what suggests that fighters today are better??

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 24 Oct 2005, 12:39

yeah but big george was so slow.marciano would be hitting the arms,body absolutely anything.he'd sap his strength,stamina and deliver the suzieq.
lewis didn't fight that way.tyson wasn't the force he had been.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Oct 2005, 12:45

Seamus wrote:John L even though I disagree with the basic premise of your argument you still make some very cogent points. Chicago public high schools had boxing at least through the 30's and Catholic schools even longer. Americans some times get accused of thinking they're superior to the English, but I know some high schools in London had boxing for boys long after we abandoned it. The politically correct crowd over here would never stand for it now days, but I say better to have the gangbangers punching each other in the ring than shooting at each other on the street.

I don't base my belief that Holyfield would be too strong for Dempsey or Marciano at heavyweight on anything other than what he accomplished in the ring. I try to be a Realist not a Nostalgist. Holyfield probably did do things differently, but having a Herculean physique alone isn't enough (just look at Bruce Seldon) The old time HW champions enjoyed legendary status in there day, and alot of posters still view them that way. But realistically speaking it's the Nostalgists who are always coming up with the irrelevant arguments "He punched with so many pounds per square inch" "He hit so hard no one wanted to spare with him" "So and so said no one ever hit him harder" "He once knocked out 6 men in a bar room brawl" "He once knocked out a horse". None of that should really enter into the equasion of how a certain fighter would do against another. Before Leonard v Hearns I, Emmanuel Steward said that Hearns had decked lightheavy weights in sparring sessions at the Kronk Gym. Maybe he did, or maybe it was just an attempt to intimidate Leonard, but it had no bearing on what took place in the ring that night. Fact was, whether or not Hearns had actually floored light heavyweights in the past, he was unable to floor another welterweight when it really counted.

We actually had some boxing in junior high school here in Akron in the early 70's.

You really lost me with your comment about disagreeing with my premise, and then you have a whole paragraph talking about Holyfield being too strong, and "nostalgists" brining up things like punching so hard, etc. Was any of that intended to be relevant to my basic comment about the fact that it's rather silly to think there are better trained boxers now than in the past, when there are barely any gyms and trainers left? Maybe that isn't what you were commenting on.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Oct 2005, 15:01

seamus, rocky knocked charles out in the rematch??? whats ur point now?????

- are u trying to imply marciano didnt have a lot of power????

marcianos style changed in later years, he shortened his punches after lastarza fight, and it enabled him to become a better boxer, throw faster and more punches, and the only effect is he would lose some power. thats why in rockys last fights vs charles, cockell, moore, he grinded them down.

rocky of 51,52 was more of a slugger, loading up for the big punch. why do u think rocky had so many one punch knockouts early in his career- lastarza fight.

also i might add, maybe it was more of charles showing his true toughness??? charles trianed harder for the 1st marciano fight than he had in years and came in the best shape hed been in years and was very confident. HE WANTED TO WIN. so even though he could barely breathe due to an adams apple punch, he hung on for the later rounds and survived. charles gave it 110%.

in fact nat fleischer said "no man alive would have lasted the 15 rounds against ezzard charles that night, let alone win the decision."

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 24 Oct 2005, 16:49

Seamus wrote:That's a good one Brockton ! Now here's the punchline to your joke. Marciano threw 100 punches a round for 15 rounds against Ezzard Charles, AND he couldn't knock him out !!!

In another thread you insisted that Marciano hits with 100 lbs per square inch more than Vitali Klitschko and so by your mathematical formula of Marciano's hitting power X punches thrown per round he's guaranteed to beat Vitali. Yet in a bout with a less than rugged Ezzard Charles (great fighter but would have been better at LHW) a guy Walcott knocked out with one punch, Marciano is unable to score a knockout when throwing 100 punches a round. I'll take a 215 lb motivated Holyfield, who Foreman, Tyson and Lewis couldn't knockdown with there best shots, over a Marciano or Dempsey any day. And by the way, Joe Frazier went to the hospital in 71 after beating Ali. Taking precautions don't make you weak.

Thanks for answering this one so I didn't have to. In response to what I said about training, I am talking about the quality of the training available, not the amount of gyms and trainers.

Holyfield was dehydrated in the Qawi I fight because a lack of reentering water into his body for the pace he was outputting. Simple science, it had nothing to do with anything else.

I give credit to Dempsey for dismantling a big man like Jess Willard. But you cannot compare a 6'7" 245 lb Jess Willard to a real athlete. Also Willard was the worst heavyweight champion of all-time and only won the title when Jack Johnson threw his fight with him. When you go through history, once a fighter gets above 6'5" he usually is extremely limited and easily beaten by fundamentals. There are exceptions of course, but the example of what a tall fighter usually ends up as is Mike White.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:24

in fact nat fleischer said "no man alive would have lasted the 15 rounds against ezzard charles that night, let alone win the decision."

I can think of alot of fighters who would not have let Charles go five rounds that night.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:34

theone wrote:
in fact nat fleischer said "no man alive would have lasted the 15 rounds against ezzard charles that night, let alone win the decision."
I can think of alot of fighters who would not have let Charles go five rounds that night.

What makes u so sure?????

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:38

Well what did Nat know?

I say boxers are slowly improving.
So you can say BoxBuzz suggested it.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:40

What makes u so sure?????

You really believe charles would have lasted 15 rounds with prime Foreman, Tyson or Lewis?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:58

well who the hell knows, for all we know charles could have stayed away from foreman for over 5 rounds and outboxed him and grind him down till a tired foreman has nothing left and charles outpoints him. or maybe foreman could catch charles in the 2nd round and finish him??

whose to say charles wouldnt be able to do to tyson what buster douglas did??? charles had a stiff jab, very fast hands and footspeed. he could outbox tyson. i saw charles dance around a 6'2 218lb louis for 15 rounds whose bigger than tyson. but then again perhaps tyson will catch him early and knock him out.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Oct 2005, 20:00

By the way just kidding with the Nat comment.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Oct 2005, 20:06

well who the hell knows, for all we know charles could have stayed away from foreman for over 5 rounds and outboxed him and grind him down till a tired foreman has nothing left and charles outpoints him. or maybe foreman could catch charles in the 2nd round and finish him??

If Charles made it to the second round against Foreman it would be a miracle.

whose to say charles wouldnt be able to do to tyson what buster douglas did??? charles had a stiff jab, very fast hands and footspeed. he could outbox tyson. i saw charles dance around a 6'2 218lb louis for 15 rounds whose bigger than tyson

Louis was way past his best when he fought Charles. Douglas's size and reach had alot to do with his win againtst Tyson. Charles was way too small to do what Douglas did.

but then again perhaps tyson will catch him early and knock him out.

Exactly what would happen.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 25 Oct 2005, 01:00

A few things I don't quite get as I read this thread- good debate by the way.
1) Where and when was it deemed fact that bigger is better in boxing? It is my impression watching for over 30 years, reading everything I can get my hands on and irritating my elders with endless questions that by and large great big HWs are considered freaks among "boxing" people. After KOing one of the K brothers Lamon Brewster made comments to that effect. And if there weren't some validity to that, why wasn't Mike "The Giant" White any good? His 'athleticism' was al;l there- former NBA player- and he was 6' 10" and he was barely a 10 round fighter, and didn't winm much at that level.
2) For all the talk of the superiority of modern training and technique, where can I see it on display? The fighters of todeay are not nearly as skilled as their counterparts of 50 or more years ago. How could they be? The trainers today come from karate backgrounds, and in training camp- read "FAT FARM"- they have conditioning coaches and strength coaches and nutritional coaches and cardio coaches and a boxing coach. If anything I'd say these guys are overtrained because of all the non-boxing crap they do each day. Marciano was as well conditioned as any fighter ever and if you raed his daily routine you'd be amazed at what he didn't do. But if you are training to fight do so. Don't also train for a triathalon, a
track meet and a power lifting contest. What I see are guys with gloves on who have 150 rounds in 40 fights being cakllled great; theoir technique is poor their unde4rstanding of what is what is rudimentary at best and they are not typically in boxing condition.
3) Take the time and watch Young Stribling v. Sharkey some of the other HW bouts of that era and then speak of Tunney being the only one that could move . In that era a 'boxer' was not some guy that skipped around the ring pushing playful; looking jabs, but a guy that could fight from a distance or in close asd the situation warranted; he could avoid being hit and take it if he was and he could do damage to his opponent.
It was a very different and far more demanding activity in those years.