Early Prep of Past vs. Present

[HomicideHenry]

I don't fully understand the premise of this thread; cus to me its comparing apples to oranges. How can you honestly compare the training of the early 20th century and prior to the training of today, when it was an entirely different pace, system and matter altogether. The fights today are shorter, the referees and promoters are more squeamish, the gloves are bigger, even the rules have changed a bit more over the last decade, etc. You can't compare unless you put everybody in the same set of rules, conditions, etc. and even that is unfair to each fighter because they were the best in their prospective times.

[kal.majeed]

To HomicideHenry: It is strictly an ABILITY comparison - all aspects aside (such as you mentioned) are they better now, then, about even or a mixture.

I have tried to break this down as simple as I possibly can - the only thing I can suggest is to focus first on the initial article and then take it from there (to the other follow-up articles).

[HomicideHenry]

It all comes down to the rules, conditions, etc.

Boxing over the last thirty years has become all about reflexes, speed; and while I give the men of today those edges, they do not have the skill set of the older generations, let alone the conditioning or the toughness. These men, for the most part, have not been tested and put to the fire like the older generations. One can argue that if Mayweather, Pacquia were put in the conditions of the olden times they would of had double digit losses like LaMatta, Moore, Conn, etc. because back then the purses were less, opprotunities were few, you had to constantly be fighting the best to remain a name. Today, theres HBO, pay per view, the Internet, etc. people don't work as hard to get the same opprotunities. Seth Mitchell is a good example of this, of a man who had all these sponsers, endorsements, and was pushed on the public as the new Mike Tyson; anyone with a knowledge of the game could see he was coddled to the top and wasn't being trained anywhere near as greatly as he should have been. He gets knocked out by Johnathan Banks, a man who was never coddled. 1970s and prior, coddling seldom happened. The guys were just tougher mentally and physically than they are today. Throw in also the fact that men then trained fifteen rounds, today they train for twelve and there's talk the WBC/WBA want to do 11 round fights next. While they may have advantages in speed, reflexes, those advantages only work for short durations of time. Men in the day of Jeffries, for example, had 3oz gloves and often fought under suffocating heat in outdoor stadiums and were in 25-45 round contests; the pace had to be slower, it was a different rythem, cus it was common sense, why waste all that energy so early when you had thirty rounds left to go? The older guys were better defensively as well as offensively than the men today, they could be chopped up for ten, twenty rounds and come back and knock you out. You can only explain it by saying they were better defensive boxers than today, else no man would survive a thrashing for that long.

[kal.majeed]

I'm not sure if you realize it but most of what you have written is an endorsement of my conclusions; it is just that I have gone about it as though I were trying a case in court and not public opinion.

I use the most basic fighter data and actual bout results, taking things one step at a time.

I would suggest to go back to page one and start from the beginning, pretend you are a juror and I am presenting this 'case' to you - one needs to try to be objective and put aside all preconceived notions and biases (just as in an actual jury trial).

[HomicideHenry]

Your posts are just so long but the first post I think hits the points on the head. Myself, people point out that the men today are bigger, stronger, etc. while this may be true, look at the work rate; heavyweights today average 40 punches a round, and imho the bigger a man is, the bigger a target he becomes. Jack Dempsey had an incredible work rate, as did Marciano, and made a career of being 'Jack The Giant Killer, Slayer of Ogres' beating men such as Fred Fulton, Carl Morris and Jess Willard who were the size of men today. The only difference between those men and today may be the skill set today is slightly better. I think as often as men fought in the past, constantly fighting the best out there, regardless of their win/loss ratio, I would favor them over men today. Why? Let's make some comparisons of men today who follow the paths of the old generations: Tomasz Adamek is a great example. A light heavyweight who became a heavyweight, he has beaten some of the best contenders of our time (Arreola arguably the best of the bunch). He is by all means a heavyweight of comparable size and skill, work rate, of the old times. Great defense, great moves, has been tempered by the fire and pressure of hard fights; therefore he's able to take the best sunday punches of the big men. Because of this, it does make me feel guys like Louis, Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, could of made a successful move. Size means little, when the skill and the work rate is just not there. Now, the Klitschko's on the other hand are men with the size and the work rate; Vladimir is unbelievable in many ways, throwing as many jabs a round as most heavyweights average total per round and being 6'7" 250 pounds. I would say both Klitschko's are top ten caliber fighters, but even if people disagree with me on this, at least most can agree that anyone in the top twenty of any division list could beat anyone on that list on any given night. The Q comes down to who would have won the most fights in a series.

[kal.majeed]

Unfortunately, in trying to deal with such an issue in a legal format, I simply cannot make the posts any shorter - check them out one day and while we agree on some items, there are some noted disparities (I'll leave it at that until I hear back from you).....

[HomicideHenry]

As for certain questions as to how Foreman/Moorer could possibly happen, it isn't by accident that it happened. Moorer was simply a young man looking to prove he was no joke, and for the first nine rounds fought the best fight of his life, but it was apparent (though suttle) that Foreman was using the jab and hook to guide Moorer into the line of fire that he wanted. It was experience, something that can't be taught in a gym, that made the difference in that fight. Combine that with Moorer's hard headedness and over confidence, he went against his cornermen's advice who were telling him over and over "Foreman's trying to set you up", and to this day Moorer doesn't acknowledge that he was fooled into that stiff one-two.

Some people can't be explained other than it being experience and being tempered by the fire; Archie Moore is an excellent example of this. How he was capable of being a top man at 175 and contender at heavyweight virtually til the day he retired is beyong comprehension. It was that experience, and toughness, in combination with skills, that kept him in the running. Same with Bernard Hopkins. Same with Bob Fitzsimmons who remained a viable contender in three weight divisions til the day he retired. Jem Mace for being a grandpa still was a reknowned and respected fighter into his late 50's.

But back to Foreman. Had he not undergone the transformation as a man and fighter, during those ten years in self imposed exile from the sport because of his conversion to Christianity, he may not of had that mindset to of overcome the storm. Powerful as he was, he wouldn't of made it far, had he not evolved mentally, spiritually, emotionally, as well as technically. Remember, Foreman, Hopkins, Moore, Fitzsimmons, etc. are exceptions to the rule in this sport, not the rule. This sport has so many variables to consider.

And, as stated before, these fights in the past were of a different pace, style, and rythem. That explains alot of these men not being stopped, or facing losses, or how some fights went so long. Myself I am involved in the resurgance of bare knuckle boxing; and I can tell you it's a different mindset altogether. The fights are slower, the volume of punches is less, etc. Only a fool would fight the same way as they would with gloves on in a bare knuckle fight. That's why an Ali would never of made it in BKB against the Sullivan's, because of high volume, high jabs. His weapons would of been damaged early on, and of been left to absorbing punishment. Same goes with the early 20th century with men like Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries, with 3oz gloves (thats smaller than UFC gloves). Bridging, infighting, clinching, was essential. Such tactics are shunned today, though it's considered a lost art in many ways, Jack Dempsey was an excellent upper body grappler when need be.

[kal.majeed]

To HomicideHenry: Sorry to cut off and leave like that but I had an emergency to run and just now getting back.

There are some important (and obvious) matters that I feel I must now address.

First, more than 10 years ago, after nearly two decades of research, I first deciphered the cross-era 'secret' - on a very basic level; I used that insight to then begin researching ancient/classical philosophy and history with the hopes of deciphering the Universe 'secret'.

After about two years, I accomplish my goal - on a very basic level.

Since then, off and on, I have enhanced and fine-tuned my understanding of both topics.

The cross-era comparisons, at this point (for me), I consider a level or two above a child's game of 'connect the dots' or 'color in the lines' - as it is now rather simple and obvious - especially once one sees the full data.

In the original scenarios, there are no shades of gray; it is similar to being pregnant - either someone is or not - it's a black and white issue (very simple).

Now, with regard to the Universe scenarios, it is almost the complete opposite; remember, I do have a history of using misdirection (just as does an illusionist/magician) and it is no different in this case.

When I write that two scenarios can be ‘moderately’ refuted and that one can be ‘slightly’ refuted, this does not conclude that they (any one or all) are false. Each one of those scenarios possesses a great amount of gray area – similar to being dead or alive – there are many gray areas (life support, comatose, resuscitated, etc.).

For example, Einstein firmly believes #1 until Edwin Hubble discovers that the Universe is in a constant state of expansion; hence, Einstein's belief has now apparently been refuted for if the Universe is in a constant state of expansion, how could it have always been exactly the same?

Furthermore, if one reverses Hubble’s findings, as does Belgian priest/astronomer Georges Lemaitre, the Universe must have been much smaller as one goes back in time; however, how far will one take this – certainly not to the point where nothing exists, right? Hence, Einstein may not have been 100% correct but he was not entirely wrong either.

This general concept holds true for all three noted scenarios; therefore, a fourth scenario, for it to be correct, cannot (entirely) conflict with any of the noted options (and it does not – not nearly). The most difficult part of this work is the emotional aspect – especially if someone is particularly religious; unlike boxing, where folks can have heated debates, no one (or group) that I know of has ever started a literal war over it – this has certainly happened with regard to organized religion. For the record, my work is an academic effort and is not an attempt to prove false any particular religion or cultural belief.

[kal.majeed]

In honor of the “Macho Man” but with emotions aside, let’s try something new – Boxing Court of Law.

In this ‘court’, fight videos or what anyone may have ‘seen’ (in person), is inadmissible. Why? Because one may be viewing something on a lower (or higher) level without realizing it and folks always, based upon their experience, ‘see’ different things. Basically, in this ‘court’, videos and what anyone ‘sees’ amount to ‘hearsay’.

What is admissible? Actual bout results and only the most basic fighter data (as will be depicted).

In 2007, Floyd Mayweather Jr., at his pinnacle, wins (SD 12) his highest weight division title belt over the four years older and in his final world title bout Oscar De La Hoya.

Now, for De La Hoya, let’s roll back the clock ten years (to 1997); remember, these two are high ability boxers who actually begin their careers at around 130 lbs. (SFW).

The question is, if Floyd, at his pinnacle, can barely win a decision over the end stage Oscar, how well will he do against a peak Oscar (of 1997)? This is not rocket science, folks, Floyd will not last ten rounds.

That same year (in 1997), the eleven years older and in his final world title bout Hector Camacho goes the distance with the peak Oscar. Again, Hector, just as Oscar and Floyd, are high ability boxers who each begin their career at around 130 lbs. (SFW).

Look at the extreme of the noted examples: Hector (giving away eleven years and at his world championship end) actually performs better than a pinnacle Floyd – it does not get much more extreme than this, folks.

Now let’s roll back the clock a decade plus for Hector (1985) and, regardless of weight (that has nothing to do with ability), the “Macho Man” will be about on par with Oscar – as he (Hector) is moving back and up the ladder.

The simple and obvious result is that a pinnacle Floyd gets taken to school (via a late round stoppage) by the smaller (but higher in ability) early peak Camacho.

Folks, somehow I don’t think that many will believe me for a hundred years, but they get better – in some cases much better – as one goes backwards in time (and the fight videos will never reflect this)…..

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Floyd's apex wasn't DelaHoya at Jr Middle and he didn't struggle either. That whole post is a joke. How in the world is getting the dog shit beat out of you more impressive than clearly winning?

[Giancarlo]

Now let’s roll back the clock a decade plus for Hector (1985) and, regardless of weight (that has nothing to do with ability), the “Macho Man” will be about on par with Oscar – as he (Hector) is moving back and up the ladder.

The simple and obvious result is that a pinnacle Floyd gets taken to school (via a late round stoppage) by the smaller (but higher in ability) early peak Camacho.

Actually, the simple and obvious result of me reading that garbage is that you know nothing at all about boxing.

[kal.majeed]

You're misreading the data. How does a 2007 Floyd (pinnacle or not) do against a 1997 Oscar?

[HomicideHenry]

I'm sorry but throwing in quantam physics and theorum into a boxing forum loses all credability with me. I suggest you join the 'Flat Earth Society', because next you will be saying all matches can be determined by the stars. Sorry, but this is nuts.

[kal.majeed]

I was making reference to some earlier posted replies - I can understand if it appears confusing (since you do not know what I was referring to).

[HomicideHenry]

THEN JUST SAY WHAT YOU MEAN!!!!

[kal.majeed]

My goof - sorry.....

[Bobbyptsd]

You're misreading the data. How does a 2007 Floyd (pinnacle or not) do against a 1997 Oscar?

We don't know, and we never will.

We can advance theories, but they will always remain theories.

You keep making incredibly verbose posts, while if they were boiled down to their essence, would show that you are proving nothing. It's full of unfounded assumptions.

Paragraph-Paragraph-Paragraph-"So now we know Camacho would beat Mayweather"-Paragraph.

It's just a bunch of hypotheticals, with your conclusions based on absolutely nothing, wrapped up in a lot of words.

We all know boxing isn't math, and it also isn't a court system. You can't prove, or disprove the results of anything that hasn't,and never will, happen.

[kal.majeed]

Just trying - if folks don't like it, all I can do is apologize.....

[HomicideHenry]

As I stated earlier in the "Long Forgotten Story" thread of Marciano/Ali, the human brain is far more advanced than any computer system. I would love to see, however, the IBM WATSON system go up against a panel of experts predicting the outcomes of upcoming matches, and I bet that as advanced as the computer is, it would lose to the experts 8/10. Why? Because a machine cannot ever understand the "human element", it is not mathematical. That is one variable of thousands, that will never be computed into a theorum. Same with this "Court of Law" system that this man wants to use; we all know the judicial system is corrupt and full of loop holes anyways. There is a difference, indeed, between law and justice. Justice is seldom ever granted.

[kal.majeed]

Good points - can't argue with that.....

P.S.

Apologies in advance for any post replies that I do not respond to - some serious family concerns that will require my full attention for at least the next week or two.

Happy Holidays to all and best wishes for the New Year.....

[man]

where there is a lot of smoke there is usually only little fire.

[Boilermaker]

As I stated earlier in the "Long Forgotten Story" thread of Marciano/Ali, the human brain is far more advanced than any computer system. I would love to see, however, the IBM WATSON system go up against a panel of experts predicting the outcomes of upcoming matches, and I bet that as advanced as the computer is, it would lose to the experts 8/10. Why? Because a machine cannot ever understand the "human element", it is not mathematical. That is one variable of thousands, that will never be computed into a theorum. Same with this "Court of Law" system that this man wants to use; we all know the judicial system is corrupt and full of loop holes anyways. There is a difference, indeed, between law and justice. Justice is seldom ever granted.

this is actually a really good idea. I would love to see a human vs computer prediction challenge. I actually think that the computer does better than expected. Much like computer vs man at chess or Poker or whatever. With enough tinkering and work, it would be interesting to see how accurate the computer programs could make things and maybe even whether they could identify particular areas of teh game which need concentrating on from a fighters perspective (a little like what seemed to happen in the Moneyball movie). Obviously 100 per cent or even close to it, is never goignt to happen with either method.