Past is always better?

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





.

Hammer, Adam, you don't agree with his picks but this article itself comes from an opinion of modern fighters being on a certain level in comparison to the far more boxing-educated views of bygone enthusiasts. An opinion. Same as Sugar's against the grain picks. Or Fleischer's. Or any number of historians'. I doubt you'd want to be called a brainless product of the 24/7 era for your opinion so why insult those with differing opinions who've actually been there and seen it?

Just reeks of the era Az brought in of calling every decent fighter who took a loss a bum.

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.

JBW, his lists suck and always have, he was always far too biased and I genuinely cannot take an opinion seriously from someone who has Monzon and Hagler below Cerdan and Lamotta. I highly doubt he was there to see the latter fight unless his views as an 11 year old mean something

How old were you when Monzon was on song?

I see your argument but feel respect should be afforded beyond the labelling of "old farts" regardless. You don't. I can agree to disagree.

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.

I'm sorry for the term "old fart" but I don't fully respect someone being ultimately biased. I used to read lists of "experts" but I found the best way to judge fighters is actually watch them myself and make my own mind up on who is great.

I am a brainless idiot on the history of boxing compared to historians but I know a good fighter when I see one

AdamT wrote:I'm sorry for the term "old fart" but I don't fully respect someone being ultimately biased. I used to read lists of "experts" but I found the best way to judge fighters is actually watch them myself and make my own mind up on who is great.

I am a brainless idiot on the history of boxing compared to historians but I know a good fighter when I see one

Of all the things said on this forum I don't think "old fart" will make any headlines.

I know but I do normally respect my elders and don't want anyone think I'm cheeky to older people.

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.

AdamT wrote:I know but I do normally respect my elders and don't want anyone think I'm cheeky to older people.

Yeah, right Adam. I bet right now you're sat on a wall outside some OAP's house with your hoodie up, steeling their wifi with a can of carling in your hand as you type on your stolen iPhone so you can torment the elderly as they walk past. The youth of today!

DuransHorse wrote:

AdamT wrote:I know but I do normally respect my elders and don't want anyone think I'm cheeky to older people.

Yeah, right Adam.  I bet right now you're sat on a wall outside some OAP's house with your hoodie up, steeling their wifi with a can of carling in your hand as you type on your stolen iPhone so you can torment the elderly as they walk past.  The youth of today!

Carlsberg is cheaper were I live and the sad thing is, the estate my mum lives in, you would see that in a regular basis

The undefeated undisputed duke of Marlborough is often criminally missing from those lists though rowls.

I think windy said some time ago that he used to listen to fights on the radio and read reports in the papers and then years later watched them on youtube and was surprised how close to how he remembered them they were... Ie old accounts and methods were quite reliable. Given the discrepancy on newspaper ringside scoring even then, I suspect it wasn't always true... And they were lucky not to have Jim watt calling the fight on radio back in the day, but hey.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: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.

Below are the overall speeds of the Tour.

If you read a bit further down that Wiki page you Googled you would have seen the TdeF speeds in recent years. The first cyclists caught using the blood passport were in 2009. We can see in recent years the average speed has been faster than some of the years when Armstrong won the Tour.

The reason I posted about the tour speeds was because I listened to a Paul Kimmage interview in the last week were he was discussing the current speeds being achieved compared to Armstrongs era.


2000 39.6 km/h
2005 41.5 - fastest ever average speed in Tour
2007 39.2
2008 40.5
2009 40.3
2010 39.6
2011 39.8
2012 39.9
2013 40.5
2014 39.5

Were it done over the same course each year that may have some relevance, the only way to compare is the ascents of the big mountains which are well done. In 2012 for instance there were two ITT's and no ascent up Ventoux or Domaine. Speed on the flat isn't indicative of doping but in the mountains it certainly is.

In 2013 Froome blitzed up Domaine but was then hanging for dear life the next day when Porte fell back. There's also been a breakthrough of sprint cyclists in recent years with HTC controlling the peloton to set Cavendish up.

milkyboy wrote:The undefeated undisputed duke of Marlborough is often criminally missing from those lists though rowls.

The Duke of Wellington an Englishman born in Ireland.........the McGuigan of his times.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Were it done over the same course each year that may have some relevance, the only way to compare is the ascents of the big mountains which are well done. In 2012 for instance there were two ITT's and no ascent up Ventoux or Domaine. Speed on the flat isn't indicative of doping but in the mountains it certainly is.

In 2013 Froome blitzed up Domaine but was then hanging for dear life the next day when Porte fell back. There's also been a breakthrough of sprint cyclists in recent years with HTC controlling the peloton to set Cavendish up.

From 2009 the overall speeds have matched or bettered some of Armstrongs times, that is 6 tours in a row since blood testing came on board so Paul Kimmage's argument that performances have not dropped that significantly is true. Average speeds are used because they are more independent of the route the Tour takes.

What has dropped is short term power output where the likes of Armstrong blasted every rider out of it racing up a mountain and like you say speed of recovery.

I'll take Kimmage's opinion on this one considering what he has gone through to expose doping.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The undefeated undisputed duke of Marlborough is often criminally missing from those lists though rowls.

The Duke of Wellington an Englishman born in Ireland.........the McGuigan of his times.

Would never be critical of anyone wanting to better themselves.

I'm a huge Armstrong fan..........

Given a 30% chance of survival............Told he'd never ride again and then wins the hardest, most gruelling race what six times ??

Raised millions for cancer treatment and saved hundreds of lives..

They were juicing days............They were all at it...........Loads of no marks dying from improper use of EPO...

He just happened to have a hugely professional operation.........

Don't advocate cheating If at all possible....but if everybody else is at it..........Why not do it and be the best at it..

As was said of him at the time, "To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse"

Strongy is proud of being Irish, Milky....Didn't you know ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm a huge Armstrong fan..........

Given a 30% chance of survival............Told he'd never ride again and then wins the hardest, most gruelling race what six times ??

Raised millions for cancer treatment and saved hundreds of lives..

They were juicing days............They were all at it...........Loads of no marks dying from improper use of EPO...

He just happened to have a hugely professional operation.........

Don't advocate cheating If at all possible....but if everybody else is at it..........Why not do it and be the best at it..

I think the worst part Truss was the lawsuits against people who knew he'd been cheating, he also won the hardest most gruelling race whilst cheating and just because everyone was doing it, doesn't make it right. Think he should have stood up for the sport and been the whistleblower instead, he'd still be a huge hero then. (Didn't Ben Johnson say the same thing about him taking Steroids too?)

As for the past, we can look back at a lot of older fights and not see the politics behind it which can colour the view of it(They always fought the best in years gone by.) For the Money fans out there I think in time he'll be given a hell of a lot of plaudits and will be appreciated for his skills. Unfortunately at this point in time he's looked at by a lot as being part of the problem stopping what would have been the biggest fight of this generation, he also hasn't helped matters with some of his own quoted.

Huge Armstrong fan as well. He wasn't the only one cheating (far from it). Still a sporting legend in my eyes!

AdamT wrote: Still a sporting legend in my eyes!

Suing people who are telling the truth about you is always the absolute minimum I ask of my heroes as well.

I could care less about the mans character. I admire his achievements in his field. He was cheating like the rest and he was by far the best.

milkyboy wrote:As was said of him at the time, "To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse"

Wellington is the author of the quote, he made it to British Aristocrats.

I don't ever remember Wllington being celebrated in Ireland in my lifetime although a couple of monuments to him still stand to him over here which is somewhat surprising. I suppose they served as a reminder of victory over the English oppressor. Its all in the past now, did you like that green wreath at the Cenotaph, thought it look quite natty myself.

AdamT wrote:Huge Armstrong fan as well. He wasn't the only one cheating (far from it). Still a sporting legend in my eyes!

He was the biggest cheat by a long stretch and by all accounts a sociopath.

I did smirk when somebody said to him "You don't have a copyright on cancer".

Sports are full of cheats, especiallytop level

Rowley wrote:

AdamT wrote: Still a sporting legend in my eyes!

Suing people who are telling the truth about you is always the absolute minimum I ask of my heroes as well.

Helping hundreds of kids suffering from Cancer is more than minimum for me...

I'll applaud people like that..you applaud Dan Goosen types !!

Armstrong is American = hero.

Had he been Filipino = scum of the earth.

Manny Pacquiaos achievements pale in comparison to Armstrong

hazharrison wrote:Armstrong is American = hero.

Had he been Filipino = scum of the earth.

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

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:As was said of him at the time, "To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse"

Wellington is the author of the quote, he made it to British Aristocrats.  

I don't ever remember Wllington being celebrated in Ireland in my lifetime although a couple of monuments to him still stand to him over here which is somewhat surprising.  I suppose they served as a reminder of victory over the English oppressor.  Its all in the past now, did you like that green wreath at the Cenotaph, thought it look quite natty myself.

It's regularly misattributed to him strongy... as are quite a few quotes. It was a Daniel O'Connell quote, slagging off wellington's political faux irishness.

I've always thought boxers must buy the worst doping agents in history. Poor guys are up to their eyeballs in PED's but are slower, weaker, more fatigued than guys who drank their ways to titles.

kingraf wrote:I've always thought boxers must buy the worst doping agents in history. Poor guys are up to their eyeballs in PED's but are slower, weaker, more fatigued than guys who drank their ways to titles.

Can anyone translate that into English ??

Cheats should not be lauded for their sporting achievements. He might have done some good charity work but that doesn't mean he should get an automatic pass, regardless of natonality.

Isn't the issue with Armstrong's cancer charity is that its essential function is to raise awareness of charity, not to raise funds for the treatment of or research into cancer. I might have misunderstood, but I'm sure I read it somewhere. If true, regardless of how well intended it is, it seems like a glorified vanity project.

It isn't hard to translate...

Boxing is apparently rife in doping.

Other sports are rife in doping.

Boxing apparently shows no improvements not just in skill, but in power, speed, endurance etc. In fact it goes backwards

Other sports move forward at breakneck pace.

Ergo, boxers must get the cheap placebo drugs

Livestrong has raised more than $500 million..............

It's a hell of an organisation...............and a bit f**kin stupid to get it a Vanity project..

Raf. You were attempting irony. Truss is american. Of course it needs explaining.

milkyboy wrote:Raf. You were attempting irony. Truss is american. Of course it needs explaining.

You're right I didn't understand a word of it...."Buy" is that a mistake ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Livestrong has raised more than $500 million..............

It's a hell of an organisation...............and a bit f**kin stupid to get it a Vanity project..

Can someone translate into English please?

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Livestrong has raised more than $500 million..............

It's a hell of an organisation...............and a bit f**kin stupid to get it a Vanity project..

Can someone translate into English please?

You're Scottish................I'll change it to "wee this"..."wee that" If you like..

Works for me, T-Bone.

superflyweight wrote:Works for me, T-Bone.

......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Livestrong has raised more than $500 million..............

It's a hell of an organisation...............and a bit f**kin stupid to get it a Vanity project..

only  $499m of which was spent on armstrong's defence lawyers. Only joking.

He's a very strange man. But its not entirely unusual for alpha males/psychopaths to be altruistic on one hand and morally bankrupt on the other. Let's face it, most of us have good and bad sides. For all my sins, I occasionally hold a door open for old ladies, let the odd car in at busy road junctions (if the driver's fit obviously), that sort of thing.

It sounds like a decent charity to be fair but I don't think LA is involved since he got caught cheating.

Breakdown of how they spend the money Raf
http://www.livestrong.org/what-we-do/our-approach/where-the-money-goes/

Uh, thanks mate. I'll be sure to pass it onto 'Fly.

The power output and recovery are the big two in the tour, the difference in average speed is minimal and doesn't factor in that the big gains are made in a very short period of time. Froome gained a lot of time up Ventoux but his overall average speed over Contador was negligible.

Sorry Raf was just too lazy to scroll up.

Thanks Derby - it's still quite vague though, isn't it?