How would guys from the beggining fair today?
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
How would guys from the beggining fair today?
how do you think guys like sulliven corbett fitzsimmons johnson langford jeannette jeffries and all of them would fair against todays heavyweights? well maybe not todays heavyweights because most of hem a garbage... how about guys like ali foreman frazier dempsey baer louis marciano.. how would the pioneers have held up against them? did the game change enough or where those pioneers skilled enough to compete today, with all the changes in boxing strategy and the way it is fought. also how wold the champions of the 1700's fair against modern heavyweights, like for say, the 90's or the 80's... any chance at success from guys like james figg, ben brain, jem mace, tom johnson.. etc? please give me your thoughts on both of these questions...
Honestly?
For the most part any one of these guys you have named would fall apart if placed in the ring with the current crop of fighters. Not much left of them besides bones at this point. Most likely they would crumble in their corners before the fight even began. Ok they might be able to take Ruiz out even in their current condition.....but thats the best you could hope for.
For the most part any one of these guys you have named would fall apart if placed in the ring with the current crop of fighters. Not much left of them besides bones at this point. Most likely they would crumble in their corners before the fight even began. Ok they might be able to take Ruiz out even in their current condition.....but thats the best you could hope for.
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
What?
You would need a time machine and those things are damned expensive! No promoter today is going to dig into his pocket for that kind of jack to find out the answer to your question.
Too much risk in it ...Not to mention the time space continuum problems and all that. For example you bring Jack Johnson back and you know before he even signs to fight anyone he is going to want some of Angelina Joline..... Brad Pitt will then get upset, attempt to stop him, get the total BeJesus beaten out of him by Jack......this will be followed by both the promoter and time travel industry getting sued big time.... the tabloids get into the mix.....one headache after another and before you know it, time travel for everyone will be shut down lickety split ..........it's a logistics nightmare........and well it's just too messy.
OK now you want a serious answer, quite a broad question in my mind, so I'm not sure how many bites you'll get here. We struggle with one to one matchups.
With that said I have gone on record saying that I think the sport is evolving and the best "today" may be the best ever. (Don't hold me to this exact moment please)
Others have been quick to point out that Buzz is an idiot for beleiving this (as well as for other reasons) and firmly state that in the old days the fighters were far more dedicated and down to business. And in the end more effective.
I'm sticking with todays guys for the most part....overall...would outperform yesterdays. Overall Generic statement.
I cite training techniques, more rest, benefit of learning the old guys mistakes.
But then the more subtle nuances get figured such as what if an old fighter was brought up in todays world? Would that be an advantage. Or vice versa.
This is one huge subject. And although I likely have the answers here somehwere, my dinner is about to be served.
You would need a time machine and those things are damned expensive! No promoter today is going to dig into his pocket for that kind of jack to find out the answer to your question.
Too much risk in it ...Not to mention the time space continuum problems and all that. For example you bring Jack Johnson back and you know before he even signs to fight anyone he is going to want some of Angelina Joline..... Brad Pitt will then get upset, attempt to stop him, get the total BeJesus beaten out of him by Jack......this will be followed by both the promoter and time travel industry getting sued big time.... the tabloids get into the mix.....one headache after another and before you know it, time travel for everyone will be shut down lickety split ..........it's a logistics nightmare........and well it's just too messy.
OK now you want a serious answer, quite a broad question in my mind, so I'm not sure how many bites you'll get here. We struggle with one to one matchups.
With that said I have gone on record saying that I think the sport is evolving and the best "today" may be the best ever. (Don't hold me to this exact moment please)
Others have been quick to point out that Buzz is an idiot for beleiving this (as well as for other reasons) and firmly state that in the old days the fighters were far more dedicated and down to business. And in the end more effective.
I'm sticking with todays guys for the most part....overall...would outperform yesterdays. Overall Generic statement.
I cite training techniques, more rest, benefit of learning the old guys mistakes.
But then the more subtle nuances get figured such as what if an old fighter was brought up in todays world? Would that be an advantage. Or vice versa.
This is one huge subject. And although I likely have the answers here somehwere, my dinner is about to be served.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
its hard to say cause the joon l sullivans and other bareknuclckers didnt know as much boxing technique back then and did a lot of wrestling in the ring.
but i will say this, they were much stronger than todays guys, and in better shape and a lo tougher. and if u brought them to fight todays crop, i think they would change their styles and adapt to more of a boxing style and keeping their hands up and i think they would beat the heavyweights of today by changinf their styles and adapting. otherwise they would be DQed lol. fitzimons would proabbly fight at light-H or middleweight and could KO eveyrone if he hads boxing to his great power. corbett woudld probably fight cruiserweight and would probably outbox everyone. forget about langford, he wouldnt even have to adapt his style to much, i think he would take hopkins apart. jack johnson would demonstrate such incredible defense that he would make cris bryds defense look like the kansas city cheifs. jhonson would probably adapt his style by keeing his hands higher and possibly becoming a little more aggresive especiialy since he has a great right uppercut.
but i will say this, they were much stronger than todays guys, and in better shape and a lo tougher. and if u brought them to fight todays crop, i think they would change their styles and adapt to more of a boxing style and keeping their hands up and i think they would beat the heavyweights of today by changinf their styles and adapting. otherwise they would be DQed lol. fitzimons would proabbly fight at light-H or middleweight and could KO eveyrone if he hads boxing to his great power. corbett woudld probably fight cruiserweight and would probably outbox everyone. forget about langford, he wouldnt even have to adapt his style to much, i think he would take hopkins apart. jack johnson would demonstrate such incredible defense that he would make cris bryds defense look like the kansas city cheifs. jhonson would probably adapt his style by keeing his hands higher and possibly becoming a little more aggresive especiialy since he has a great right uppercut.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Again on this board, I ask you to cite how today's boxers are better conditioned, faster, and stronger then yesteryears . . .
No-one goes 15 rounds, and the wide majority get gassed by the 8th round.
Faster? watch film of Kid Gavilan, Ike Williams, Ray Robinson, Emile Griffith and tell me that . .
Stronger? Find me one HW today who could show the leg and muscle strength of an Arturo Godoy . . . or a Joe Louis who picked up the 260 lb Mr. Universey-like Primo Carnera in a clinch . . .
It's a myth, that today's top boxers are better athletes. If boxing had increased in participants and popularity over the last 40 years like football, then I'd rethink that. But we have less fights, much less fighters, and a dearth in quality trainers.
No-one goes 15 rounds, and the wide majority get gassed by the 8th round.
Faster? watch film of Kid Gavilan, Ike Williams, Ray Robinson, Emile Griffith and tell me that . .
Stronger? Find me one HW today who could show the leg and muscle strength of an Arturo Godoy . . . or a Joe Louis who picked up the 260 lb Mr. Universey-like Primo Carnera in a clinch . . .
It's a myth, that today's top boxers are better athletes. If boxing had increased in participants and popularity over the last 40 years like football, then I'd rethink that. But we have less fights, much less fighters, and a dearth in quality trainers.
Dempsey makes a great point.
I also think that any kind of era versus era debate can only be stretched so far. I, for one, am not really interested in who had the better diet, or better performance enhancing drugs.
Were fighters back then as dedicated as today? YES (and the majority of them more so)
Were they as skilled? YES (again many of them were better skilled)
We always talk about these comparisons in terms of bringing these guys into the present. what about if we send Byrd, Klitschko and Ruiz back to the past. How would they cope with the living conditions and hardship that prevailed back then? Who knows, it might actually make them better fighters...
I also think that any kind of era versus era debate can only be stretched so far. I, for one, am not really interested in who had the better diet, or better performance enhancing drugs.
Were fighters back then as dedicated as today? YES (and the majority of them more so)
Were they as skilled? YES (again many of them were better skilled)
We always talk about these comparisons in terms of bringing these guys into the present. what about if we send Byrd, Klitschko and Ruiz back to the past. How would they cope with the living conditions and hardship that prevailed back then? Who knows, it might actually make them better fighters...
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
so then, what is the problem with todays fighters in terms of stamina?... if these old guys could fight there hearts out for 60, 70 rounds, some fights lasting over 2 and a half hours, then why can todays fighters barely go 12.. most out by round 7, ust going on fumes... is there something wrong with the way they condition now a days?.. i saw the dempsey-gibbons fight on espn classics the other night and they werent just standing there not throwing any punches. they were punching and grabbing and pushing and running and ducking it was a great fight, so i dont think u can really make the arguement that they didnt do much, could it just be that these old fighters had over 50 more rounds of heart then guys of today?.. i doubt many fighters of the old day had considerably more heart then a guy like evander or gatti... so what do u guys think is the problem with conditioning?
[quote="undisputedly_pat"]
James Corbett fought a 61 round draw against a fellow by the name of Peter Jackson, if memory serves me correct. A guy (Jackson) himself who probably could have been champion for at least a brief tenure if not for the colour line.quote]
And Jackson was fighting with a strapped up right leg also, he`d been thrown from his horse buggy and gotten himself some bad cuts and bruises but his ankle and shin were said to be in a terrible state, but as mentioned he was frozen out and had to take his chance, for about 4hrs he pressed the fight and was the aggressor but at the end it became such a boring affair the ref decided to call a draw.
James Corbett fought a 61 round draw against a fellow by the name of Peter Jackson, if memory serves me correct. A guy (Jackson) himself who probably could have been champion for at least a brief tenure if not for the colour line.quote]
And Jackson was fighting with a strapped up right leg also, he`d been thrown from his horse buggy and gotten himself some bad cuts and bruises but his ankle and shin were said to be in a terrible state, but as mentioned he was frozen out and had to take his chance, for about 4hrs he pressed the fight and was the aggressor but at the end it became such a boring affair the ref decided to call a draw.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I think we are talking more about the stamina of the heavier weight fighters here, primarily HW's. Just watch Ali-Frazier I and you'll be amazed at the energy the 2 of them had in the last round of a pretty fast paced 15 rounds.Rory McCloskey wrote:so then, what is the problem with todays fighters in terms of stamina?... if these old guys could fight there hearts out for 60, 70 rounds, some fights lasting over 2 and a half hours, then why can todays fighters barely go 12.. most out by round 7, ust going on fumes... is there something wrong with the way they condition now a days?.. i saw the dempsey-gibbons fight on espn classics the other night and they werent just standing there not throwing any punches. they were punching and grabbing and pushing and running and ducking it was a great fight, so i dont think u can really make the arguement that they didnt do much, could it just be that these old fighters had over 50 more rounds of heart then guys of today?.. i doubt many fighters of the old day had considerably more heart then a guy like evander or gatti... so what do u guys think is the problem with conditioning?
I think the stamina problems with most current HW's is due to what many say is their biggest advantage over the old timers -- their larger size. While the size may help with some things, it causes stamina problems for the simple fact that it takes a lot more energy to carry around 250 lbs than it does 200 lbs, whether that weight is muscle or fat. Have you ever seen a 250 lb marathon runner?
I had to drag this out....thought it was appropriate
Well I'm thinking the opinions are diverse with basic unifying principles as the dividing line.
Old School:
More tested, grittier, not momma's boy's, unspoiled, real men. Haggard and bone weary they looked forward to the next hook, cross or jab to come there way. When hit with a hard shot they celebrated and gave back triple in return. They would fight and would look forward to and easily deliver a beating to 3, 6, 9 or more well rested men a night without complaint. They often would chew off and spit their own teeth out at their opponents to further intimidate both current and future competitors. They needed little rest themselves as they were hungry for the hunt and sound of the ringing bell was all they needed for nourishment.
These Neanderthals often walked 15 miles dragging their knuckles in the rain or the snow just to get to the events. It had been reported that during these long walks they would occasionally consume railroad track for it's iron content and perhaps a rabid animal for it's protein. This gave them the energy to do battle for hundreds of rounds until civilization demanded fights be limited to 15 rounds max.
They continued to flourish for a while until the game hit 12 championship rounds maximum. This so bored and disillusioned the breed that they became depressed, disinterested, dispassionate with life, eventually headed for solitary lives in caves and the blood line has now of course dissapeared.
New School:
Related to the old school but civilization has had an effect, successfully feminized to some degree they willingly accept limits on the amount of rounds.
Reading about the old days and hearing stories of the old generation they are studied warriors who plan their work and work their plan. More efficient and less willing to take a beating than the previous generation they prefer to only deliver punishment when possible. They also prefer to end the fight as soon as possible rather than enjoy the ride.
They work out scientifically using electronic and mechanical gadgets all designed to protect the predator for the actual event itself. They are fed foods that are carefully prepared for them by nutritionists. Some fighters have studied the old diets but have taken the active ingredients and melted it down into what is known as "fighters paste"
It is their claim that the intellectual approach combined with scientific and efficient training and improved nutrition has left them fresher for the event. They claim that an event in the current time period is actually a more thrilling ride due to the fact less rounds produce greater bursts of energy. The beatings are meant to be more deliberate and destructive and as a result the only way to guarantee survival is to keep the amount of rounds limited.
Trips to the event itself have changed somewhat, limousines with warm up equipment replace the long walks, and instead of simply walking into the ring some have resorted to a "fancy pants dance" an odd new ritual that seems to add nothing but perhaps detract nothing from the sport itself
They claim they have evolved the sport in ways which would have been too dangerous to be in the hands of the former champions of the sport.
Is that about it?
Well I'm thinking the opinions are diverse with basic unifying principles as the dividing line.
Old School:
More tested, grittier, not momma's boy's, unspoiled, real men. Haggard and bone weary they looked forward to the next hook, cross or jab to come there way. When hit with a hard shot they celebrated and gave back triple in return. They would fight and would look forward to and easily deliver a beating to 3, 6, 9 or more well rested men a night without complaint. They often would chew off and spit their own teeth out at their opponents to further intimidate both current and future competitors. They needed little rest themselves as they were hungry for the hunt and sound of the ringing bell was all they needed for nourishment.
These Neanderthals often walked 15 miles dragging their knuckles in the rain or the snow just to get to the events. It had been reported that during these long walks they would occasionally consume railroad track for it's iron content and perhaps a rabid animal for it's protein. This gave them the energy to do battle for hundreds of rounds until civilization demanded fights be limited to 15 rounds max.
They continued to flourish for a while until the game hit 12 championship rounds maximum. This so bored and disillusioned the breed that they became depressed, disinterested, dispassionate with life, eventually headed for solitary lives in caves and the blood line has now of course dissapeared.
New School:
Related to the old school but civilization has had an effect, successfully feminized to some degree they willingly accept limits on the amount of rounds.
Reading about the old days and hearing stories of the old generation they are studied warriors who plan their work and work their plan. More efficient and less willing to take a beating than the previous generation they prefer to only deliver punishment when possible. They also prefer to end the fight as soon as possible rather than enjoy the ride.
They work out scientifically using electronic and mechanical gadgets all designed to protect the predator for the actual event itself. They are fed foods that are carefully prepared for them by nutritionists. Some fighters have studied the old diets but have taken the active ingredients and melted it down into what is known as "fighters paste"
It is their claim that the intellectual approach combined with scientific and efficient training and improved nutrition has left them fresher for the event. They claim that an event in the current time period is actually a more thrilling ride due to the fact less rounds produce greater bursts of energy. The beatings are meant to be more deliberate and destructive and as a result the only way to guarantee survival is to keep the amount of rounds limited.
Trips to the event itself have changed somewhat, limousines with warm up equipment replace the long walks, and instead of simply walking into the ring some have resorted to a "fancy pants dance" an odd new ritual that seems to add nothing but perhaps detract nothing from the sport itself
They claim they have evolved the sport in ways which would have been too dangerous to be in the hands of the former champions of the sport.
Is that about it?