak of freaks or something doesnt quite add up.

Much like Lance Armstrong dominating a sport when all and sundry were getting exposed as cheats all around him.

As for boxing, well the testing is optional. I think the idea being if we dont look for anything we wont find anything. Ostrich and sand.

I'm going to say he's a freak. Its not his power that separates him, its how he manages to apply it with his frame. I'm no scientist but I saw a program a while ago that explained his mechanics. He's no more powerful than any other painter, its just he somehow transfers that into his stride which happens to be longer than most painters, most long legged guys don't do 100 meters as they can't coordinate their power to make it count over such a short course.

The issue I have is there is so much speculation we now suspect everyone. Unless someone is caught or I know they've bought someone off I tend to try and presume they are clean.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Be worse in the D-bol era of the late 60s, 70's and 80's....

No drug testing then...

But then as Haz states....Boxers only fought for the glory of the sport back then and they were all gentleman..

So maybe not..

Which of course I've never stated....

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Here's the science bit: there's a lot of past and not a lot of now.

All sports suffer a bit unless it's measurable like athletics, Bolt runs quicker than anyone before him so there's no real debate.  Add in that people don't want to get punched in the face so much anymore and this snippet of time has less participants to compare itself to against the vast canyons of talent that participated over the many moons that have elapsed since boxing began.  This is a prime recipe for free thinking nostalgia.  

Was it better?  Yes... but then I am an old fart.

Sprinting is rife with with drug cheats. Difficult to take any of the results since the chemical warfare era's began without a massive pinch of salt.

Pac and Mayweather are both suspected by certain groups of taking chemical enhancements. More so than Bolt? Farah? Ennis? There are suspected high profile cheats in most sports.

Yes and all with a good reason.

I mean practically every top recorded time outside of Bolt was made by a sprinter that was caught cheating. So either Bolt is the freak of freaks or something doesnt quite add up.

Much like Lance Armstrong dominating a sport when all and sundry were getting exposed as cheats all around him.

As for boxing, well the testing is optional. I think the idea being if we dont look for anything we wont find anything. Ostrich and sand.

I'm going to say he's a freak. Its not his power that separates him, its how he manages to apply it with his frame. I'm no scientist but I saw a program a while ago that explained his mechanics. He's no more powerful than any other painter, its just he somehow transfers that into his stride which happens to be longer than most painters, most long legged guys don't do 100 meters as they can't coordinate their power to make it count over such a short course.

The issue I have is there is so much speculation we now suspect everyone. Unless someone is caught or I know they've bought someone off I tend to try and presume they are clean.

I think the opposite. Sprinting in particular given its notorious record of cheats means any world record champion has to be guilty by association. Thats just the way the sport has gone. For decades now the benchmark fastest times have been set by guys who one after another have been caught cheating. Even the also rans have been found out. Bolt comes along and smashes all these chemically charged sprinters out of the ball park on, in his words, sleeping a lot and eating chicken nuggets. Not for me. Not to mention he comes from a country with a p1ss poor record for doping in sprinting.

It was the same with Lance Armstrong and the "believe in miracles people".

Armstrong was taking more than anybody else and ran the most sophisticated drug regime ever seen.

The funny thing is they are now cycling the Tour de France in the same time Armstrong did.

Drugs are just part of pro sport. Too much to be gained from taking them. It's naive to think different when there are youngsters in every gym in every town popping pills and getting jabbed so they can look good walking up the Main Street on a Saturday afternoon.

That's not actually true Strongy, times in the TDF are well down and only one two stages in the past four years have times been anywhere near comparable. Froomes time up Mont Ventoux is some 90 seconds slower than Pantani.