Past is always better?

by AdamT Thu 08 Jan 2015, 3:26 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

.

by kingraf Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:16 pm

No worries mate, was just teasing.

by hazharrison Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:21 pm

AdamT wrote:Manny Pacquiaos achievements pale in comparison to Armstrong

Armstrong achieved nothing. Check for him in the record books.

by hazharrison Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:22 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Armstrong is American = hero.

Had he been Filipino = scum of the earth.

Manny is in my top 20..............Is he in yours ??

Na. I rank him alongside Floyd.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:28 pm

Strongback wrote: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.

How do you know Armstrong was taking more than anybody else..... Rolling Eyes

.......You have no way of knowing what non-Postal riders were taking...

Riders were dying of steroid abuse back then...Armstrong is still here..

Besides If steroids made Champions...........Everybody would be on the stuff..........

Heart, desire, determination and exceptional lung capacity in Armstrong's case..

Geez you'll probably be posting anti-Mayweather lists from years ago........As fact next !!

by Derbymanc Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:34 pm

Heart, desire, determination and exceptional lung capacity in Armstrong's case..

With a helping of drugs too don't forget Truss. I get you admire the guy for his charity work but you can't try and whitewash his career as if it was a small blip.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:37 pm

Derbymanc wrote:Heart, desire, determination and exceptional lung capacity in Armstrong's case..

With a helping of drugs too don't forget Truss. I get you admire the guy for his charity work but you can't try and whitewash his career as if it was a small blip.

Who is trying to do that ??

Everyone cheated then.............He was better at it..

Do I advocate drugs nope..

by Derbymanc Fri 09 Jan 2015, 2:49 pm

Your Steroid article might make people think different Wink

As far as i'm aware not everyone back then tested positive so whilst there's no argument that he was better at cheating there's still a big question on who is the better athlete and i'd say it definitely isn't him as part of being a decent athlete (and human being) is being honest.

by Dipper Brown Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:06 pm

Rowley wrote:Always does my head in with boxing. I am fairly sure if you google the top ten military generals of all time you will find a good number of folk who were operational a damned sight earlier than Harry Greb was lacing them up, nobody questions anybody putting them in their lists, but perish the though someone should put Greb in their top ten. Really struggle to see the difference, research can be done, books can be read on boxing history as easily as military history, some can be bothered to do it, some can't.

I've read this argument of yours before Rowley and with all due respect I found it as ridiculous then as I do now.

Let's look at Floyd Mayweather, primary evidence exists of all of his achievements in the ring. Nothing is stopping any of us watching his fights with our own eyes and we can contextualise them by looking at his opponents' other fights.

We don't have that quality of evidence for fighters where no footage exists and have to rely on secondary evidence; the words of others. Here lies the problem when you try and make a 'best ever' list and why I've never been bothered with them myself.

The second thing about military leaders is utterly ridiculous. It's such an abstract concept. I know Floyd is a better boxer than Canelo because he beat him in a boxing match.
How the hell do I weigh up all the intangible things that define who was a better general between Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan?

Apples and oranges mate and I can't believe you 'don't see the difference'.

by Dipper Brown Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:12 pm

Re: Armstrong. I've no knowledge of or interest in cycling so can't add anything to that side but having watched documentaries on the guy; he's terrifying.

Armstrong is a sociopath and his abuse of power and intimidation of others is what damns him as a character. One cheat in a sea of cheats doesn't make him a villain but the threats towards anyone who stood up to him are what sticks in people's throat about the guy.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:12 pm

Derbymanc wrote:Your Steroid article might make people think different

As far as i'm aware not everyone back then tested positive so whilst there's no argument that he was better at cheating there's still a big question on who is the better athlete and i'd say it definitely isn't him as part of being a decent athlete (and human being) is being honest.

I advocate not using them in my steroid article......

Comprehensive guide though from a user...............and one of my better efforts....So much crap spoken about Steroids on the net..

Fully agree with Dipper's response to Rowley ...

by Derbymanc Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:33 pm

Got to admit mate it was quite eye opening and i'm more for people writing about drugs etc that have used rather than someone that has no experience.

I can see Rowleys point but do think people get far too riled on others top 10 lists etc. We all have our own opinions and as long as you can put your argument forward for why you think that (other than x is crap) then it's interesting to read even if you don't agree.

I think we always have a nostalgic look back as well though as there's always that part of 'you never knew what you had until it was gone'

by AdamT Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:35 pm

hazharrison wrote:
AdamT wrote:Manny Pacquiaos achievements pale in comparison to Armstrong

Armstrong achieved nothing. Check for him in the record books.

Naw I saw his performances on the Tv, don't need to read about him to know how great he was

by hazharrison Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:43 pm

AdamT wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
AdamT wrote:Manny Pacquiaos achievements pale in comparison to Armstrong

Armstrong achieved nothing. Check for him in the record books.

Naw I saw his performances on the Tv, don't need to read about him to know how great he was

You must love Ben Johnson and Marion Jones eh? Great they were.

by Derbymanc Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:44 pm

Unfortunately Adam the record books and most people don't agree, just like they don't agree Ben Johnson was a great athlete either etc etc yaddah yaddah.......................

In time he'll forever just be known as that cheating scumbag who tried to make even more money by suing the people who found him out.

by AdamT Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:49 pm

hazharrison wrote:
AdamT wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
AdamT wrote:Manny Pacquiaos achievements pale in comparison to Armstrong

Armstrong achieved nothing. Check for him in the record books.

Naw I saw his performances on the Tv, don't need to read about him to know how great he was

You must love Ben Johnson and Marion Jones eh? Great they were.

Haz my point is, Most competitors are juicing too.

I actually feel a bit sorry for Johnson because I believe that Carl Lewis has failed tests as well but nobody mentions that

by AdamT Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:52 pm

Boxing is full of drugs and has been for years. The testing is a joke.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:54 pm

Stop throwing a hissy fit everytime someone opposes your view,

by hazharrison Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:13 pm

AdamT wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
AdamT wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
AdamT wrote:Manny Pacquiaos achievements pale in comparison to Armstrong

Armstrong achieved nothing. Check for him in the record books.

Naw I saw his performances on the Tv, don't need to read about him to know how great he was

You must love Ben Johnson and Marion Jones eh? Great they were.

Haz my point is, Most competitors are juicing too.

I actually feel a bit sorry for Johnson because I believe that Carl Lewis has failed tests as well but nobody mentions that

You sound like one of those people who becomes a serial killer's pen pal.

by kingraf Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:20 pm

We don't actually discuss sport much over here anymore do we?

by Rowley Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:38 pm

Dipper Brown wrote:
Rowley wrote:Always does my head in with boxing. I am fairly sure if you google the top ten military generals of all time you will find a good number of folk who were operational a damned sight earlier than Harry Greb was lacing them up, nobody questions anybody putting them in their lists, but perish the though someone should put Greb in their top ten. Really struggle to see the difference, research can be done, books can be read on boxing history as easily as military history, some can be bothered to do it, some can't.

I've read this argument of yours before Rowley and with all due respect I found it as ridiculous then as I do now.

Let's look at Floyd Mayweather, primary evidence exists of all of his achievements in the ring. Nothing is stopping any of us watching his fights with our own eyes and we can contextualise them by looking at his opponents' other fights.

We don't have that quality of evidence for fighters where no footage exists and have to rely on secondary evidence; the words of others. Here lies the problem when you try and make a 'best ever' list and why I've never been bothered with them myself.

The second thing about military leaders is utterly ridiculous. It's such an abstract concept. I know Floyd is a better boxer than Canelo because he beat him in a boxing match.
How the hell do I weigh up all the intangible things that define who was a better general between Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan?

Apples and oranges mate and I can't believe you 'don't see the difference'.

The point is research can still be done. None of us can see Greb fight, however we can see any number of his opponents fight, we can see Tunney and Walker to name but two, by doing this, and investing the time and effort to read about him it is really not that hard to get a gauge on how good or bad he was and rank him accordingly. With regard to the point about military generals, you would do what those that choose to make such rankings do, read up on the subject from as many sources as you choose and draw your own conculsions, which is pretty much what you do with older time boxers.

I respect why someone would not want to make a best ever list and understand the position, but do get extremely wound up when people say just because there is no footage off a fighter people shouldn't or can't rank them. You can, it just takes a bit more effort, and a bit more of a leap. Truth is though footage is not the bee all and end all, plenty exists for both SRL and Duran and I guarantee was I to post a thread asking how ranks higher we would not get a universal consensus, and those two shared a ring three times.

by milkyboy Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:44 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:Stop throwing a hissy fit everytime someone opposes your view,

Bit harsh. Thought that was a condition of membership.

by milkyboy Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:47 pm

kingraf wrote:We don't actually discuss sport much over here anymore do we?

We're all sex drugs and rock'n'roll here fella.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:47 pm

milkyboy wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:Stop throwing a hissy fit everytime someone opposes your view,

Bit harsh. Thought that was a condition of membership.

That was a hoax to distract you so all the men cuckolded by milkmen could avenge themselves.

by Strongback Fri 09 Jan 2015, 8:04 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Strongback wrote: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.

How do you know Armstrong was taking more than anybody else..... .......You have no way of knowing what non-Postal riders were taking...

Riders were dying of steroid abuse back then...Armstrong is still here..

Besides If steroids made Champions...........Everybody would be on the stuff..........

Heart, desire, determination and exceptional lung capacity in Armstrong's case..

Geez you'll probably be posting anti-Mayweather lists from years ago........As fact next !!

What Armstrong did went way beyond a guy on a bike taking PED's. The whole Armstrong organisation was the most corrupt ever seen in sport.

Here's a small excerpt of the kind of things the US Anti Doping Agency said:

The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices. A program organized by individuals who thought they were above the rules and who still play a major and active role in sport today.

by catchweight Fri 09 Jan 2015, 8:33 pm

DuransHorse wrote:
catchweight wrote:
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".

I see what you are saying here and your points are more than valid but... he hasn't been caught and there is nothing but theories. It's like saying "so many people cheat in relationships that I'm going to undermine my faith in my own relationship and automatically assume my partner is also a cheat". That would stop you enjoying your life, perhaps unnecessarily, and assuming all athletes are cheats stops you appreciating their achievements. Until Pac and May get caught they are clean in my book. Rumours, hearsay and speculation just seems a pointless foundation to base my opinions on.

Anyway, got to go. The Milkman has turned up (not you Milky) and my wonderful and trustworthy wife doesn't like me around when he arrives for some reason.

Its not really the same thing as a relationship analogy. Bolt has smashed the record not only of every non cheating sprinter, but of some of the most chemically enhanced athletes of all time. These times have all been recorded by sprinters who were caught as drug users. It simply too far fetched for me believe that Bolt is way ahead of decades worth of chemically enhanced athletes in a sport where if you werent using chemical enhancements you were going nowhere.

It was very similar with Armstrong, who if he hadnt decided to comeback might have ended getting away with it on the grounds of lack of hard evidence.

These sports like sprinting and cyxling pretty much had the athletes saying the same thing. If you cant beat them, join then. Otherwise you may as well pack it in.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 09 Jan 2015, 8:34 pm

It's only considered that because they evaded the system, don't go thinking what USPS were doing was any worse than Telekom, Systeme U, Mercatone Uno or any other team of the 90's or 00's.

Rightfully there was a witch hunt from USADA but a lot of that comes from the embarrassment the whole situation caused them and overlooks the countless others they failed to catch.

Pantani was doping, Riis was doping, Ullrich was doping, Landis was doping, Contador was doping, Basso was doping, Rasmussen was doping but they didn't win 7 tour de frances so USADA are happy to ignore them to a degree.

by Strongback Fri 09 Jan 2015, 9:46 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's only considered that because they evaded the system, don't go thinking what USPS were doing was any worse than Telekom, Systeme U, Mercatone Uno or any other team of the 90's or 00's.

Rightfully there was a witch hunt from USADA but a lot of that comes from the embarrassment the whole situation caused them and overlooks the countless others they failed to catch.

Pantani was doping, Riis was doping, Ullrich was doping, Landis was doping, Contador was doping, Basso was doping, Rasmussen was doping but they didn't win 7 tour de frances so USADA are happy to ignore them to a degree.

I've wayched a few documentaris on it and nobody ran as sophisticated an operation as Armstrong. He took it to a new level and bullied other riders on his team to the point he was dictating their ped intake.

The bottom line is Armstrong was a sociopath something you should get tested for. He just couldn't stop himself. How anybody could admire him is beyond me.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 09 Jan 2015, 10:07 pm

How do you know that, the only team within USADA's jurisdiction was USPS and there is no comparative to other teams, so it's a null and void argument. 6

by Strongback Fri 09 Jan 2015, 11:13 pm

The USADA report concluded that Armstrong engaged in "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Quite a claim but I suppose USADA did their research and there was quite a bit of data built up on doping in cycling over the years Armstrong competed.

To say Armstrong was more sophisticated and professional in doping than any other person in sport ever is not something thrown in for good measure. Armstrong is a bad boy, bully and a sociopath. He has been judged to have been the worst ever offender in any sport.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 09 Jan 2015, 11:52 pm

They did not investigate other teams so cannot quantify it, in America it holds water but the world over it has no relevance.

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 7:13 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:They did not investigate other teams so cannot quantify it, in America it holds water but the world over it has no relevance.

You're an apologist for Armstrong. I think the USADA know a lot more about what went on in cycling than you do. They wouldn't put out the kind of official statements they did in court if they could not back it up.

Remember the USADA investigated the likes of BALCO and said Armstrong was a worse offender. Verying damning indictment of Armstrong's operations and procedures.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 10 Jan 2015, 7:15 am

You're missing the point, what comparative is there to other cycling teams when they only investigated one?

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 10 Jan 2015, 9:06 am

For someone with so many degrees Strongy is very thick..

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 11:56 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're missing the point, what comparative is there to other cycling teams when they only investigated one?

You are the one missing the point or more likely deliberately choosing to be obstreperous.

The data of the other riders who failed in Armstrong's era, investigations into teams like Festina and Dr Ferrari were all readily available when Armstrong was being investigated. Do you think Armstrong and USPS were the first people in cycling ever investigated?? There are endless reports and dossiers on the drug cheating in cycling that were available to USADA.

When USADA go on the public record and say Armstrong was the worst offender ever caught in sport including Balco and other cycling teams they have done their homework. The average punter has access to a ton of research information on drug cheating in cycling on the internet. Imagine what information USADA had access to.

Bottom line is Armstrong is the biggest drug cheat in sporting history.

You keep making apologies for him if you like and coming out with bullcrap like USADA had blinkers on and know nothing about cycling outside Armstrong and America. Are you really that naive or are you a sociopath? I know what my guess is.

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 12:01 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For someone with so many degrees Strongy is very thick..

I know your boy Armstrong took cheating to a whole new level and tried to ruin the lives of anybody who got in his way.

We are not talking about some guy who is a bike rider and then takes some PED's this is cheating on a whole new level never before seen in sport.

It doesn't surprise me you admire what did Armstrong so much given your lack of character.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 10 Jan 2015, 12:18 pm

Strongback wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're missing the point, what comparative is there to other cycling teams when they only investigated one?

You are the one missing the point or more likely deliberately choosing to be obstreperous.

The data of the other riders who failed in Armstrong's era, investigations into teams like Festina and Dr Ferrari were all readily available when Armstrong was being investigated. Do you think Armstrong and USPS were the first people in cycling ever investigated?? There are endless reports and dossiers on the drug cheating in cycling that were available to USADA.

When USADA go on the public record and say Armstrong was the worst offender ever caught in sport including Balco and other cycling teams they have done their homework. The average punter has access to a ton of research information on drug cheating in cycling on the internet. Imagine what information USADA had access to.

Bottom line is Armstrong is the biggest drug cheat in sporting history.

You keep making apologies for him if you like and coming out with bullcrap like USADA had blinkers on and know nothing about cycling outside Armstrong and America. Are you really that naive or are you a sociopath? I know what my guess is.

Are you really that naive to take everything you read as gospel, the bottom line Strongy is that the UCI did not collaborate with the investigation and handed no information over at all with regards to other teams.

Ullrich was not the subject of a full investigation nor was Marco Pantani because they are/were beyond the jurisdiction of USADA so a comparison cannot be made. Those two names probably have you befuddled but the power output of the latter was super human and it's very likely he too was doping to ridiculous levels.

The important part you are deliberately ignoring or are too stupid to comprehend is that Armstrong was the worst doper USADA had 'caught' which basically entailed Tyler Hamilton spilling the beans.

The issue again is that you've read one article on a subject you know nothing about and instantly think you're an expert, doping in cycling is not transparent and the UCI have a lot of information they have not disclosed to anyone so the word of USADA frankly doesn't mean a thing.

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 5:17 pm

I've watched cycling since the early 1980's. You may not know but at that time Ireland had the cycling world No.1 and a few years later a Dubliner won the Tour de France. Cycling is a well watched sported in Ireland and of course Ireland , in Paul Kimmage, has the most vocal anti drug campaigner in journalism. I have read thousands of words on Armstrong and watched most of the documentaries produced on his fall from grace.

You can pick a couple of riders that did not have a positive test but there is a mountain of information available on the huge number of top riders who did fail tests.

In terms of information the USADA carried out the most thorough investigation into cycling ever undertaken. They stood in court and gave their findings under oath.

Should I take the waffle of a known awkward clown on an internet site or the USADA. The UCI are a joke and have no cedibility they could not even carry out an investigation into doping because they said the USADA would not help them. The UCI have no credibility.

by catchweight Sat 10 Jan 2015, 5:30 pm

Lance Armstrong is my number 1 pound for pound drugs cheat

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 10 Jan 2015, 5:46 pm

Take the word of who you want Strongy but the fact remains we do not have any idea what doping operations Ullrich and Pantani had in place so we simply cannot compare.

Roche is another known doper anyway Strongy, something the exalted Kimmage didn't mention. He was the subject of one of the great bits of commentary when he was chasing and nearly caught Delgado.

None of this is meant to excuse Armstrong but there's a very good reason why his TDF wins were not given to anybody else but simply stripped.

by hazharrison Sat 10 Jan 2015, 7:12 pm

catchweight wrote:Lance Armstrong is my number 1 pound for pound drugs cheat

He's a blooming hero. Gawd bless him.

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 7:31 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Take the word of who you want Strongy but the fact remains we do not have any idea what doping operations Ullrich and Pantani had in place so we simply cannot compare.

Roche is another known doper anyway Strongy, something the exalted Kimmage didn't mention. He was the subject of one of the great bits of commentary when he was chasing and nearly caught Delgado.

None of this is meant to excuse Armstrong but there's a very good reason why his TDF wins were not given to anybody else but simply stripped.

Kimmage fell out with Roche when Kimmage published his book Rough Ride in 1990 which exposed the drug taking in cycling. Kimmage has called both Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly drug cheats on many occasions. Believe me I am well versed on this.

Despite Roche and Kimmage being very close friends when they were pro's they haven't spoken in decades because of the exposes Kimmage has done on doping.

Of all the cheats that have been in cycling the consensus is Armstrong was the greatest, most successful, most vindictive, most bullying and most pathological cheat that has ever lived.

As you probably know there is nothing particularly special about Armstrong physiologically unlike say an Indurain (who many feel cheated also).

Interesting also that Froome and Nibali's power outputs were in the superhuman zone on some of the climbs in their Tour wins.

by DuransHorse Sat 10 Jan 2015, 7:43 pm

catchweight wrote:
DuransHorse wrote:
catchweight wrote:
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".

I see what you are saying here and your points are more than valid but... he hasn't been caught and there is nothing but theories. It's like saying "so many people cheat in relationships that I'm going to undermine my faith in my own relationship and automatically assume my partner is also a cheat". That would stop you enjoying your life, perhaps unnecessarily, and assuming all athletes are cheats stops you appreciating their achievements. Until Pac and May get caught they are clean in my book. Rumours, hearsay and speculation just seems a pointless foundation to base my opinions on.

Anyway, got to go. The Milkman has turned up (not you Milky) and my wonderful and trustworthy wife doesn't like me around when he arrives for some reason.

Its not really the same thing as a relationship analogy. Bolt has smashed the record not only of every non cheating sprinter, but of some of the most chemically enhanced athletes of all time. These times have all been recorded by sprinters who were caught as drug users. It simply too far fetched for me believe that Bolt is way ahead of decades worth of chemically enhanced athletes in a sport where if you werent using chemical enhancements you were going nowhere.

It was very similar with Armstrong, who if he hadnt decided to comeback might have ended getting away with it on the grounds of lack of hard evidence.

These sports like sprinting and cyxling pretty much had the athletes saying the same thing. If you cant beat them, join then. Otherwise you may as well pack it in.

But what do you actually know that I don't catch? Otherwise you may be watching a remarkable athlete but ruining it for yourself by saying "nah, I just don't believe it" with no foundation. He's been tested, he's passed. If he fails one day then that's the time to destroy your faith.. Dishonesty does not inflict every athlete. Some just have great ability. Maybe Bolt is cheating but as he's never failed a test is it right to say he can't be that good?

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 10 Jan 2015, 7:54 pm

Nothing special about Armstrong physiologically, that's a good one Strongy you're well versed in this so you must be correct despite being wrong, you don't win it 7 times doping or not if you're physical attributes aren't remarkable.

Froome was on the edge of what a human can do physiologically and to describe it as superhuman shows a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of what is possible.

It amuses me that the main accuser of googled facts does himself non-stop and decides that makes him an expert, you would be aware had you read the book that one particular cyclist was not named and that is Stephen Roche but google doesn't tell you things like that does it.

by WelshDevilRob Sat 10 Jan 2015, 8:31 pm

Apart from the belts, boxing is still the same.

Heavyweight division and alot of the higher weights, are pretty shallow at the moment but boxing, overall, is what it is.

Comparisons between era's is fine and healthy - because the sport doesn't change alot ..... it's still gloves and punches and the weights are there for all to see.

IMO Past is not better but some fighters are. Great Topic!

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 8:36 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Nothing special about Armstrong physiologically, that's a good one Strongy you're well versed in this so you must be correct despite being wrong, you don't win it 7 times doping or not if you're physical attributes aren't remarkable.

Froome was on the edge of what a human can do physiologically and to describe it as superhuman shows a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of what is possible.

It amuses me that the main accuser of googled facts does himself non-stop and decides that makes him an expert, you would be aware had you read the book that one particular cyclist was not named and that is Stephen Roche but google doesn't tell you things like that does it.

I haven't googled yet. As I said I recently listened to a Paul kimmage radio interview where he quoted power outputs. Anything over 6 watts/kg is getting suspect. Froome and Nibali exceeded this. Kimmage quoted expert opinion on power and doping in relation to Froome and Nibali. If you google it you could probably find it.

There is a documentary that looks into Armstrongs physiology which I watched. It states he doesn't stand out from the other pro riders physiologically. Induration by comparison was a total freak.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 10 Jan 2015, 8:53 pm

That same expert opinion also clearly states that Froome being unable to sustain those power levels stage after stage doesn't place him in the superhuman category. His fallibility is something the dopers rarely showed when they were competing. If you're going to veil libellous comments you do need to include the whole picture not just the bit that suits your argument.

Indurain and LeMond were physiological freaks i'll agree with you there but something Armstrong had that very few had is leverage which is of course a physical attribute rather than physiological.

Armstrong could well be the worst doper in sports history but much of that comes down to the deception and lies rather than the operation in place which as you previously stated wasn't far different from the Festina affair.

Cycling was something very close to my heart growing up and having ridden Ventoux and Alp D'huez it can be a hellacious experience. I rode Ventoux as a stand alone time trial and seeing Froome produce the most brutal bit of cycling i've ever seen up it was staggering but no unbelievable. His biological passport hasn't shown any fluctuations since they brought in and his max power output has again been at the level during the whole period.

Kimmage was a groundbreaker in the early 90's but right now he's far too quick to cast suspicion on everyone and anyone without anything more than circumstantial disbelieve. We are in an era where anybody showing excellence in any sport is labelled a cheat and to be honest it's getting a bit silly, throughout history there have been athletes better than anybody else and today is no different. A sport that was once rife with doping has gone through the torturous process of cleaning itself up and whilst some still give in to temptation it is immeasurably better than it was except in the eyes of a very vocal minority.

by Strongback Sat 10 Jan 2015, 10:00 pm

There is plenty being written about the level of performances now entering the superhuman levels of the EPO era.

With sports science advancing and that includes the input of Dr Ferrari and Armstrong there is much less chance of cyclists getting away with much. If the performances become incredible then something needs to be done. Personally I'm a sceptic. As Paul Kimmage said cycling is cleaner than it was but not clean.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 10 Jan 2015, 10:10 pm

Froome and Nibali have approached the superhuman levels but are still within what is generally accepted as being possible clean. Until there is any proof that either are doping which I don't think they are anyway i'll continue to believe they're clean.

There's a lot written by those who don't have full access to the biological passports so they're not in the best position to pass judgement much like Kimmage no longer is. The unfortunate reality is that his book was a contributing factor to all this, teams wised up about the system and found more elaborate and fail proof ways of evading it.

by catchweight Sat 10 Jan 2015, 10:19 pm

DuransHorse wrote:
catchweight wrote:
DuransHorse wrote:
catchweight wrote:
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".

I see what you are saying here and your points are more than valid but... he hasn't been caught and there is nothing but theories. It's like saying "so many people cheat in relationships that I'm going to undermine my faith in my own relationship and automatically assume my partner is also a cheat". That would stop you enjoying your life, perhaps unnecessarily, and assuming all athletes are cheats stops you appreciating their achievements. Until Pac and May get caught they are clean in my book. Rumours, hearsay and speculation just seems a pointless foundation to base my opinions on.

Anyway, got to go. The Milkman has turned up (not you Milky) and my wonderful and trustworthy wife doesn't like me around when he arrives for some reason.

Its not really the same thing as a relationship analogy. Bolt has smashed the record not only of every non cheating sprinter, but of some of the most chemically enhanced athletes of all time. These times have all been recorded by sprinters who were caught as drug users. It simply too far fetched for me believe that Bolt is way ahead of decades worth of chemically enhanced athletes in a sport where if you werent using chemical enhancements you were going nowhere.

It was very similar with Armstrong, who if he hadnt decided to comeback might have ended getting away with it on the grounds of lack of hard evidence.

These sports like sprinting and cyxling pretty much had the athletes saying the same thing. If you cant beat them, join then. Otherwise you may as well pack it in.

But what do you actually know that I don't catch? Otherwise you may be watching a remarkable athlete but ruining it for yourself by saying "nah, I just don't believe it" with no foundation. He's been tested, he's passed. If he fails one day then that's the time to destroy your faith.. Dishonesty does not inflict every athlete. Some just have great ability. Maybe Bolt is cheating but as he's never failed a test is it right to say he can't be that good?

I know implausability when I see it. Its not like this hasnt happened before. Ive seen pretty much every top sprinter from the 1980s onwards get caught. The sport was completely dominated by dopers and has been for decades. This is well known. The never failing a test thing is nice but it offers little comfort when every doping sprinter that set a record probably passed 99.9% of the tests they took and had access to the most sophisticated means possible for avoiding detection.

I know the implausibility of a clean athlete coming along and setting world records in a sport that has consisted of ultra doping athletes for decades.

by DuransHorse Sat 10 Jan 2015, 10:45 pm

catchweight wrote:
DuransHorse wrote:
catchweight wrote:
DuransHorse wrote:
catchweight wrote:
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".

I see what you are saying here and your points are more than valid but... he hasn't been caught and there is nothing but theories. It's like saying "so many people cheat in relationships that I'm going to undermine my faith in my own relationship and automatically assume my partner is also a cheat". That would stop you enjoying your life, perhaps unnecessarily, and assuming all athletes are cheats stops you appreciating their achievements. Until Pac and May get caught they are clean in my book. Rumours, hearsay and speculation just seems a pointless foundation to base my opinions on.

Anyway, got to go. The Milkman has turned up (not you Milky) and my wonderful and trustworthy wife doesn't like me around when he arrives for some reason.

Its not really the same thing as a relationship analogy. Bolt has smashed the record not only of every non cheating sprinter, but of some of the most chemically enhanced athletes of all time. These times have all been recorded by sprinters who were caught as drug users. It simply too far fetched for me believe that Bolt is way ahead of decades worth of chemically enhanced athletes in a sport where if you werent using chemical enhancements you were going nowhere.

It was very similar with Armstrong, who if he hadnt decided to comeback might have ended getting away with it on the grounds of lack of hard evidence.

These sports like sprinting and cyxling pretty much had the athletes saying the same thing. If you cant beat them, join then. Otherwise you may as well pack it in.

But what do you actually know that I don't catch? Otherwise you may be watching a remarkable athlete but ruining it for yourself by saying "nah, I just don't believe it" with no foundation. He's been tested, he's passed. If he fails one day then that's the time to destroy your faith.. Dishonesty does not inflict every athlete. Some just have great ability. Maybe Bolt is cheating but as he's never failed a test is it right to say he can't be that good?

I know implausability when I see it. Its not like this hasnt happened before. Ive seen pretty much every top sprinter from the 1980s onwards get caught. The sport was completely dominated by dopers and has been for decades. This is well known. The never failing a test thing is nice but it offers little comfort when every doping sprinter that set a record probably passed 99.9% of the tests they took and had access to the most sophisticated means possible for avoiding detection.

I know the implausibility of a clean athlete coming along and setting world records in a sport that has consisted of ultra doping athletes for decades.

by Sponsored content