There's no point living in this crazy world a second longer.
There actually is a man alive who believes Audley Harrison could defeat a prime Muhammad Ali.
Its on the BBC website. I was led there by the title "Could Jack Dempsey live with David Hayes speed"
Read on. My faith in humanity is gone. I'm off to put the Luger to my temple, i'll see you all on the otherside.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A21599634
KILL YOURSELF NOW
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
I don't know if I agree at all. Dempsey was over 6 foot tall, and had a heavyweights upper body, he was very quick, and weighed around 190 lbs, much like Evander holyfield did prior to his heavyweight excursion.
If he had fought today, Dempsey would have weighed probably nearer 210-215, enough to be competitive in any era if you have speed and punching power.
I think Dempsey would have been beaten by the likes of Holmes, Ali, Foreman, Liston, Frazier (possibly), but he was still a devastating heavyweight.
If he had fought today, Dempsey would have weighed probably nearer 210-215, enough to be competitive in any era if you have speed and punching power.
I think Dempsey would have been beaten by the likes of Holmes, Ali, Foreman, Liston, Frazier (possibly), but he was still a devastating heavyweight.
-
overhand_right
- Heavyweight
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
what a twat.dookus wrote:HHAAHHAHAHAHA!
yeah, cos evolution's just THAT fast, isn't it
Humans have no evolved for hundreds of thousands of years you pillock. Evolution is in response to factors in the environment, and given that humans have been modifying their environment to suit themselves ever since the stone age onward, it's not likely that humans are ever going to evolve further than they have.
I was of course referring to training methods.
Do you think Evander Holyfield, had he been fighting in the 1920's, would have weighed much more than Dempsey. Holyfield weighed 205 when he lost his title to Bowe, Dempsey's career highest was 197, and that's without weight training, modern nutrition or the other 'enhancements' Evander has had access to.
It's worth bearing in mind that even before Dempsey, there were heavyweight with a 'modern' build, like Jim Jeffries, who was a beast of a man who weighed as high as 230 lbs.
Training methods is the main thing, what worked then, would it work now,
yes and no, boxers back then, you could say had better stamina,
but you look at the older generation jefferies, Johnson and such,
there styles and stances are completley different to that of "modern" boxers, but obviously if they were to fight today, they'd have access to obviously the same training standards and techniques, who knows,
mythical match ups are rubbish and silly at times.
yes and no, boxers back then, you could say had better stamina,
but you look at the older generation jefferies, Johnson and such,
there styles and stances are completley different to that of "modern" boxers, but obviously if they were to fight today, they'd have access to obviously the same training standards and techniques, who knows,
mythical match ups are rubbish and silly at times.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
The biggest single change in boxing is nutrition. Knowledge of what constituted proper nurtition for a fighter has made massive leaps, especially in the last 20 years.
Jeffries actually fought from a low crouch, which was far more similar to modern fighters than his contemporaries who fought from an upright stance with the cycling hands defence.
I think you can assume that the majority of the old style fighters, given modern training methods, nutrition, and access to the modern style of fighting, would on the whole prospered, though not neccessarily in the weight class they originally campaigned in.
Bob fitzsimmons for example would have found it extremely difficult to compete in the heavyweight division, given that he basically fought as a middleweight for most of his career, and was annihilated by the far bigger Jeffries.
Talent is talent, and although the 'type' of natural talent may change a little, the best and toughest athletes in any era would generally I thoink have been competitive in any other. Most golden ages are overrated, taking the heavyweights as an example, outiside of the major names, there was a paucity of talent according to scribes of the time, the same as it ever was in the heavyweights.
It's an interesting debating point, but often a facile and futile exercise.
Jeffries actually fought from a low crouch, which was far more similar to modern fighters than his contemporaries who fought from an upright stance with the cycling hands defence.
I think you can assume that the majority of the old style fighters, given modern training methods, nutrition, and access to the modern style of fighting, would on the whole prospered, though not neccessarily in the weight class they originally campaigned in.
Bob fitzsimmons for example would have found it extremely difficult to compete in the heavyweight division, given that he basically fought as a middleweight for most of his career, and was annihilated by the far bigger Jeffries.
Talent is talent, and although the 'type' of natural talent may change a little, the best and toughest athletes in any era would generally I thoink have been competitive in any other. Most golden ages are overrated, taking the heavyweights as an example, outiside of the major names, there was a paucity of talent according to scribes of the time, the same as it ever was in the heavyweights.
It's an interesting debating point, but often a facile and futile exercise.
WHOAjamesmcdonnell wrote:what a twat.dookus wrote:HHAAHHAHAHAHA!
yeah, cos evolution's just THAT fast, isn't it
Humans have no evolved for hundreds of thousands of years you pillock. Evolution is in response to factors in the environment, and given that humans have been modifying their environment to suit themselves ever since the stone age onward, it's not likely that humans are ever going to evolve further than they have.
I was of course referring to training methods.
Do you think Evander Holyfield, had he been fighting in the 1920's, would have weighed much more than Dempsey. Holyfield weighed 205 when he lost his title to Bowe, Dempsey's career highest was 197, and that's without weight training, modern nutrition or the other 'enhancements' Evander has had access to.
It's worth bearing in mind that even before Dempsey, there were heavyweight with a 'modern' build, like Jim Jeffries, who was a beast of a man who weighed as high as 230 lbs.
I wasn't referring to you, your point is entirely valid, and Holyfield is a wonderful example of what a modern nutritional/weights regime will do for a boxer,
I was referring to the guy who claimed that Audley Harrison would beat Muhammed Ali based on how "the human body's changed over the decades". If I was referring to you, I'd have quoted you. That's what the Quote button is for.
Oh, and: yes, we are still evolving. Only 7000 years ago nobody could digest cows milk (which is well inside the Stone Age and the birth of agriculture), and the reason humans have such a comparitively high level of cancer is because our cells' DNA is somewhat prone to mutations - we are still in the process of evolving. As close genetically as the races are, they didn't split off from each other further than at most 50,000 years ago - not hundreds of thousands of years. The acquisition of language as we would recognise it is only at best 15000 years old. The criteria by which we survive, on the other hand, has changed as dramatically as our command of the environment, and therefore the nature of our evolution is different. Presumably, at the going rate, humans in 400 years literally will have no ability to distinguish their arse from their elbow.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
My apologies, thought you were having a pop.
Well, blow me, it appears you are right.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... volve.html
However, the rate of evolution in modern humans I would suggest is rather slower than would be the norm, given our ability to control our environment.
Well, blow me, it appears you are right.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... volve.html
However, the rate of evolution in modern humans I would suggest is rather slower than would be the norm, given our ability to control our environment.
-
Phenomenal-Nutrition
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53
Boxing and strength/size makes for some interesting discussions. All been equal strength/power wins the fight. Factors:
Punching Power - even if a fighter is much bigger/stronger they can still punch with less power than a Dempsey/Marciano because they get less torque/full body momentum into the punch.
Punching accuracy/Defence - even if a modern fighter can punch far harder if he can't land his punches and the old timer can get better timing the old timer can beat him out.
Having said that massive size advanatage in some cases would just be too much imo. How do we see match ups like these going:
Vitali-Marciano (5'11 185)
Valuev-Sam Langford (5'8 135-180)
Wlad-Jack Johnson
Tua-Marciano/Langford
Ike Ibeauchi-Marciano/Langford/Dempsey
Olden day fighters have the disadvantage of not having the same nutrition/steroids/power training regimes todays fighters have.
Punching Power - even if a fighter is much bigger/stronger they can still punch with less power than a Dempsey/Marciano because they get less torque/full body momentum into the punch.
Punching accuracy/Defence - even if a modern fighter can punch far harder if he can't land his punches and the old timer can get better timing the old timer can beat him out.
Having said that massive size advanatage in some cases would just be too much imo. How do we see match ups like these going:
Vitali-Marciano (5'11 185)
Valuev-Sam Langford (5'8 135-180)
Wlad-Jack Johnson
Tua-Marciano/Langford
Ike Ibeauchi-Marciano/Langford/Dempsey
Olden day fighters have the disadvantage of not having the same nutrition/steroids/power training regimes todays fighters have.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Precisely.
It's worth noting that a barely 200 lb Louis, beat the shite out of a 6' 6 1/2" Buddy Baer, a 250 lb behemoth with frightening punch power. Louis absolutely annihilated him dropping him numerous times and stopping him in the first round.
Valuev is a big man, with decent boxing skills for his size, but he is slow of foot, and not really a tremendous puncher, his huge weight makes him effective.
His huge physical size presents problems, but Ruiz ran him very close, and most thought Larry Donald, far from a giant, beat him too.
Modern training regimes may help with physical strength, but punch technique is surely more important?
Marciano against Sam Peter is an interesting one. Both men seem to be very sturdy physically, but Marciano had phenomental stamina and ability to stick to a game plan. Peter lacks Marciano's killer instinct, and despite his huge natural physical stature, I would hesitate to say he hits harder than Marciano, who had phenomenal punching technique. You only have to look at his KO of Walcott to see just how well Marciano delivered that killer hook right to the percect spot.
Sam Peter by contrast is a clubbing fighter whose power is dissipated usually by his inability to land a clean shot against his opponent.
It's worth noting that a barely 200 lb Louis, beat the shite out of a 6' 6 1/2" Buddy Baer, a 250 lb behemoth with frightening punch power. Louis absolutely annihilated him dropping him numerous times and stopping him in the first round.
Valuev is a big man, with decent boxing skills for his size, but he is slow of foot, and not really a tremendous puncher, his huge weight makes him effective.
His huge physical size presents problems, but Ruiz ran him very close, and most thought Larry Donald, far from a giant, beat him too.
Modern training regimes may help with physical strength, but punch technique is surely more important?
Marciano against Sam Peter is an interesting one. Both men seem to be very sturdy physically, but Marciano had phenomental stamina and ability to stick to a game plan. Peter lacks Marciano's killer instinct, and despite his huge natural physical stature, I would hesitate to say he hits harder than Marciano, who had phenomenal punching technique. You only have to look at his KO of Walcott to see just how well Marciano delivered that killer hook right to the percect spot.
Sam Peter by contrast is a clubbing fighter whose power is dissipated usually by his inability to land a clean shot against his opponent.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
My takes.Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Boxing and strength/size makes for some interesting discussions. All been equal strength/power wins the fight. Factors:
Punching Power - even if a fighter is much bigger/stronger they can still punch with less power than a Dempsey/Marciano because they get less torque/full body momentum into the punch.
Punching accuracy/Defence - even if a modern fighter can punch far harder if he can't land his punches and the old timer can get better timing the old timer can beat him out.
Having said that massive size advanatage in some cases would just be too much imo. How do we see match ups like these going:
Vitali-Marciano (5'11 185)
Valuev-Sam Langford (5'8 135-180)
Wlad-Jack Johnson
Tua-Marciano/Langford
Ike Ibeauchi-Marciano/Langford/Dempsey
Olden day fighters have the disadvantage of not having the same nutrition/steroids/power training regimes todays fighters have.
Vitali v Marciano - Vitali, though there's a chance that Marciano takes him into deep waters late on and panics Vitali into making a big mistake.
Valuev - Langford would just be too small and outweighed too much, lack of reach would make it impossible for langford to box from the outside, and fighting on the inside would be too much.
Marciano or Langford would have beaten a one dimensional fighter like Tua.
Ibeabuchi, hard to say, we never found out just what Ike really had.
Jack Johnson would have boxed Wlad's ears off. He was a big enough man and too slippery and hard hitting.
-
DavidPayne
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 6248
- Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00
I used to promote the size matters mantra.
I dont now. The modern day pampered heavyweight wouldn't last five minutes with their coffin nail predecessors.
Dempsey, Marciano and Louis who weighed between 180 and 205 between them would have eaten the likes of Ruiz, Rahman, Briggs, Maskaev for breakfast.
People forget the Jeffries, Cleveland Williams, Terrell, Carnera, Buddy Baer - big heavyweights are not the exclusive preserve of the modern age.
Weight is a number beyond 230 to my mind. I'm not sure how weight improves say Tyson or Tua, Holyfield or Briggs who weighed much more later in their career than they did early.
It's just baggage.
Give me a fight 10-20 times a year, active, fit, aggressive, hard-hitting, tough as granite hammer like Marciano or Frazier over anyone today.
They dont have the stomach or courage that they did, the desire, dedication or speed.
All this diet, training is a over-stated factor, it doesn't make fighters better. Fighters learned at the coal face and through activity against their contemporaries. Today fighters can become number one contenders without beating a fighter of note. Fight twice a year and still be a prospect at 35.
Nonsense.
I dont now. The modern day pampered heavyweight wouldn't last five minutes with their coffin nail predecessors.
Dempsey, Marciano and Louis who weighed between 180 and 205 between them would have eaten the likes of Ruiz, Rahman, Briggs, Maskaev for breakfast.
People forget the Jeffries, Cleveland Williams, Terrell, Carnera, Buddy Baer - big heavyweights are not the exclusive preserve of the modern age.
Weight is a number beyond 230 to my mind. I'm not sure how weight improves say Tyson or Tua, Holyfield or Briggs who weighed much more later in their career than they did early.
It's just baggage.
Give me a fight 10-20 times a year, active, fit, aggressive, hard-hitting, tough as granite hammer like Marciano or Frazier over anyone today.
They dont have the stomach or courage that they did, the desire, dedication or speed.
All this diet, training is a over-stated factor, it doesn't make fighters better. Fighters learned at the coal face and through activity against their contemporaries. Today fighters can become number one contenders without beating a fighter of note. Fight twice a year and still be a prospect at 35.
Nonsense.
-
Phenomenal-Nutrition
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53
Jack was at most 210 though (maybe 200 at prime) and 6'1. He also likes to counter and jab and grab. I thinks Wlads reach advantage, strength in the clinch and power maybe too much for Johnson.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Jack Johnson would have boxed Wlad's ears off. He was a big enough man and too slippery and hard hitting.Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: .
If Jack Johnson boxed today I expect he'd weigh a solid ripped 230 though so its not entirely a fair comparison. Marciano would probably be around 210lbs today and ripped.
Dempsey would murder the likes of todays heavies... size isnt everything at all, in fact I beleive that one of the reasons that todays heavies are so poor and get winded after just 3 or 4 rounds is that they are too big.... indeed this can be seen even in the lower weight divisions.... fighters with often tremendous six and eight packs who get tired after 4 rounds of moderately paced fighting... the boxing of Dempseys time and even of Ali's time is basically a different sport to what it is now... which is basically a watered down sham where fighters fight 2 or 3 times a year against hand picked opponents and occasionally wonder why noone really gives a damn any more!....
...pass me that gun!... :x
...pass me that gun!... :x
-
Phenomenal-Nutrition
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53
Both Langford and Marciano were pressure fighters that liked to come forward and Marciano was famous for taking a punch to land a punch. Both could be early KO victims against the Tuaman, with the brutal combination of power and speed he had in his prime.jamesmcdonnell wrote: Marciano or Langford would have beaten a one dimensional fighter like Tua..
-
overhand_right
- Heavyweight
Tua would go into his shell im sure with Marciano mauling him. This is a guy who was ran close by David Izon and Oleg Maskaev in this halycon 19 second 'prime' of his we always hear about. Hardly 2 granite chinned fighters ay?
As for Jack Johnson... they guy had no fear. He could fight all night barely breaking a sweat... plus he could punch and was crafty as fook. He was mentally as perfect for boxing as it gets, hardly the kind of guy you'd tip a mental midget like Wlad to beat, just because he whacks out a string of useless mismatched yanks.
As for Jack Johnson... they guy had no fear. He could fight all night barely breaking a sweat... plus he could punch and was crafty as fook. He was mentally as perfect for boxing as it gets, hardly the kind of guy you'd tip a mental midget like Wlad to beat, just because he whacks out a string of useless mismatched yanks.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
I entirely agree dave. I think 215-230 is about perfect for most heavies.DavidPayne wrote:I used to promote the size matters mantra.
I dont now. The modern day pampered heavyweight wouldn't last five minutes with their coffin nail predecessors.
Dempsey, Marciano and Louis who weighed between 180 and 205 between them would have eaten the likes of Ruiz, Rahman, Briggs, Maskaev for breakfast.
People forget the Jeffries, Cleveland Williams, Terrell, Carnera, Buddy Baer - big heavyweights are not the exclusive preserve of the modern age.
Weight is a number beyond 230 to my mind. I'm not sure how weight improves say Tyson or Tua, Holyfield or Briggs who weighed much more later in their career than they did early.
It's just baggage.
Give me a fight 10-20 times a year, active, fit, aggressive, hard-hitting, tough as granite hammer like Marciano or Frazier over anyone today.
They dont have the stomach or courage that they did, the desire, dedication or speed.
All this diet, training is a over-stated factor, it doesn't make fighters better. Fighters learned at the coal face and through activity against their contemporaries. Today fighters can become number one contenders without beating a fighter of note. Fight twice a year and still be a prospect at 35.
Nonsense.
The reason I would give Vitali a chance against some of those old timers, is that for a big man his weight is distributed well, and he fights at a fair old lick for his size and makes good use of his skills and size. His chin also seems to be pretty good.
With a few notable exceptions very few modern heavyweights have the stamina to fight at a decent pace.
Very few fighters have the right to be weighing over 230, just look at Foreman in his prime, he was 215 when he battered Frazier, and was an absolute bear of a man! Tell me that most of the big 240-250 lbers of today dwarf foreman, my arse they do.
Vitali always impressed me, far more than the rest of todays Heavies, but I just dont think he has the durability... not so much chin wise but physically... he was too prone to injuries through his career and I cant see him beating any of the all time top 10 heavyweight champs... or even really the likes of Witherspoon, Thomas, and Dokes from the 80s era...
-
DavidPayne
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 6248
- Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00
Against whom do we build this glowing tribute for Vitaly?
A fat Danny Williams?
A fat Kirk Johnson?
A fat, tired and old Lennox Lewis?
A fat Corrie Sanders?
He just stood out as a robust contender who was hard to punch.
Vitaly is over-rated. If he comes back beats some of the present bunch of pretenders then fair enough.
But if you examine his record - its pretty shallow.
A fat Danny Williams?
A fat Kirk Johnson?
A fat, tired and old Lennox Lewis?
A fat Corrie Sanders?
He just stood out as a robust contender who was hard to punch.
Vitaly is over-rated. If he comes back beats some of the present bunch of pretenders then fair enough.
But if you examine his record - its pretty shallow.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45232
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Agreed, but he was one of the only heavyweights in recent memory that I could see even potentially going on to dominate the division.
Wlad has taken up the mantle to an extent, but only because there is nobody out there with the combinations of skills and physicality to beat him. Wlad has also learnt to survive a bit now which enabled him to beat a raw as sushi Sam Peter.
They are all so unfit these days though, it's really pathetic.
Wlad has taken up the mantle to an extent, but only because there is nobody out there with the combinations of skills and physicality to beat him. Wlad has also learnt to survive a bit now which enabled him to beat a raw as sushi Sam Peter.
They are all so unfit these days though, it's really pathetic.
-
Max Molyneux
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 7084
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53
Re: KILL YOURSELF NOW
I need assistant suicide, I can't just kill myself. An assistant wouldn't be hesitant to kill like the person who wants to die.overhand_right wrote:There's no point living in this crazy world a second longer.
There actually is a man alive who believes Audley Harrison could defeat a prime Muhammad Ali.
Its on the BBC website. I was led there by the title "Could Jack Dempsey live with David Hayes speed"
Read on. My faith in humanity is gone. I'm off to put the Luger to my temple, i'll see you all on the otherside.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A21599634