BoxRec

I am no scientist.But doesn't breeding have something to do with this.
I remember the unpopular comments made by Jimmy the Greek about slaves.
Where they took the biggest strongest fastest male and female and had them create better bloodlines
through breeding.
Isn't that a form of genetics?I am not trying to sound stupid it is a legitimate question.

If we take a female track star and a NFL all pro would their child have and advantage physically over
2 substandard nonathletic parents giving birth to a child?
Could this contribute to our athletes now being faster and stronger?Or am I thinking to simply?

tiny_acres wrote:I am no scientist.But doesn't breeding have something to do with this.
I remember the unpopular comments made by Jimmy the Greek about slaves.
Where they took the biggest strongest fastest male and female and had them create better bloodlines
through breeding.
Isn't that a form of genetics?I am not trying to sound stupid it is a legitimate question.

If we take a female track star and a NFL all pro would their child have and advantage physically over
2 substandard nonathletic parents giving birth to a child?
Could this contribute to our athletes now being faster and stronger?Or am I thinking to simply?

very good point.

and it is exactly like this. so many athletes from today had parents who were athletes themselves and therefore, the combination of female and men gens, or even if just 1 male or female was a pro athletes makes the child with a higher potential to be physicly better than most other children.

Didn't think this thread would end up being 7 pages of fight fans debating evolutionary biology and genetics

Chepppaaa wrote: are u realy that stupid?

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

Very "interesting" logic. Are you 12 or something ?

If you had actually followed any of the links i sent you woukd understand that genetics is only one of many factors and not the nost important in overall median population height and weight.

Further citing genetics as a supposed reason for changes affecting the competitors in boxing is obviously not correct. It usually takes thousands of years for major changes to become prevalent in the gene pool and the irrefutable fact borne out by countless studies is that good nutrition during childhood is the single biggest vectoe in deciding r average height in any population and overall health.

Surely evem you are not so dim yoj cannot underdtand this, especially as the human species actually declined in height during the ice age as food became scarce and then to move to agriculture.

In short human genetics have barely changed in 50,000 years, we all share the same gene pool with subsets of the original gene pool we came fr in sub saharan africa. All the genes originate there aside from some specialist mutations for things like blue eyes or digesting lactose.

tiny_acres wrote: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

This is why i won't bother with commenting about "who could or would've done this or that" because it's all steeped in personal bias.

If you like a fighter then you are going to rank him higher and if you dislike a fighter then you are going to rank him lower, people aren't real boxing fans any longer, it's all a "popularity contest" based on who you like and who you don't.

Take for instance this guy (Tuan_Jim) the first name alone is a dead giveaway that he's a Pacquiao fan, so naturally he is not going to say anything that favors Floyd Mayweather, just read his post:

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".


Anyone who makes a statement like this cannot be a real boxing fan. I can't believe anyone takes this non boxing fan seriously.

tiny_acres wrote:I am no scientist.But doesn't breeding have something to do with this.
I remember the unpopular comments made by Jimmy the Greek about slaves.
Where they took the biggest strongest fastest male and female and had them create better bloodlines
through breeding.
Isn't that a form of genetics?I am not trying to sound stupid it is a legitimate question.

If we take a female track star and a NFL all pro would their child have and advantage physically over
2 substandard nonathletic parents giving birth to a child?
Could this contribute to our athletes now being faster and stronger?Or am I thinking to simply?

Yes, that however is selective breeding, which does not happen in the general human population. Yes, you will get athletes who marry one another, and they often pass on traits suitable for sport, but with nothing like the rigour that was used on slave plantations where they took the biggest and strongest slaves and forced them to mate.

However, this is rather different from what Chepa is talking about, though of course here he is trying to latch on to a far more sensible comment.

However, you would need to actually go and analyse how many top level fighters are the progeny - my guess is it would be a pretty small percentage. If this was true, you would expect that there would be at least one father and son who had both been heavyweight champ, Christ, Even George foreman couldn't pull that off despite having load of sons, though Freida had some success, as did little George.

In that sense it's not that the human population overall is genetically improving (whatever that would actually mean) - rather than some selective traits desirable to success in certain sports, were being passed on from one generation to another.

As far as I know Ali, Frazier, Liston to name just three former heavyweight champs, had a history of athletic success - their parents certainly passed on their genes to all three, but they were not athletes as far as the records show.

Specialism is genetics in certain sports certainly exists, and certainly, people training young athletes will look for them , and they can in fact now be bested for quite easily in many cases, but this is not the same as making a statement saying 'human genetics are getting better' because that is pretty meaningless.

One area which has been mentioned recently is that people from mixed heritages tend to have less congenital diseases, because there's a wider gene pool, with less chance of pockets of genes containing markers for congenital disease (like the royal families of Europe having Haemophilia throughout many bloodlines). In that sense, it's because what you are in essence doing, is getting closer to the much larger gene pool which existed in Sub Saharan Africa, which although it sounds counter intuitive is true - as all of the genes which now exist in the entire human population, originated from groups which left African and dispered around the globe, then the African continent, has a far wider genetic diversity, than the populations of Europe which are offshoots of this, which is then mingled with other races settling. It's one of the biggest arguments for cosmopolitanism and migration in my book, you're basically remingling the dispersed human gene pool.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
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.

Floyd's temperament is one of his greatest strengths. When pushed, he always responds violently.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: So you think his hands would hold him back? Lmao

They barely hold up now!

Also, I seriously question Floyd's general temprement.

Floyd's temperament is one of his greatest strengths. When pushed, he always responds violently.

Yes, I'd agree with that, he's always at his most dangerous under pressure.

I'm not a fan, but he clearly earned atg status. He's always in the gym and would be perfectly suited for same day weigh ins. Manny too. Guys like canelo that would be light heavyweights in old times are a more slippery discussion. Every era is different, hearns would have retired Leonard in the 40's and I guarantee you Ray Robinson would be fighting once or twice a year for Floyd money.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
They barely hold up now!

Also, I seriously question Floyd's general temprement.

Floyd's temperament is one of his greatest strengths. When pushed, he always responds violently.

Yes, I'd agree with that, he's always at his most dangerous under pressure.

It's all relative though, isn't it gentlemen? Violent against who? A 40 year old Mosley? Zab Judah?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not a fan, but he clearly earned atg status. He's always in the gym and would be perfectly suited for same day weigh ins. Manny too. Guys like canelo that would be light heavyweights in old times are a more slippery discussion. Every era is different, hearns would have retired Leonard in the 40's and I guarantee you Ray Robinson would be fighting once or twice a year for Floyd money.

Nailed it. Yesterday's fighters did not fight 15 times in a year for fun. It was out of necessity. If they fought today they would be 2 to 3 times max in a year.

I've seen him hurt twice, Mosley and corley, he was kicking both if their asses before the round was over. He's been the underdog once, and he brutalized corrales. He had 2 close fights and immediately fought rematches. He's easy to cheer against, questioning his greatness is silly.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

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

Yes, genetics play a role, but other factors are better nutrition and health care.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I've seen him hurt twice, Mosley and corley, he was kicking both if their asses before the round was over. He's been the underdog once, and he brutalized corrales. He had 2 close fights and immediately fought rematches. He's easy to cheer against, questioning his greatness is silly.

I's agree with that. Whist he's far from my favourite fighter to watch, especially in the latter part of his career, he's definitely an ATG, top 50 without doubt, maybe top 20, it's very hard to place him really, and a source of endless debate.

VG_Addict wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
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

Yes, genetics play a role, but other factors are better nutrition and health care.

Precisely.

Take two identical twins with the gene marker for tallness, feed one badly until adolescence, and other optimally, and you will have a very large discrepancy in height by adulthood. This is cold hard science. Gene expression is governed by diet to a large extent as well as a host of other factors.

If a male and female athlete had a child, then that child and a female athlete had a child, and so on, could they give birth to an athletic freak like Lebron or Bo Jackson?

VG_Addict wrote:If a male and female athlete had a child, then that child and a female athlete had a child, and so on, could they give birth to an athletic freak like Lebron or Bo Jackson?

They could, they could also give birth to a dwarf.

I once read that on average North Koreans are 1-3 inches shorter than their neighbouring South Koreans. This is down to malnutrition.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

VG_Addict wrote:If a male and female athlete had a child, then that child and a female athlete had a child, and so on, could they give birth to an athletic freak like Lebron or Bo Jackson?

They could, they could also give birth to a dwarf.

In other words, genetics are a crap-shoot.

VG_Addict wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

VG_Addict wrote:If a male and female athlete had a child, then that child and a female athlete had a child, and so on, could they give birth to an athletic freak like Lebron or Bo Jackson?

They could, they could also give birth to a dwarf.

In other words, genetics are a crap-shoot.

No, there are variables but that doesn't mean there isn't probability.

SNG wrote:I once read that on average North Koreans are 1-3 inches shorter than their neighbouring South Koreans. This is down to malnutrition.

Oliver Fennell gave me a book about a North Korean defector and their story. Obviously statistics are difficult to get, but I'm pretty sure it said something along those lines about North Korean defectors. Interesting as it could well be more than that. I imagine most North Korean defectors are of above average health and below average age.

Deadendgeneration wrote:

SNG wrote:I once read that on average North Koreans are 1-3 inches shorter than their neighbouring South Koreans. This is down to malnutrition.

Oliver Fennell gave me a book about a North Korean defector and their story. Obviously statistics are difficult to get, but I'm pretty sure it said something along those lines about North Korean defectors. Interesting as it could well be more than that. I imagine most North Korean defectors are of above average health and below average age.

How many North or South Koreans are in your ATG top 100?
This could put the whole debate to bed right here

davie wrote:

Deadendgeneration wrote:

SNG wrote:I once read that on average North Koreans are 1-3 inches shorter than their neighbouring South Koreans. This is down to malnutrition.

Oliver Fennell gave me a book about a North Korean defector and their story. Obviously statistics are difficult to get, but I'm pretty sure it said something along those lines about North Korean defectors. Interesting as it could well be more than that. I imagine most North Korean defectors are of above average health and below average age.

How many North or South Koreans are in your ATG top 100?
This could put the whole debate to bed right here

A pretty redundant question given the low number of amateur and professional boxers from these countries.

Deadendgeneration wrote:

davie wrote:

Deadendgeneration wrote:
Oliver Fennell gave me a book about a North Korean defector and their story. Obviously statistics are difficult to get, but I'm pretty sure it said something along those lines about North Korean defectors. Interesting as it could well be more than that. I imagine most North Korean defectors are of above average health and below average age.

How many North or South Koreans are in your ATG top 100?
This could put the whole debate to bed right here

A pretty redundant question given the low level of amateur and professional boxers from these countries.

Whooosh