Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post Reply
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by raylawpc »

This was the thread which resulted in Granberry being banned. he wrote under the name Capslock:

http://cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/sho ... t=capslock
John Galt
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 237
Joined: 22 Jan 2008, 19:16

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by John Galt »

Ray, thanks for the link. Am I missing something?

Capslock:

I've warned you repeatedly about insulting people here. Telling the guy that his "stats are full of crap" is once again over the line. I've had over a dozen complaints about you.

& for the record your the one that is full of shit. Your act is real tired.

Goodbye.

GorDoom

Maybe GorDoom should ban himself?
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by raylawpc »

The only bad thing about the ignore function is that it doesn't block somebody if they are quoted.

Nothing is perfect, I guess.

If you never used the name Capslock, Granberry, then I apologize. They say everybody has a twin, and I guess we found yours.
Last edited by raylawpc on 18 Jun 2008, 17:50, edited 1 time in total.
ebeneezer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 514
Joined: 23 Sep 2005, 17:01

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by ebeneezer »

granberry wrote: raylawc will not touch the subject of

Randy Gordon's phony 37-2 record.



Will you touch the subject of copy and pasting someone's else post from eastsideboxing on your Bernard Mays thread?
ebeneezer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 514
Joined: 23 Sep 2005, 17:01

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by ebeneezer »

Collins2000 wrote:How long before Anton and KOJOE90 come to the conclusion that the source of almost all the problems in this forum is granberry?

I know there is no hope for that weak-kneed apology for a moderator Boxbuzz who for some reason has encouraged this idiot, but you don't need a PHD in people skills to see this cuunnt is in a class of his own when it comes to ruining forums.
It's strange.

They had no problem banning him from here before so I don't see why they are so reluctant to do it again.
ebeneezer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 514
Joined: 23 Sep 2005, 17:01

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by ebeneezer »

Image


Which one of these two is Peter Maher,Terap?
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Robinson »

granberry wrote:
Robinson wrote:Blckbuster

You think the average person eats better now or then?
That depends on whether you think eating the growth hormones, steroids, antibiotics, food coloring chemicals, food flavoring chemicals, and preservatives in today's meat is GOOD for you.

Mr Gran
please check my posts on the first pages of this thread in regards to this.
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Robinson »

The fact remains is that on average the HW is bigger.
We have a whole new division in the CW that have
in the past made up the majority of HW's.

We all may have our own theories and ideas, but at the end
of the day the greats of the past for the most part would be
by todays standards just LHW and CW.

Today we have big framed men and at the same time we
have pot bellied children. We have over nutrition from
a very young age. Our bodies are swimming in nutriets
and minerals that are key to growth in the key stages
of developtment. Our dietary staples have expanded
and in the meat side of things the nutrient integrity is
better.

These are facts.

As for bigger being better well who knows. All I know is
that Id much rather watch a Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles
or a Floyd Patterson over a Sam Peters, Nik Valuev or
Wlad Klitschko. And the key to boxing is that it is a
SPECTATOR sport.
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Robinson »

Mr Gran

Can you answer this Q..
have you seen any HW in recent years that you thought
had some talent ?
bjermaine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 495
Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 23:32

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by bjermaine »

STEROIDS :D
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11173
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Ezzard »

John Galt wrote:Knucklez said that equipment is better today in sports. I can not agree. Whatever Jesse Owens was wearing or running on was superior to anything new.
Jesse ran a 10.3 100 meters with a hand held, real stop watch. Sprinters today are electronically timed and are running around 9.7. Sure the "media-sports" partnership will tell us that electronic timing slows times by about .2 of a second. If timed electonically, that would have made Jesse's best 100 meter time a 10.5. That would make him slower than Flo Jo's best time. My great grandfather told me that Jesse Owens was the fastest man ever, so I know it is true. The times have been manipulated by the media-sports conspiracy.
Sports have not gotten better, it is just a conspiracy. Even if other sports are better, boxing has not improved. It has regressed, we all know it. Today's boxers are too big, too strong, they don't do enough long slow jogs, they don't have the old time trainers, they aren't tough enough, they play video games while growing up, they don't work hard menial labor...
I don't believe that this is really what people are debating. Sprinters run faster recorded times but that's something different. They have the benefit of modern sports science, nutrition, better drugs, better designed equipment... Their times are not directly comparable to Jesse Owens. They are not necessarily better sprinters or athletes.

For the most part we are interested in who are/were the greatest of their times or who stands out historically. Nobody is really that interested in who had the benefit of the best training regime, the best gym shoes or who ate the most steaks...
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Robinson »

collins

no he has never.
but i can still hope.
Cap
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1513
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 11:44

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Cap »

Heavyweight fighters today are bigger than they were in the golden days of yesteryear, but unfortunately, in boxing, bigger does not necessarily mean better. Speed and stamina are key factors in comparing fighters. Joe Louis was faster and could last longer at top performance than Wlad Klitschko. You can't say that this means any cruiserweight today should be able to beat Wlad Klitschko. There are no cruiserweights today who have the skill or natural talent of the heavyweights of bygone days. Most are drug-using sluggards of minimum intelligence who box part-time when they aren't dealing or cleaning toilets. The best of this generation are playing baseball, hockey or football (European and North American).
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Robinson »

Cap wrote:Heavyweight fighters today are bigger than they were in the golden days of yesteryear, but unfortunately, in boxing, bigger does not necessarily mean better. Speed and stamina are key factors in comparing fighters. Joe Louis was faster and could last longer at top performance than Wlad Klitschko. You can't say that this means any cruiserweight today should be able to beat Wlad Klitschko. There are no cruiserweights today who have the skill or natural talent of the heavyweights of bygone days. Most are drug-using sluggards of minimum intelligence who box part-time when they aren't dealing or cleaning toilets. The best of this generation are playing baseball, hockey or football (European and North American).

So you are trying to say that fighters of the past are infalible ?

All fighters of today are untalented, over weight, drug using unskilled princesses ?

Yeah ok. Thanks for that insight.

I agree watching HW of yesteryear is more entertaining to ME and no doubt yourself,
that does not mean that there is no skill or talent of today.
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by raylawpc »

Robinson wrote:
Cap wrote:Heavyweight fighters today are bigger than they were in the golden days of yesteryear, but unfortunately, in boxing, bigger does not necessarily mean better. Speed and stamina are key factors in comparing fighters. Joe Louis was faster and could last longer at top performance than Wlad Klitschko. You can't say that this means any cruiserweight today should be able to beat Wlad Klitschko. There are no cruiserweights today who have the skill or natural talent of the heavyweights of bygone days. Most are drug-using sluggards of minimum intelligence who box part-time when they aren't dealing or cleaning toilets. The best of this generation are playing baseball, hockey or football (European and North American).

So you are trying to say that fighters of the past are infalible ?

All fighters of today are untalented, over weight, drug using unskilled princesses ?

Yeah ok. Thanks for that insight.

I agree watching HW of yesteryear is more entertaining to ME and no doubt yourself,
that does not mean that there is no skill or talent of today.
I do think that its a fair statement that, as a general rule, the boxers of the past - particularly those in the middleweight division and up - were better athletes than today's boxers.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by dempseyfire »

John Galt wrote:Knucklez said that equipment is better today in sports. I can not agree. Whatever Jesse Owens was wearing or running on was superior to anything new.
Jesse ran a 10.3 100 meters with a hand held, real stop watch. Sprinters today are electronically timed and are running around 9.7. Sure the "media-sports" partnership will tell us that electronic timing slows times by about .2 of a second. If timed electonically, that would have made Jesse's best 100 meter time a 10.5. That would make him slower than Flo Jo's best time. My great grandfather told me that Jesse Owens was the fastest man ever, so I know it is true. The times have been manipulated by the media-sports conspiracy.
Sports have not gotten better, it is just a conspiracy. Even if other sports are better, boxing has not improved. It has regressed, we all know it. Today's boxers are too big, too strong, they don't do enough long slow jogs, they don't have the old time trainers, they aren't tough enough, they play video games while growing up, they don't work hard menial labor...

If your handle on the facts/history was on par with your sarcasm, you'd be going somewhere.


The old guys sucked. Guys went 15 hard rounds, why go 15 hard rounds when you can go 5 rounds and then tire out? Sam Peter would overcome the likes of a dancing Ali with his 'death plod' . . .it looks less flashy, but Samuel's ingenius footwork allows him to conserve needed energy for last minute clinches.

Skills are over-rated. Who needs feinting, angles, counter-punching ability when you outweigh your opponent by 40 lbs? Don't you know of all of those examples of guys like Louis, Holmes, Ali, Dempsey getting destroyed by 6'5 giants?

Chris Byrd and James Toney were actually bigger than Joe Louis and Sonny Liston. Liston was really a blown up welterweight.

And of course, you can always look at a sport like football and compare its development to boxing, even though historically they'v developed on completly different timeframes. Boxing in the 1930s is akin to football in the 1930s, even though the major professional football games back then wern't even covered by major newspapers and in terms of popularity it was somewhere behind drag racing.
The fact that the NBA progressed in the past 40 years must mean boxing has too, who cares if they're different, it's all sports.

The track surface and running shoes sprinters wear has nothing to do with their running time. If the likes of Jesse Owens were so good they should've broken 10 seconds barefoot. He would lose to women today b/c his grandchildren are so genetically superior

The new trainers rule. The fact that there are less gyms with less trainers must mean the crappy ones went out of business, leaving only the truly qualified. Buddy McGirt forgot more about boxing than Jack Blackburn ever knew, that's why his fighters have been doing so well.
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Robinson »

Where have all the good trainers gone ??


They seem to be in Europe-Eurasia heading up the amateur programmes.
John Galt
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 237
Joined: 22 Jan 2008, 19:16

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by John Galt »

Dempsey, again you show why you are one of my favorites on this board. Your understanding of athletics and boxing continue to amaze.
As you point out, Ali never held or stalled in the ring. He always moved continuously for the entire length of the bout. Also, we all know that Ali was much smaller than his opponents, he gave up size to almost everyone he fought. You certainly know Ali well, he never held, never stalled, and he was a small heavyweight for his time.
And then, to show your complete mastery of the subject, you explain how progress has been made in other sports but not in boxing. Again, I feel humbled by your knowledge. To sum up your idea, the new, faster, stronger athletes all matriculated to football, basketball, etc., while the inferior athletes all went into heavyweight boxing? Even following Frazier, Ali, Foreman, etc. in the 70s, when boxers were making more money than other sports, the level of athlete declined in the 80s? Interesting take, but you and others have shown a unique "understanding" of athletics in general and boxing in particular.
And, as you pointed out that there are no good trainers left. You are not impressed with Buddy McGirt's record of late and you use that to prove that the good trainers like Jack Blackburn are a thing of the past. Is boxing the only sport in which coaches have not retained what the older coaches taught them? Are all sports going downhill?
I am humbled by your knowledge of athletics and boxing. Sometime when you have time, maybe you could explain how weight lifting restricts range of motion and causes people to become "muscle bound." I also want to pick your brain about subjects such as "should athletes drink water while exercising" - I know coaches didn't give their athletes much water until about the 1980s and WE all know that athletes and coaches were much better before the 80s. Could hydrating the athlete be behind the inferior performance (in your opinion) of the modern athlete?
Maybe hydrating the athlete has taken the toughness away? A thirsty, dehydrated boxer/football player, etc. was a tough athlete? What other old school ideas have been "lost" over the years?
zslayton
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 162
Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 00:04

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by zslayton »

dempseyfire vs john galt



As my favorite ref Mills Lane would say "LET'S GET IT ON!"
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by The Great John L »

John Galt wrote:And then, to show your complete mastery of the subject, you explain how progress has been made in other sports but not in boxing. Again, I feel humbled by your knowledge. To sum up your idea, the new, faster, stronger athletes all matriculated to football, basketball, etc., while the inferior athletes all went into heavyweight boxing? Even following Frazier, Ali, Foreman, etc. in the 70s, when boxers were making more money than other sports, the level of athlete declined in the 80s? Interesting take, but you and others have shown a unique "understanding" of athletics in general and boxing in particular.
OK John, where have all the boxing trainers gone? You jokingly posed this question but obviously aren't astute enough to know that it's the only question tahat matters. That is unless you think you can train to be a boxer at the local Ballys.

And you might want to tell us where the boxing gyms have gone as well. Or maybe these questions are too diffcult for you to comprehend?
John Galt
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 237
Joined: 22 Jan 2008, 19:16

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by John Galt »

No Zack, I do not want to argue with Dempsey, I just want to "learn" from an "old master." He and John L. know about boxing trainers and conditioning from an era before boxing was spoiled by weight training, scientific conditiong, PEDs, keeping athletes hydrated, etc.
Interestingly John L., I have actually met modern trainers who have heard of Joe Louis and have watched him on video to see what he did in the ring. Almost to a man they acknowledge that Louis was a master technician in the ring and most of them try to teach what they have seen Louis do in the ring. They have even added some new techniques and skills that they have seen from Leonard, Duran, Holmes, Ali, Holyfield, Hopkins, etc.
Is there a shortage of boxing gyms in your area? There are plenty in this area and amateur and professional boxing are both thriving. Why don't you open a gym in your area and teach the "old school" techniques? Share the skills and techniques that have been lost to most. According to the old masters like you and Dempsey, boxing is weak, it would be interesting to see a couple of "old schoolers" take advantage of the current weakness and make a few champions.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by The Great John L »

John Galt wrote:Is there a shortage of boxing gyms in your area? There are plenty in this area and amateur and professional boxing are both thriving.
It's all relative. Without even knowing where you live it's certain that there are far fewer now than there used to be, but since I'm expecting you to know about something that probably happened before you were born then I guess I'm expecting too much of you.

If you think that the amatuer boxing program in the US is healthy, and that pro boxing in the US is thriving then you are either naive or delussional.
Last edited by The Great John L on 20 Jun 2008, 14:44, edited 1 time in total.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by dempseyfire »

John Galt wrote:No Zack, I do not want to argue with Dempsey, I just want to "learn" from an "old master." He and John L. know about boxing trainers and conditioning from an era before boxing was spoiled by weight training, scientific conditiong, PEDs, keeping athletes hydrated, etc.
Interestingly John L., I have actually met modern trainers who have heard of Joe Louis and have watched him on video to see what he did in the ring. Almost to a man they acknowledge that Louis was a master technician in the ring and most of them try to teach what they have seen Louis do in the ring. They have even added some new techniques and skills that they have seen from Leonard, Duran, Holmes, Ali, Holyfield, Hopkins, etc.
Is there a shortage of boxing gyms in your area? There are plenty in this area and amateur and professional boxing are both thriving. Why don't you open a gym in your area and teach the "old school" techniques? Share the skills and techniques that have been lost to most. According to the old masters like you and Dempsey, boxing is weak, it would be interesting to see a couple of "old schoolers" take advantage of the current weakness and make a few champions.
Maybe I'll visit the local graveyard and try to dig some up. A seance maybe?

Professional and amateur boxing thriving? In the US? You do know northern Mexico is not technically apart of the United States, yes?

There are a few old trainers/fighters on this site. How about you ask them of the old school universal adage of water deprivement :lol:
I guess this means I was dreaming when I saw the film footage of Max Schmeling's trainer squirting water in his mouth in between sparring rounds.

Ali didn't start holding excessively until he was in his mid-30s. Even then he was throwing more punches and showing more movement/activity than Sam Peter who supposedly is in his mid 20s.

How great these trainers must be to be able to watch film of Joe Louis and then suddenly know how to teach all of his moves in the ring, plus add other things they've seen!!! I have a friend who has watched boxing religiously for 20 years . . .can he now become a successful HOF trainer too?

Who are these new fighters displaying all of the skills of the Brown Bomber, plus moves from Duran, Hopkins, Leonard etc?? They must be pretty awesome. Was the top PFP fighter Mayweather taught via these revolutionary techniques? Or was he taught by his Dad who fought in the 1970s and was never a top contender?

Where are the examples of these scientific conditioning techniques and weight lifting increasing the stamina of present-day fighters? Can you show me some examples of how Jermain Taylor, Paul Magiliaggni, and Wladimir Klitshko would outlast the likes of Emile Griffith, Ike Williams, and Larry Holmes? Forget 15, these new guys mus be able to go 20 rounds no problem. I guess Klitschko just didn't want to show his true ability after he gassed after 4 hard rounds vs Brewster, that was a pretty sneaky move. Taylor didn't want to be seen as being rude to the elderly when he faded vs Hopkins.

I heard Calzaghe has the best stamina of the upper weight class fighters? Does he hire gurus to monitor his heartbeat and have him do explosive 180 lb squats? Or does he do lots of roadwork through the hills of Wales? The latter would be pretty stupid, I read a study which said running outside can upset your allergies. And nothing stagnates a fighter like a runny nose.
Ambling Alp
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3627
Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Ambling Alp »

That's it, the referee has stopped this bloodbath!
There is no way that we can let the punishment that John Galt took continue!
He has been unable to defend himself.
He has had no effective answers to the various jabs, hooks, uppercuts thrown at him.
His offense was an array of silly, ignorant comments that weren't effective at all.
The bigger means better and ignore all the evidence to the contrary strategy didn't pay off at all.
He was well behind on points when the referee stepped in.

Perhaps he can go back to one of all the gyms that are thriving to train for a rematch. He use all the "new skills" that have been developed recently. (It may have helped his cause if he would have actually named those new skills.)

Hopefully he can learn a little about the history of boxing, how boxers were trained, how to actually respond to a point that another person makes. etc. We shall see.
Seamus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 17037
Joined: 31 Jul 2005, 23:38

Re: Why heavyweights are bigger today

Post by Seamus »

When the last argument has been made, I'll go back to what I've been saying (without any intended sarcasm). You're not going to see another dominant heavyweight under 215 again. Doesn't matter how many times titles change. The guys who will be winning them will be heavier.
Post Reply