BoxRec

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

I have to agree with SAAD. There is no way possible that a man with the skill level of Floyd not being able to compete.You can hate him all you want but no one can deny his skill level.

Threads like these are usually pointless because it's all based on speculation and love/hate, I see stupid comments on this thread and guys saying IMO and others agreeing as though they have some Magic Crystal Ball that could tell them who could do what in this era or who wouldn't have been able to do what in that era,<<<<<<<such lame conjecture should have no place on a boxing forum.

Talking over eras none of us can say with certainty who would've done what and anyone agreeing with such foolery is no more in the know than the person who started making such commentary in the first place.

I like this guy so IMO he could've whupped anyone in any era regardless if he was 108lbs fighting a HW 257lbs wearing 4 oz gloves and blah blah blah!!

The biases in these threads should be printed out on paper and used to wipe our butts with.

I think Robinson is the #1 middleweight too.

The website http://www.cyberboxingzone.com has a huge amount of information about boxing history from serious boxing historians .

Tracy Callis has offered his informed boxing opinion on the " Greatest Fighters of All Time " here , http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/c ... nkings.htm

Bob Fitzsimmons must have been something special . http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/fitz.htm

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

Boxing once or twice a year with his brittle hands? They barely hold up today. How about with the 6oz gloves 10, 12, 15 times a year, opponents from lightweight to middleweight, even matches where he would be forced to throw more to survive? I don't see it.

So, if what you say is true, then how come the heavyweight title isn't always the biggest, most physically strong and muscular specimen out there. Why was Louis champion, instead of Carnera or Buddy Baer?

Do you think Wlad is a 'better athlete' than Ali (whatever that means, better for what precisely? Mo Farah is every bit as athletic as Usain bolt, they are just different physiques) - if you think so, then go look at Ali's fights with Frazier and the pace they were fought at, then look at Wlad's entire career show me a single fight where he fought at that kind of pace, and didn't get smacked down?

Bigger and more muscular does not equate to better, if it was that simple, then all heavyweight boxers would look like strongmen, or bodybuilders, which they don't.

mentioning Jones for a moment, who was no doubt a great specimen, blessed with great reflexes, do you think that fighters of the past didn't have these qualities also - Archie Moore was every bit the specimen as Jones, and was fighting well into his 40's and still on top, despite having more knockouts than Jones had wins.

If Jones had had that number of fights with such regularity, you can be sure he'd have had far more losses in his career, the guys of the past didn't have tape of their opponents to watch, they didn't have 2-3 month training camps, and 3 fights a year, even when they were champ. They didn't make enough money.

Human beings have changed incredibly little in 50,000 years, and yet you seem to attribute the supposed improvement in fighters to genetics over an incredibly short time frame. Genetic adaptations take thousands of years to emerge, like the one which allows European people to tolerate lactose in milk. Yet you seem to think that in a little over 100 years, human beings have changed significantly, despite the fact that the adaptation of our environment to suit our needs if anything slows and stops the need for natural selection based on physical superiority, whereas they changed very little in the previous 50,000, despite being in an environment where they were at the mercy of a hostile and dangerous environment.

The average male in the UK in 1870 was 5'6, in 1975 it was 5'10 and it's barely increased at all since then.

The average paleolithic man was actually pretty close to the modern heights, they are not sure why, perhaps because of the amount of physical labour, and diet, so this trend of bigger stronger doesn't really work how you says it does. If we are getting taller on average, it is very slow, and seems to have more or less stagnated in developed nations with good nutrition. Japan is having a surge, but that's because of a transition to a meat heavy diet, and may well be to do with growth hormone and mass produced cattle feed.

The fact that the average height seems to have plateaued in the western world, suggests we're at the limits of the combination of diet/gene expression. Yes, there will be the odd freak thrown up outside this range, but that's because there's just so many more humans than there were previously, the random mutations will throw up a wider range, though interestingly, there's still not been anyone taller on record than Robert Wadlow.

So in essence, your argument is poorly drawn and thought out, and the data doesn't support your hypothesis. You're choosing to draw some correlation between a perceived improvement in fighters (which there's no data to support) based on 'improvements in genetics' which again there's no data to support.

Kootenay47 wrote:The website http://www.cyberboxingzone.com has a huge amount of information about boxing history from serious boxing historians .

Tracy Callis has offered his informed boxing opinion on the " Greatest Fighters of All Time " here , http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/c ... nkings.htm

Bob Fitzsimmons must have been something special . http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/fitz.htm

Great website, and there's lots of information around this topic.

tiny_acres wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

I have to agree with SAAD. There is no way possible that a man with the skill level of Floyd not being able to compete.You can hate him all you want but no one can deny his skill level.

He would have been competitive, but I'm not sure he'd have been able to propser as much in an era he had to fight much more often. Floyd is a product of his era.

sucracristo wrote:

The Revival wrote: Featherweight - Willie Pep

head to head you have to go saddler over pep, but then saddler lost to terranova who got
spanked by bartolo and pep, and so many others who the top feathers dominated, so
on resume yeah pep. the new england fighters of that era were dominant in many
classes. arguello in modern times.

welters would be henry armstrong or srr, and armstrong was better as a lightweight.

a few things i don't like about trying to pitt people from different eras head to head in
theoretical fights in order to argue for "best ever" are:
1) can't do it
2) if the prior era fighter lived in later era, they would be different fighters, and vice versa
3) just pulling them from their respective eras and placing them head to head ends in bias to more recent era,
especially with respect to fighters you grew up watching.
4) i don't buy into the argument that the training is so much better at the lighter weights these days
to outweigh the experience and skills of earlier eras if you pluck them from their primes, head to head.
i still box sometimes and i'm relatively old, and i can tell you emphatically that the skills are not better
today at the same competition levels as they were in the late 80's, and i knew older guys who fought
pro in the 60's and 70's who still boxed in the 80's who would tell you the same thing, and i've seen
how they compare albeit at different ages over the decades. maybe a 100m runner or nba/nfl/nhl/mlb/
premier league/atp, etc etc are bigger stronger more athletic than before, but we are talking boxing
here, not team sports without weight classes. we also don't know how many of the old timers would
have fought in the newer divisions if they existed back then.

all we can do is compare what they were to their eras and what their contributions to the sport
earned them compared to others in different eras.

Yeah Saddler would be up near the top as well. All of his fights with Pep took place after Pep suffered a severe back injury in a Plane Crash though so I think it's safe to say Pep wasn't at his best in any of their fights, and he still managed to beat Saddler in the 2nd fight. I think he would've beaten him more often than not at his best, but Saddler is certainly one of the greats at Featherweight as well.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

I have to agree with SAAD. There is no way possible that a man with the skill level of Floyd not being able to compete.You can hate him all you want but no one can deny his skill level.

He would have been competitive, but I'm not sure he'd have been able to propser as much in an era he had to fight much more often. Floyd is a product of his era.

I won't argue that.But some are saying he could not compete.
That is just insane.His skill level alone would make him a tough nut to crack for many all time greats

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

Boxing once or twice a year with his brittle hands? They barely hold up today. How about with the 6oz gloves 10, 12, 15 times a year, opponents from lightweight to middleweight, even matches where he would be forced to throw more to survive? I don't see it.

Throw into that also the fact he may well have been penalised in his fights for non aggression, boxing was a very different sport back then. Referee's would penalise fighters for being overly negative.

tiny_acres wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:
I have to agree with SAAD. There is no way possible that a man with the skill level of Floyd not being able to compete.You can hate him all you want but no one can deny his skill level.

He would have been competitive, but I'm not sure he'd have been able to propser as much in an era he had to fight much more often. Floyd is a product of his era.

I won't argue that.But some are saying he could not compete.
That is just insane.His skill level alone would make him a tough nut to crack for many all time greats

I agree. I think he'd have been competitive with the best in any era, but losing a few more.

They come way tougher than a rusty 35 year old ODLH and a 36 year old one-armed Pacman. There's a lot of blind faith necessary in placing Mayweather high up historically.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:So, if what you say is true, then how come the heavyweight title isn't always the biggest, most physically strong and muscular specimen out there. Why was Louis champion, instead of Carnera or Buddy Baer?

Do you think Wlad is a 'better athlete' than Ali (whatever that means, better for what precisely? Mo Farah is every bit as athletic as Usain bolt, they are just different physiques) - if you think so, then go look at Ali's fights with Frazier and the pace they were fought at, then look at Wlad's entire career show me a single fight where he fought at that kind of pace, and didn't get smacked down?

Bigger and more muscular does not equate to better, if it was that simple, then all heavyweight boxers would look like strongmen, or bodybuilders, which they don't.

mentioning Jones for a moment, who was no doubt a great specimen, blessed with great reflexes, do you think that fighters of the past didn't have these qualities also - Archie Moore was every bit the specimen as Jones, and was fighting well into his 40's and still on top, despite having more knockouts than Jones had wins.

If Jones had had that number of fights with such regularity, you can be sure he'd have had far more losses in his career, the guys of the past didn't have tape of their opponents to watch, they didn't have 2-3 month training camps, and 3 fights a year, even when they were champ. They didn't make enough money.

Human beings have changed incredibly little in 50,000 years, and yet you seem to attribute the supposed improvement in fighters to genetics over an incredibly short time frame. Genetic adaptations take thousands of years to emerge, like the one which allows European people to tolerate lactose in milk. Yet you seem to think that in a little over 100 years, human beings have changed significantly, despite the fact that the adaptation of our environment to suit our needs if anything slows and stops the need for natural selection based on physical superiority, whereas they changed very little in the previous 50,000, despite being in an environment where they were at the mercy of a hostile and dangerous environment.

The average male in the UK in 1870 was 5'6, in 1975 it was 5'10 and it's barely increased at all since then.

The average paleolithic man was actually pretty close to the modern heights, they are not sure why, perhaps because of the amount of physical labour, and diet, so this trend of bigger stronger doesn't really work how you says it does. If we are getting taller on average, it is very slow, and seems to have more or less stagnated in developed nations with good nutrition. Japan is having a surge, but that's because of a transition to a meat heavy diet, and may well be to do with growth hormone and mass produced cattle feed.

The fact that the average height seems to have plateaued in the western world, suggests we're at the limits of the combination of diet/gene expression. Yes, there will be the odd freak thrown up outside this range, but that's because there's just so many more humans than there were previously, the random mutations will throw up a wider range, though interestingly, there's still not been anyone taller on record than Robert Wadlow.

So in essence, your argument is poorly drawn and thought out, and the data doesn't support your hypothesis. You're choosing to draw some correlation between a perceived improvement in fighters (which there's no data to support) based on 'improvements in genetics' which again there's no data to support.

yet, they changed


its very easy. you say athletes from back than are not as good as athletes from today, because of clothes and new style of shoes etc.

i say, that you are stupid and it is common sense, they human beings simply became more athletic than athletes from the past and because of ultra light clothes or some new shoes

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:So, if what you say is true, then how come the heavyweight title isn't always the biggest, most physically strong and muscular specimen out there. Why was Louis champion, instead of Carnera or Buddy Baer?

Do you think Wlad is a 'better athlete' than Ali (whatever that means, better for what precisely? Mo Farah is every bit as athletic as Usain bolt, they are just different physiques) - if you think so, then go look at Ali's fights with Frazier and the pace they were fought at, then look at Wlad's entire career show me a single fight where he fought at that kind of pace, and didn't get smacked down?

Bigger and more muscular does not equate to better, if it was that simple, then all heavyweight boxers would look like strongmen, or bodybuilders, which they don't.

mentioning Jones for a moment, who was no doubt a great specimen, blessed with great reflexes, do you think that fighters of the past didn't have these qualities also - Archie Moore was every bit the specimen as Jones, and was fighting well into his 40's and still on top, despite having more knockouts than Jones had wins.

If Jones had had that number of fights with such regularity, you can be sure he'd have had far more losses in his career, the guys of the past didn't have tape of their opponents to watch, they didn't have 2-3 month training camps, and 3 fights a year, even when they were champ. They didn't make enough money.

Human beings have changed incredibly little in 50,000 years, and yet you seem to attribute the supposed improvement in fighters to genetics over an incredibly short time frame. Genetic adaptations take thousands of years to emerge, like the one which allows European people to tolerate lactose in milk. Yet you seem to think that in a little over 100 years, human beings have changed significantly, despite the fact that the adaptation of our environment to suit our needs if anything slows and stops the need for natural selection based on physical superiority, whereas they changed very little in the previous 50,000, despite being in an environment where they were at the mercy of a hostile and dangerous environment.

The average male in the UK in 1870 was 5'6, in 1975 it was 5'10 and it's barely increased at all since then.

The average paleolithic man was actually pretty close to the modern heights, they are not sure why, perhaps because of the amount of physical labour, and diet, so this trend of bigger stronger doesn't really work how you says it does. If we are getting taller on average, it is very slow, and seems to have more or less stagnated in developed nations with good nutrition. Japan is having a surge, but that's because of a transition to a meat heavy diet, and may well be to do with growth hormone and mass produced cattle feed.

The fact that the average height seems to have plateaued in the western world, suggests we're at the limits of the combination of diet/gene expression. Yes, there will be the odd freak thrown up outside this range, but that's because there's just so many more humans than there were previously, the random mutations will throw up a wider range, though interestingly, there's still not been anyone taller on record than Robert Wadlow.

So in essence, your argument is poorly drawn and thought out, and the data doesn't support your hypothesis. You're choosing to draw some correlation between a perceived improvement in fighters (which there's no data to support) based on 'improvements in genetics' which again there's no data to support.

yet, they changed


its very easy. you say athletes from back than are not as good as athletes from today, because of clothes and new style of shoes etc.

i say, that you are stupid and it is common sense, they human beings simply became more athletic than athletes from the past and because of ultra light clothes or some new shoes

So how about you explain the mechanism by which this works then, if it is all common sense? You've done nothing expect repeat yourself.

I shouldn't be surprised, you are a notorious shiteforbrains on this forum.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:So, if what you say is true, then how come the heavyweight title isn't always the biggest, most physically strong and muscular specimen out there. Why was Louis champion, instead of Carnera or Buddy Baer?

Do you think Wlad is a 'better athlete' than Ali (whatever that means, better for what precisely? Mo Farah is every bit as athletic as Usain bolt, they are just different physiques) - if you think so, then go look at Ali's fights with Frazier and the pace they were fought at, then look at Wlad's entire career show me a single fight where he fought at that kind of pace, and didn't get smacked down?

Bigger and more muscular does not equate to better, if it was that simple, then all heavyweight boxers would look like strongmen, or bodybuilders, which they don't.

mentioning Jones for a moment, who was no doubt a great specimen, blessed with great reflexes, do you think that fighters of the past didn't have these qualities also - Archie Moore was every bit the specimen as Jones, and was fighting well into his 40's and still on top, despite having more knockouts than Jones had wins.

If Jones had had that number of fights with such regularity, you can be sure he'd have had far more losses in his career, the guys of the past didn't have tape of their opponents to watch, they didn't have 2-3 month training camps, and 3 fights a year, even when they were champ. They didn't make enough money.

Human beings have changed incredibly little in 50,000 years, and yet you seem to attribute the supposed improvement in fighters to genetics over an incredibly short time frame. Genetic adaptations take thousands of years to emerge, like the one which allows European people to tolerate lactose in milk. Yet you seem to think that in a little over 100 years, human beings have changed significantly, despite the fact that the adaptation of our environment to suit our needs if anything slows and stops the need for natural selection based on physical superiority, whereas they changed very little in the previous 50,000, despite being in an environment where they were at the mercy of a hostile and dangerous environment.

The average male in the UK in 1870 was 5'6, in 1975 it was 5'10 and it's barely increased at all since then.

The average paleolithic man was actually pretty close to the modern heights, they are not sure why, perhaps because of the amount of physical labour, and diet, so this trend of bigger stronger doesn't really work how you says it does. If we are getting taller on average, it is very slow, and seems to have more or less stagnated in developed nations with good nutrition. Japan is having a surge, but that's because of a transition to a meat heavy diet, and may well be to do with growth hormone and mass produced cattle feed.

The fact that the average height seems to have plateaued in the western world, suggests we're at the limits of the combination of diet/gene expression. Yes, there will be the odd freak thrown up outside this range, but that's because there's just so many more humans than there were previously, the random mutations will throw up a wider range, though interestingly, there's still not been anyone taller on record than Robert Wadlow.

So in essence, your argument is poorly drawn and thought out, and the data doesn't support your hypothesis. You're choosing to draw some correlation between a perceived improvement in fighters (which there's no data to support) based on 'improvements in genetics' which again there's no data to support.

yet, they changed


its very easy. you say athletes from back than are not as good as athletes from today, because of clothes and new style of shoes etc.

i say, that you are stupid and it is common sense, they human beings simply became more athletic than athletes from the past and because of ultra light clothes or some new shoes

So how about you explain the mechanism by which this works then, if it is all common sense? You've done nothing expect repeat yourself.

I shouldn't be surprised, you are a notorious shiteforbrains on this forum.

i am no biologie or propagtion professor, so you will have to find out for yourself. i dont care, i know i am right.

i showed you a site, where it is written that people became taller of time, you dont believe me, okay, i have no problem with you being stupid, i find it funny

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

your stupidity in that department is imense.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agr ... an-height/

people became taller over time
people became stronger and faster over. in every athletic area they became better.
and if you dont mean it like a joke, than you dont know what you are talking about.

You believe whatever you wish. You're very wide of the mark. People become taller due to better nutrition, not genetics you moron. People are not getting stronger, taller etc because of genetics. That's why the royal family hundreds of years ago threw up people who were way taller than the average man for their time - because they were way better fed.

From looking at the skeleton's of very old home sapiens sapiens from 10's of thousands of years ago, it's obvious that they were far more muscular on average - why's that? It's not genetics, as we share the vast majority of our gene's with them, the fact is, they did way more physical exercise than the average man today, and therefore their bodies adapted.

Boxing is not athletics, and if you can't see the importance of technique over sheer physicality, then you just don't understand what you're seeing.

As I said earlier, most of the improvements in athletic performance are due to the modern tracks and equipment. The rest of it is because the talent pool is bigger, athletes are now professionals who train full time, not because of some genetic shift in human beings.

no, there is a common rule, that the child is mostly taller than his father, around 8-10 cm. so genetics improve, the child becomes taller, stronger than his father, the percentage is on my side. it has something to do with food, but also that the genetics improve.

hahahahaha......prime jones beats everybody p4p and the main reason was his rare atletiscm

muscularity etc is all in the genes, so yes, genes become better over time. human beings become taller, stronger, faster.

boxer back than could also train full time and some were rich and had great training methods, but still they werent as athletic as boxer from today, with some exceptions.

genetics improve over generation. and sure food has to something about it and also training, these are 2 reason why genetics become better over time. back than they didnt have the quality food we have now and also the new training methods, the human beings eat the food, trained the new methods and their gens became better and they prdouced children who became bigger, stronger, faster.

Well, you're an idiot.

Children become taller than their parents because of advances in medicine, not genetics. So, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And being taller because of better genetics doesn't even make sense. Why would the child's genetics be better if he has his parents' genes? How do the genes magically get better?

VG_Addict wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
You believe whatever you wish. You're very wide of the mark. People become taller due to better nutrition, not genetics you moron. People are not getting stronger, taller etc because of genetics. That's why the royal family hundreds of years ago threw up people who were way taller than the average man for their time - because they were way better fed.

From looking at the skeleton's of very old home sapiens sapiens from 10's of thousands of years ago, it's obvious that they were far more muscular on average - why's that? It's not genetics, as we share the vast majority of our gene's with them, the fact is, they did way more physical exercise than the average man today, and therefore their bodies adapted.

Boxing is not athletics, and if you can't see the importance of technique over sheer physicality, then you just don't understand what you're seeing.

As I said earlier, most of the improvements in athletic performance are due to the modern tracks and equipment. The rest of it is because the talent pool is bigger, athletes are now professionals who train full time, not because of some genetic shift in human beings.

no, there is a common rule, that the child is mostly taller than his father, around 8-10 cm. so genetics improve, the child becomes taller, stronger than his father, the percentage is on my side. it has something to do with food, but also that the genetics improve.

hahahahaha......prime jones beats everybody p4p and the main reason was his rare atletiscm

muscularity etc is all in the genes, so yes, genes become better over time. human beings become taller, stronger, faster.

boxer back than could also train full time and some were rich and had great training methods, but still they werent as athletic as boxer from today, with some exceptions.

genetics improve over generation. and sure food has to something about it and also training, these are 2 reason why genetics become better over time. back than they didnt have the quality food we have now and also the new training methods, the human beings eat the food, trained the new methods and their gens became better and they prdouced children who became bigger, stronger, faster.

Well, you're an idiot.

Children become taller than their parents because of advances in medicine, not genetics. So, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And being taller because of better genetics doesn't even make sense. Why would the child's genetics be better if he has his parents' genes? How do the genes magically get better?

Theoretically, it is possible, and it is called "evolution". Of course, such genetic changes don't happen in such short periods of time.

Conclusion: you are both wrong :)

Well, obviously, evolution doesn't happen over one generation.

ikorolev wrote:

VG_Addict wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:
no, there is a common rule, that the child is mostly taller than his father, around 8-10 cm. so genetics improve, the child becomes taller, stronger than his father, the percentage is on my side. it has something to do with food, but also that the genetics improve.

hahahahaha......prime jones beats everybody p4p and the main reason was his rare atletiscm

muscularity etc is all in the genes, so yes, genes become better over time. human beings become taller, stronger, faster.

boxer back than could also train full time and some were rich and had great training methods, but still they werent as athletic as boxer from today, with some exceptions.

genetics improve over generation. and sure food has to something about it and also training, these are 2 reason why genetics become better over time. back than they didnt have the quality food we have now and also the new training methods, the human beings eat the food, trained the new methods and their gens became better and they prdouced children who became bigger, stronger, faster.

Well, you're an idiot.

Children become taller than their parents because of advances in medicine, not genetics. So, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And being taller because of better genetics doesn't even make sense. Why would the child's genetics be better if he has his parents' genes? How do the genes magically get better?

Theoretically, it is possible, and it is called "evolution". Of course, such genetic changes don't happen in such short periods of time.

Conclusion: you are both wrong :)

only he is wrong.

i never said genetics become a lot better in a short period of time, dont put words into my mouth i didnt say.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think I'm most obsessed by the idea of Floyd Mayweather in those eras. I doubt he would ever have been heard of. At best he would be an obscure pug known only to historians. And yet in the modern era he has stage managed himself to "all-time greatness".

The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

Boxing once or twice a year with his brittle hands? They barely hold up today. How about with the 6oz gloves 10, 12, 15 times a year, opponents from lightweight to middleweight, even matches where he would be forced to throw more to survive? I don't see it.

So you think his hands would hold him back? Lmao

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: The only way this is true is if his hands couldn't hold up. Then he'd be a Wesley mouzon type. Floyd could compete in any era.

Boxing once or twice a year with his brittle hands? They barely hold up today. How about with the 6oz gloves 10, 12, 15 times a year, opponents from lightweight to middleweight, even matches where he would be forced to throw more to survive? I don't see it.

So you think his hands would hold him back? Lmao

They barely hold up now!

Also, I seriously question Floyd's general temprement.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

yet, they changed


its very easy. you say athletes from back than are not as good as athletes from today, because of clothes and new style of shoes etc.

i say, that you are stupid and it is common sense, they human beings simply became more athletic than athletes from the past and because of ultra light clothes or some new shoes

So how about you explain the mechanism by which this works then, if it is all common sense? You've done nothing expect repeat yourself.

I shouldn't be surprised, you are a notorious shiteforbrains on this forum.

i am no biologie or propagtion professor, so you will have to find out for yourself. i dont care, i know i am right.

i showed you a site, where it is written that people became taller of time, you dont believe me, okay, i have no problem with you being stupid, i find it funny

You sure got that right. Nor an English professor clearly.

The article you yourself cited, was about nutrition and height, not genetics and height - so you're arguing against yourself, so who's the idiot?

You're just too ignorant to even read and understand what I'm talking about, I might as well be discussing quantum mechanics with a toad. I will do what I did previously, and put you back on my ignore list.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
So how about you explain the mechanism by which this works then, if it is all common sense? You've done nothing expect repeat yourself.

I shouldn't be surprised, you are a notorious shiteforbrains on this forum.

i am no biologie or propagtion professor, so you will have to find out for yourself. i dont care, i know i am right.

i showed you a site, where it is written that people became taller of time, you dont believe me, okay, i have no problem with you being stupid, i find it funny

You sure got that right. Nor an English professor clearly.

The article you yourself cited, was about nutrition and height, not genetics and height - so you're arguing against yourself, so who's the idiot?

You're just too ignorant to even read and understand what I'm talking about, I might as well be discussing quantum mechanics with a toad. I will do what I did previously, and put you back on my ignore list.

are u realy that stupid?

people becoming taller over period of time has something to do with genetics