Otherwise known as "The Tyson Principle."enrique wrote:Fact is folks that when you analize a career you have to consider the whole, the sum total. You can't just say forget about Lalonde knocking down Leonard or Sugar Ray losing to Phil Moyer because... there is no because.... those are convenient... let's forget about Dempsey being stopped by Flynn. He was too young.... and Sonny was certainly past his peak when he fought Ali, so let's forget about that also....we will wind up judging fighters based on a single years performance or only a few fights...
I dont think Robinson ever took a dive, in his biog he tells of an instance when he was offered a 3 fight series with Rocky Graziano... with the first two fights 'planned' and the third on the level... he turned down a million pounds for this 'offer'.KOJOE90 wrote:Didn't Ike Williams claim years later that Robinson took a dive against Maxim? I'm not saying it is true but was wondering if anyone alse had heard this?silkov wrote:Robinson didnt quit, he was delirious, had he gone on he could have died.
I understand what you guys are saying. The "past-his-prime excuse" gets used way too often.J-C wrote:Otherwise known as "The Tyson Principle."enrique wrote:Fact is folks that when you analize a career you have to consider the whole, the sum total. You can't just say forget about Lalonde knocking down Leonard or Sugar Ray losing to Phil Moyer because... there is no because.... those are convenient... let's forget about Dempsey being stopped by Flynn. He was too young.... and Sonny was certainly past his peak when he fought Ali, so let's forget about that also....we will wind up judging fighters based on a single years performance or only a few fights...
Well I think Emile Griffith was around the same age as Napoles and he went on to give a peak Monzon two tough fights, so you cant really say that Griffith was past it against Napoles... But certainly with Robinson most of his defeats came when he was past 35 and the vast majority when he was well past 40... so I think you could safely say that Archer and Downes didnt beat the real Robinson (Downes said as much himself) ...having said that though it says a lot about Robinsons ability that he was able to still mix it with those guys, who were decent top 10 fighters in their primes, when he was in his mid-40s... amazing really...Ambling Alp wrote:I understand what you guys are saying. The "past-his-prime excuse" gets used way too often.J-C wrote:Otherwise known as "The Tyson Principle."enrique wrote:Fact is folks that when you analize a career you have to consider the whole, the sum total. You can't just say forget about Lalonde knocking down Leonard or Sugar Ray losing to Phil Moyer because... there is no because.... those are convenient... let's forget about Dempsey being stopped by Flynn. He was too young.... and Sonny was certainly past his peak when he fought Ali, so let's forget about that also....we will wind up judging fighters based on a single years performance or only a few fights...
You could use that an a couple of other excuses and make almost any one look great.
However, it seems to me that you have to acknowledge that it's just not the same when a fighter is way over the hill and gets beat.
If you count a loss against a fighter becasue you don't think it matters that he was over the hill, then you logically have to give credit to the fighter that beat the over the hill fighter.
Sugar Ray Robinson lost several fights to oprdinary fighters when he was in his forties. Do you really think that if he fought those guys in his 20's that he would have lost to them? They didn't beat the "real Sugar Ray robinson. Those fighters would admit that themselves.
Same with Ezzard Charles and others.
Marciano said that after beat Louis, Holmes after beat Ali, Tyson after beating holmes etc.
They are really not the same guy. For example, you have to say it was different when Schmeling beat Louis then when Marciano beat Louis.
It was more of an accomplishment for Frazier to beat Ali in 1971 than it was for Trevor Berbick in 1981.
There are certainly gray areas as to if a fighter was past his prime or not.(and if so, how much)
ie Emile Griffith against Jose Napoles, Ken Norton against Earnie shavers etc.
Again, I do agree that the past-his-prime is overused. Sometimes, there is no mention of a fighter being past his prime, he loses and then his fans claim "past his prime".
Still, you have to take a hard look at each case individually and decide if a fighter was past this prime. (Some times a fighter is just a little past his best and if he loses decisively to another guy I hold it against him.)
I agree and disagree with the first sentence of your post.Ezzard Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosand
This is an argument that will always rage and it’s one always worth having…
I take the points you are making and understand your logic. For me it’s all about what we are trying to discuss. Do we really come here to talk about who had the best diet, performance enhancing drugs and training facilities or are we trying to work out who is great and who isn’t?
Take a car from 1920 and a car from 2007 and race them and there is only going to be one winner. This isn’t really the point though is it? We have to do our best to make the playing field even and make some attempt at taking all the factors into consideration.
There is a psychologist Milton Eriksson who wrote extensively about the psychological impact of the mile world record you talk about. Nobody could break it for a very long time, but once it was broken it was broken again and again in rapid succession. This is because the psychological barrier had been broken and people believed they could do it. The human ego is an amazing thing. The mental strength which enabled Robinson to rule in a more competitive era than today would be there at any time he fought.
POSSIBLY, if he had access to modern day nutrition, strength training methods, conditioning methods, and a modern physiology.The mental strength which enabled Robinson to rule in a more competitive era than today would be there at any time he fought.
Let's stick to boxing and not discuss weightlifting, baseball, athletics, etc. How much do you think did boxing training methods actually change over the years? Do you know how much the old timers actually ran, skipped rope, punched the bag, sparred, did floor exercises, etc.? How do you think most boxers train today? What about boxers outside the US, like the Thais, for example? Or do they all suck in terms of strength and conditioning? What's the difference between bashing a tire with a sledgehammer and chopping wood?cosand wrote: POSSIBLY, if he had access to modern day nutrition, strength training methods, conditioning methods, and a modern physiology.
Griffith may of not of been past it against Napoles but he had been fighting at Middlweight for a couple of years already and when he came in at a weight drained 144..silkov wrote:Well I think Emile Griffith was around the same age as Napoles and he went on to give a peak Monzon two tough fights, so you cant really say that Griffith was past it against Napoles... But certainly with Robinson most of his defeats came when he was past 35 and the vast majority when he was well past 40... so I think you could safely say that Archer and Downes didnt beat the real Robinson (Downes said as much himself) ...having said that though it says a lot about Robinsons ability that he was able to still mix it with those guys, who were decent top 10 fighters in their primes, when he was in his mid-40s... amazing really...Ambling Alp wrote:I understand what you guys are saying. The "past-his-prime excuse" gets used way too often.J-C wrote: Otherwise known as "The Tyson Principle."
You could use that an a couple of other excuses and make almost any one look great.
However, it seems to me that you have to acknowledge that it's just not the same when a fighter is way over the hill and gets beat.
If you count a loss against a fighter becasue you don't think it matters that he was over the hill, then you logically have to give credit to the fighter that beat the over the hill fighter.
Sugar Ray Robinson lost several fights to oprdinary fighters when he was in his forties. Do you really think that if he fought those guys in his 20's that he would have lost to them? They didn't beat the "real Sugar Ray robinson. Those fighters would admit that themselves.
Same with Ezzard Charles and others.
Marciano said that after beat Louis, Holmes after beat Ali, Tyson after beating holmes etc.
They are really not the same guy. For example, you have to say it was different when Schmeling beat Louis then when Marciano beat Louis.
It was more of an accomplishment for Frazier to beat Ali in 1971 than it was for Trevor Berbick in 1981.
There are certainly gray areas as to if a fighter was past his prime or not.(and if so, how much)
ie Emile Griffith against Jose Napoles, Ken Norton against Earnie shavers etc.
Again, I do agree that the past-his-prime is overused. Sometimes, there is no mention of a fighter being past his prime, he loses and then his fans claim "past his prime".
Still, you have to take a hard look at each case individually and decide if a fighter was past this prime. (Some times a fighter is just a little past his best and if he loses decisively to another guy I hold it against him.)
Thats probably why Leonard wouldnt fight a peak Hagler in 82/83, because he would have been knocked out. He could see the slippage after the Mugabi fight and siezed the opportunity. Well sort of, I still thought Hagler wonAmbling Alp wrote:Well, ok, then you could say that Leonard was "almost" 35 when he fought Norris.
The "miles" excuse for Hagler is pretty weak. No one (besides Leonard) was saying that before the the fight with Leonard. Almost everyone was saying that Hagler would destroy him.
When the other guy is fighting his first fight at middleweight, and had one fight in the past 5 years, the "miles" excuse is pretty weak.
While I agree that Leonard did just about enough to beat a faded Hagler, its well known that Leonard only agreed to fight Hagler after seeing him struggle against Mugubi... Leonards eyes certainly werent any better in 87 than they were in 82, but Hagler was a totally different fighter in 82 to what he was in 87...Ambling Alp wrote:I'm sure that's what happened. Leonard somehow gave himself a detached retina so he wouldn't have to fight Hagler.
Leonard was obviously gutless and wanted no part of moving up in weight and fighting Hagler. (Of course Hagler wasn't gutless for not moving up in weight and fighting Michael Spinks. Obviously it took more guts to fight all the great middleweight contenders at the time).
Obviously Leonard knew in 1982, that if he all but stayed out the ring for the next 5 years that the ringrust would be the best way to beat Marvin Hagler in 1987.
Then when they did fight, even though Hagler did almost nothing for the first 4 rounds, Hagler was obviously robbed by the judges.
Exactly, surely anyone can see that the Hagler who fought Leonard and indeed Mugubi and Hearns was not the same fighter of '80 to 83... it was obvious against Mugubi that Haglers legs were going and the reflexes werent there anymore... the Hagler of 82 would have been an entirely different proposition for Leonard...dr_devious wrote:Alp, its well recorded that Leonard only agreed to fight Hagler when he saw the faded Hagler struggle with Mugabi.
Also, if you agree that Leonard only lost to Norris because he had faded, then surely you can see that Hagler probably "lost" to Leonard because he was also faded? Or do you think that Leonard "beat" the peak Hagler in 1987?
There is also the story of Robinsons people making an offer to Charley Burley around 45/46 I think, a two fight deal as long as Burley took a dive in the first fight. Burley said he turned it down as he didn't take dives and there was no garentee he would have got the 'legit' rematch anyway.silkov wrote:I dont think Robinson ever took a dive, in his biog he tells of an instance when he was offered a 3 fight series with Rocky Graziano... with the first two fights 'planned' and the third on the level... he turned down a million pounds for this 'offer'.KOJOE90 wrote:Didn't Ike Williams claim years later that Robinson took a dive against Maxim? I'm not saying it is true but was wondering if anyone alse had heard this?silkov wrote:Robinson didnt quit, he was delirious, had he gone on he could have died.
If the Maxim fight was fake then Robinson should have got an Oscar, and the ref Goldstien as well...
That was another occasion wasn't it about 1-2 years before the one I mentioned I think?Decagon wrote:The real story is that Burley's camp offered Robinson $10,000 or $25,000 (what Robinson was getting per fight), and before the fight started, Robinson wanted double. Anyway, Robinson was a welterweight at that time, and Burley was getting pretty comfortable at middleweight.
El Intocable
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 18
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:52 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosand wrote:
POSSIBLY, if he had access to modern day nutrition, strength training methods, conditioning methods, and a modern physiology.
Let's stick to boxing and not discuss weightlifting, baseball, athletics, etc. How much do you think did boxing training methods actually change over the years? Do you know how much the old timers actually ran, skipped rope, punched the bag, sparred, did floor exercises, etc.? How do you think most boxers train today? What about boxers outside the US, like the Thais, for example? Or do they all suck in terms of strength and conditioning? What's the difference between bashing a tire with a sledgehammer and chopping wood?
That all sounds great cosand. Unfortunately, not only are there very few of these types of gyms, there are very few boxing gyms in general, and outside of large metro areas, almost a non-existent amatuer boxing program. If you have any knowledge of the sport, you would know that the number of boxing gyms is a mere fraction of what it was just 30 years ago here in the US. When you can explain how the fighters can be better when there are so few boxers remaining then we might have something to discuss.cosand wrote: Are you kidding me ? How have boxing training methods changed?
Have you been anywhere near an elite boxing gym recently, or even in the past 30 years ?
Monitoring of BFP and MMI combind with diet and exercise, (to pack the most power and stamina into a specific target weight) progressive resistance training, (Punching power and flexibility) monitoring and balancing of carb and protein intake, (stamina, strength and energy) exercises to target specific muscle groups,(especially the abs and legs) cardio and pulmonary training, (wind and endurance) monitoring and managing potassium/sodium levels (equilibrium, strength and stamina) monitoring and managing hydration levels during training (to maximize the benefit of road work and cardio) equipment specifically for ducking and floor drills, modern floor exercises for leg work, uppercut bags, focus mitts, target mitts, the list goes on.
Some of this would have been like science fiction to fighters, even as late as the mid to late 50s and early 60s, and some of it was unheard of before the 80s and 90s
How "much" they trained is a lot less important the "how" they trained.
Excessive roadwork, something old timers were notorious for, can actually do more harm then good. Dropping or gaining weight without a handle on potassium and sodium levels, which was not even understood prior to the 50s or so, negatively affected balance, equilibrium, and power.
This combined with the fact, that there has been a traceable, tractable change in human physiology over the past century, leaves no doubt, that pound for pond and when talking about a comparable level of athlete between the eras, the modern boxer is far superior in terms of strength, conditioning and skill.
Remember, we are comparing apples and apples here, theThe Great John L
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 2773
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:34 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosand wrote:
Are you kidding me ? How have boxing training methods changed?
Have you been anywhere near an elite boxing gym recently, or even in the past 30 years ?
Monitoring of BFP and MMI combind with diet and exercise, (to pack the most power and stamina into a specific target weight) progressive resistance training, (Punching power and flexibility) monitoring and balancing of carb and protein intake, (stamina, strength and energy) exercises to target specific muscle groups,(especially the abs and legs) cardio and pulmonary training, (wind and endurance) monitoring and managing potassium/sodium levels (equilibrium, strength and stamina) monitoring and managing hydration levels during training (to maximize the benefit of road work and cardio) equipment specifically for ducking and floor drills, modern floor exercises for leg work, uppercut bags, focus mitts, target mitts, the list goes on.
Some of this would have been like science fiction to fighters, even as late as the mid to late 50s and early 60s, and some of it was unheard of before the 80s and 90s
How "much" they trained is a lot less important the "how" they trained.
Excessive roadwork, something old timers were notorious for, can actually do more harm then good. Dropping or gaining weight without a handle on potassium and sodium levels, which was not even understood prior to the 50s or so, negatively affected balance, equilibrium, and power.
This combined with the fact, that there has been a traceable, tractable change in human physiology over the past century, leaves no doubt, that pound for pond and when talking about a comparable level of athlete between the eras, the modern boxer is far superior in terms of strength, conditioning and skill.
That all sounds great cosand. Unfortunately, not only are there very few of these types of gyms, there are very few boxing gyms in general, and outside of large metro areas, almost a non-existent amatuer boxing program. If you have any knowledge of the sport, you would know that the number of boxing gyms is a mere fraction of what it was just 30 years ago here in the US. When you can explain how the fighters can be better when there are so few boxers remaining then we might have something to discuss.
fighters of the 30s and 40s, with theelite
fighters on the last 30 years. In this case, SSR with Napoles, SRL, etcelite
I wasnt trying to side step anything, I was just trying to avoid writing a thesis..LOL I will address the points you made now.El Intocable
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:10 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosand, everything you’ve written is fantastic, but most boxers still use age-old methods and compete at the highest level. Roadwork with interval running, jump ropes, bags, mitts, dumbbells and rubber tubing for shadow boxing, slip bags, slip ropes, broomsticks lol (see how Tyson trained with Rooney), medicine balls, sledgehammers and tires, sand bags, floor exercises did not go anywhere and are all VERY old. Sure, some people train using highly sophisticated modern equipment, but very high-tech Roy Jones somehow ended up getting his butt kicked by a neanderthal, Glen Johnson, who worked construction and boxed after hours. I also asked you about non-US fighters; how do you think people train in Thailand, for example? Or are they not competitive at the top level?
By the way, boxers stopped running marathons when they switched to shorter fights, but, say, Tunney still did 10 miles in the morning. He was conditioned by Johnny Hayes, the London marathon winner. Some people do a lot of road work today as well – Nigel Benn ran at altitude, started off at 6-8 miles and built up to 12-15 miles, then he cut down on the miles again as the fight approached.
I provided some performance numbers on today’s top boxers and you decided to side-step them and reiterate that today’s boxers are far superior in terms of strength and conditioning. How can you say that today’s heavyweights are fit? My Puerto-Rican coach has always been telling me how greatly conditioned Tito was. Do you honestly believe that his 10K times are impressive? 7:30 per mile is what 50-year-old morning runners do every day. Heck, a 69-year-old grandma did almost exactly the same time as Tito did in that run. Yeah, these today’s athletes are so superior to the old timers!
Skills are yet another issue. Who exactly is so very technically superior today? The European fighters with their hands held way high and bodies open – is that the new superior way? Fat Toney beats everybody up using his Archie-like defense – he himself has said in many interviews that he carefully studied Archie, JJW and Ezzard.
I hate discussing mythical match-ups as much as you do, but we did have a pretty real match-up of today’s HW champ, Briggs, and a very old George Foreman. Who do you think won?
No, this didn't get lost in the exchange. If there are 1/10th as many boxing gyms, and virtually none in many cities, how can "elite" athletes even get introduced to boxing? I've posted many times about the near death of boxing in my area, and many other posters have confirmed that there are few if any boxing gyms remaining in their cities either. If you are talking NY, Philly, LA, yes there are still quite a few boxing gyms, although I'm sure that even the larger metro areas have far fewer gyms than they had 30+ years ago. As I said, if someone can explain how you can have better fighters when there are only a small percentage of the number of fighters that there were in the past, please do. But simple logic tells you that when there are a lot less athletes participating in a sport, then those that do particicpate are most likely going to perform at a lower level. And yes, there are always the "elite" fighters, but there will be less of them, and they can't learn the craft as well if there aren't quality fighters to challenge them and push them to the next level.cosand wrote: Remember, we are comparing apples and apples here, the fighters of the 30s and 40s, with thefighters on the last 30 years. In this case, SSR with Napoles, SRL, etcelite
Somehow i think that got lost in the exchange.
Maybe in NY and LA, but not in most cities. In most cities, you can't even find a boxing ring anymore... :(cosand wrote:Today, 12 year old kids in Police and park district boxing clubs get this type of traing from day one.
But you are right, there are not nearly enough of them.