140 Years of Boxing History.....

[kal.majeed]

……a fully illustrated text (in just 12 pages – including classic/historic boxing video links)!

Notes: It is neither a ranking nor an attempt at a ranking (I have resolved from that endeavor, along with presenting any non boxing related data as there are some newly discovered key aspects that need to be fully researched – and this may take a while). The data contained within the dossier was completed prior to 2013 and does not include any updates that may currently be in any boxing record database. The punch stat/knockdown information on page seven [7] is merely a basic presentation of the only objective statistics available.

It seemed to be a waste of time, energy and resources to not release this research (for whoever may be interested).

For optimal viewing, it is recommended to close out the left panel and zoom in twice.

Key: [l] = left; [r] = right; [c] = center; [a] = above; [s] = standing; [d] = down (for the count); *Dominance record = career stoppage wins and career stoppage losses.

Boxing terms: KO (10 count out); TKO (referee/doctor stoppage); RTD (boxer/corner retire between rounds); UD (unanimous decision); MD (majority decision); SD (split decision); TD (technical decision); D (draw); DQ (disqualify); NWS (newspaper decision); FLW (flyweight: 112 lbs.);
BW (bantamweight: 118 lbs.); FW (featherweight: 126 lbs.); LW (lightweight: 135 lbs.); WW (welterweight: 147 lbs.); MW (middleweight: 160 lbs.);
LHW (light-heavyweight: 175 lbs.); CW (cruiserweight: 190 lbs.); HW (heavyweight: unlimited); J (junior: 3-7 lbs. under weight); S (super: 3-8 lbs. over weight).

Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4aMZQU ... sp=sharing

P.S.

Any constructive criticism/feedback is welcomed; remember, there is always room for improvement…..

[Bundana]

You have previously mentioned, that you can "prove", that boxing is gradually devolving - and that cross-era fantasy matches therefore are meaningless, if made in the same division. The old-times are (in your opinion) so superior to modern fighters, that fantasy matches between "old" and "new" must be cross-divisional, to make any sense:

If a present day elite heavyweight will be mismatched or overmatched (in a 'paper bout') by an elite peaking heavyweight of the not too distant past, then the only viable competition will be in a lower weight class (cruiserweight or light-heavyweight) and the further a present day elite heavyweight goes back in time for a ‘paper bout’ (perhaps several decades), he may need to matchup with an elite peaking featherweight, bantamweight or even an elite peaking flyweight of the far distant past – and the present day elite heavyweight may find himself on the losing end (in some/many instances). The specifics of this will be addressed later.


Do you intend to elaborate on this? You have said earlier, that you use Jimmy Wilde as an example in these cross-divisional fantasy matches - and, personally, I would find it very interesting to hear, how big a present-day elite fighter you think, Wilde would be able to defeat.

[kal.majeed]

Hello again - it's not just boxing but (substantively) virtually every field; however, it has become apparent (to me) that my previous posts have not made much an impact on the general viewers and this could be for many reasons - I am perhaps mostly to blame.

As a side note, unless someone is significantly knowledgeable/educated in the fields of anthropology/sociology, even with this added historical retrospect, it will be difficult (if not impossible) for them to comprehend such an explanation; hence, I will have to delve much further before I can present any such "paper bout" (i.e. old school flyweight vs. modern day heavyweight).

This is (among other things I am working on) my next goal (but as I stated - it may take a while).

[kal.majeed]

Part II of the series: “Great Heavyweight Decline” – a ten page dossier.

Prior to this next presentation, it is important to state and for one to try to understand that boxing/sports is merely a reflection of general society (throughout history) – many/most folks are competing, in some manner or respect, be it in their personal lives or professional endeavors.

Fundamentally, it is no different than what any professional athlete or coach/team does and it is important to never underestimate anyone regardless of their size/appearance.

How many times have you been underestimated by folks – only to prove them wrong?!

This is no truer in boxing/sports than in any general field – what you see is NOT necessarily what you get.

From conquerors of land to captains of industry – Alexander, Napoleon, Carnegie, etc. – all small (but adroit men).

And, yes, there is a substantive force/cause/reason behind all of this – but that is a bit later; and remember, at the elite level (and even near elites), it is not just a decline as time moves forward but also more substance as one rolls back the clock.

“Size matters not - look at me - judge me by size, do you?” – Yoda

Talk to any elite athlete (esp. from a combat sport – boxing/martial arts) and they will tell you that sports/combat is largely mental/psychological (i.e. 70%, 80%, 90%).

http://www.peaksports.com/sports-psychology-expert/

Notes: The central nervous system that comprises of the brain, spinal cord (along with the digestive system a.k.a. “the gut”) and is responsible for virtually all mind/body functions, weighs, on average, roughly three to four pounds in an adult (men and women – regardless of body height, weight or reach); hence, in many instances (combat or otherwise), perception equals reality; for example, in combat, if one believes one’s ability is lesser because of one’s smaller size (or vice versa – if one believes one’s ability is greater because of one’s bigger size), this becomes one’s reality (even if it is a false reality).

“Whether you think you can or cannot, either way you are right.” - Henry Ford

http://screen.yahoo.com/two-girls-lift- ... 37013.html

Also, be careful about solely evaluating a boxer’s ability via fight films.

“What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.” – Houdini

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrPgJrU6y-Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2e6IVPc5_U

The fact that Corrie Sanders “appears” to some to be similar/superior to Sonny Liston should be enough to open anyone’s eyes…

Google Document:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4aMZQU ... sp=sharing

[Giancarlo]

Just checking that you do know Yoda was a fictional character in a fantasy film?

[Clint Magnum]

Part II of the series: “Great Heavyweight Decline” – a ten page dossier.

Prior to this next presentation, it is important to state and for one to try to understand that boxing/sports is merely a reflection of general society (throughout history) – many/most folks are competing, in some manner or respect, be it in their personal lives or professional endeavors.

Fundamentally, it is no different than what any professional athlete or coach/team does and it is important to never underestimate anyone regardless of their size/appearance.

How many times have you been underestimated by folks – only to prove them wrong?!

This is no truer in boxing/sports than in any general field – what you see is NOT necessarily what you get.

From conquerors of land to captains of industry – Alexander, Napoleon, Carnegie, etc. – all small (but adroit men).

And, yes, there is a substantive force/cause/reason behind all of this – but that is a bit later; and remember, at the elite level (and even near elites), it is not just a decline as time moves forward but also more substance as one rolls back the clock.

“Size matters not - look at me - judge me by size, do you?” – Yoda

Talk to any elite athlete (esp. from a combat sport – boxing/martial arts) and they will tell you that sports/combat is largely mental/psychological (i.e. 70%, 80%, 90%).

http://www.peaksports.com/sports-psychology-expert/

Notes: The central nervous system that comprises of the brain, spinal cord (along with the digestive system a.k.a. “the gut”) and is responsible for virtually all mind/body functions, weighs, on average, roughly three to four pounds in an adult (men and women – regardless of body height, weight or reach); hence, in many instances (combat or otherwise), perception equals reality; for example, in combat, if one believes one’s ability is lesser because of one’s smaller size (or vice versa – if one believes one’s ability is greater because of one’s bigger size), this becomes one’s reality (even if it is a false reality).

“Whether you think you can or cannot, either way you are right.” - Henry Ford

http://screen.yahoo.com/two-girls-lift- ... 37013.html

Also, be careful about solely evaluating a boxer’s ability via fight films.

“What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.” – Houdini

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrPgJrU6y-Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2e6IVPc5_U

The fact that Corrie Sanders “appears” to some to be similar/superior to Sonny Liston should be enough to open anyone’s eyes…

Google Document:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4aMZQU ... sp=sharing

Anyone over 14 stone has enough power to knock a man out. Any more weight causes too many negatives. Yes you can step through shots and use your bodyweight but the knock on is that you are slower, your muscles fatigue quicker and your overall ring movement suffers. There were many, many 17 stone, 6"6 behemoths even in the 1930's they were just usually KO'd by the "smaller" 14 stone guys cause they were faster, fitter and harder to hit.

[kal.majeed]

Part III in a series: “How’d/Why’d he do that?!” – plus many extras – a four page text.

As a general notation, I would like to pay homage to great contributors (of boxing data, pictures, videos, etc.) in boxing history: Nat Fleischer, Stanley Weston, Bert Sugar, Nigel Collins, Steve Farhood, Jim Jacobs and many other unheralded patrons [including, of course, the actual boxers, trainers, cutmen, etc.], for without their individual/combined efforts, modern day databases such as CyberBoxingZone, BoxRec, many/most of YouTube’s classic boxing videos (and least of all, my work) may never exist…..

“Boxing promoters, for all the bad [things] one says about them, have an eye for talent.” – Bert Sugar

Jim Jacobs Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtpLQTygZ8

P.S.

Remember, as previously stated, it is NOT merely boxing [all divisions] that has been (and continues to be) on the decline; Amazon has 100 pages of listed books on the subject matter “Decline of…”

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh= ... 1367350097

P.P.S.

A quote that has often been paraphrased and used by others but this is the original:

“All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer (German Philosopher: 1788-1860).

Google Document:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4aMZQU ... sp=sharing

[Boilermaker]

Are you really saying that

Jimmy wilde, who dominated the flyweights back in the 1910's. Since flyweight is 7 divisions removed from the heavyweights, we can put prime Wilde in a time machine, transport him 7 x 10 years into the future... which lands him in the 1980's, where the prediction is, that he will stop both Holyfield (TKO 12-15) and Tyson (TKO 9-12)!!

Or have i misunderstood the theory?

[kal.majeed]

It's not so much "me" saying that as it is boxing historical data (as show in the various texts) - combined with an understanding of some vital neurological aspects - that indicates such.....

[Bundana]

What kind of "neurological aspects" can justify the belief, that tiny Jimmy Wilde would stand any (I mean ANY!) chance at all against the likes of Holyfield and Tyson - let alone be able to stop them inside the distance?

[kal.majeed]

As with any general query, it is vital to analyze things multi-dimensionally; with regard to boxing, it is not merely height, weight and reach vs. height, weight and reach but also mind (neurology) vs. mind.

Now, if the mental aspects are developed/enhanced/trained to a high enough level (as is the case with Lee) or emotionally effected high enough (as is the case with hysterical strength), it can and will compensate for what is apparently lacking in what is "seen".

Contact a neurologist (online or in person) and he/she does not necessarily need to know anything about boxing history and they can confirm that all characteristics of a boxer (durability, power, speed, reflexes, etc.) are neurologically based and if one boxer's neurological system is more developed/higher functioning, it can compensate for a smaller size (in general).

[Bundana]

I get what you're saying - and I certainly agree, that the outcome of a boxing match isn't determined by height, weight and reach alone.

But what makes you assume, that the neurological system of boxers from 100 years ago was so much more developed/higher functioning (as compared to what we can find today)... that it would make it possible for a flyweight from back then to beat a modern elite heavyweight?

I know, you have put in a lot of work on this, and I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt... but this just doesn't make any sense at all!

[kal.majeed]

Step one/question one:

Referring to the text "Great HW Decline"; is it adequately explained (and do you understand/accept) that - in the HW division (as shown from Liston to the Klitschko brothers) - there has been a consistent and significant decline?

Step two/question two:

Is it adequately explained (and do you understand/accept) that - in the HW division - this (decline) has been ongoing - from Sullivan to Marciano?

Step three/question three:

Do you understand/accept that 'declines' are within ALL divisions - and not just the HWs?

Step four/question four:

Do you understand/accept the logic that these consistent declines (all divisions) will equate to mismatches/overmatches - within a specific division (e.g. Ali/Liston vs. Holyfield/Tyson) - thereby leaving only one option for reasonable matchups - moving DOWN in weight?

Side note: If one understands/accepts the above noted 'steps', higher neurological function - as one goes back in time - is where one gets the conclusion (it is not an assumption) - for that controls all aspects (mind/body); also, remember, there are over 1000 books researched/written about declines - all throughout history (in all fields/endeavors). Simply refer back to the Amazon link given above.

Step five/question five:

Is it adequately explained (and do you understand/accept) the Zivic exampled bouts given - where boxers are 'declined' over the course of two decades - resulting in mismatches/overmatches between (Zivic vs. Foster/Torres) - boxers separated by 14/12.5 years per division higher/later?

Now, if one has understood/accepted the above, to make reasonable matchups, one needs to LOWER that average number, right? The ten year 'average' (a barometer) is used and then later shown consistent in the Olivares (and Marcel) examples (text titled “How’d/Why’d he do that”).

Remember, neurology is the basis for ALL functions (mind/body) and if a 'decline' (in any field/endeavor) can be accurately shown, it is a fundamental conclusion (and not merely an assumption) that the neurosis is at the basis of these 'outcomes'.

Now, if any one (or all) of these above steps and side notes are in dispute, let me know which ones (and specifically why) and I will do my best to address your concerns.

P.S.

I'm taking a breakfast/time out break (I'll address any concerns as soon as I can).

[Bundana]

I have read page after page of your examples, of how boxing is declining... so yes, you have adequately explained your position. And yes, I understand what you mean.

I also understand the concept of what you call "The Zivic Mismatch/Overmatch Laws". Zivic beat Booker, who beat Moore, who beat Martinez, who beat Mina, who beat Foster... so Foster has been "declined" so many times, that a Zivic vs Foster fantasy match doesn't make any sense, as Foster would be too badly mismatched/overmatched! If you can't see, how flawed this reasoning is... then I doubt anything I (or anyone else) can say, will make you realize how weird all this is.

[kal.majeed]

It is not so much that boxer A defeats boxer B and so on but the fact that they are overcoming age, weight, etc. that infers a decline.

You understand/accept this explanation (and other explanations are adequately presented) but the reasoning is flawed and weird?

I must apologize to you (and others) and move on - have a nice day.....