golden oldie wrote:
Pot meet kettle. Go eff yourself.
Do you know what 'pot meet kettle' means? Sounds like you don't man - go and look it up and come back to me - you are the one trying to control debate around here, you nasty little online fascist.
It is the type of guys you have mentioned above as they actually were, versus guys from later era's as they actually were. There are no such things as time machines to invent mythical versions of the fighters from the 20's, 30's, 40's, etc, etc. It is the more fanatical followers of these guys who believe their heroes would compete with or get the better of fighters from the 60's up until the present day who resort to saying " Oh no my guy has to be considerably bigger or heavier " when their arguments have been shot down by folks who back the latter day fighters.
We can discuss and visualise such a fact, course I can - who's going to stop me? YOU.
So, if there are no such things as 'time machines' why bother? It's a waste of time, the reality is 185lbs Marciano wouldn't stand a chance against Mike Tyson at 220lbs.
Perhaps your not quite as dumb as you seem after all.
Yeah, but you are though.
That's it, the end. The only way that fight could be competitive is if they both had similar grounding in diet, advanced training techniques, steroids etc etc.
Then again perhaps you are.
You probably are going to put money on Bellew beating Haye - a sucker every minute and all that.
That applies to the population as a whole. There is no way of proving an individual would be bigger than he was. Answer why Tyson was 6" shorter in height, with a 13" shorter wingspan than Lewis when both were born in the 60's.
Course it applies to the population as a whole, which would include Rocky Marciano, why wouldn't it?
Why is Tyson shorter than Lewis? Because some people people are taller than others. But surely I don't have to tell a
boxing expert like you that fighters are classed on weight and not height. The difference between Lewis and Tyson was a stone and Tyson was still a good 16 and a half stone - he would have been heavier than the vast majority of fighters who fought Marciano. Just checked, the heaviest fighter Marciano fought was one Humphrey Jackson at 254 who was 4-2 and he fought three other fighters over 15 and a half stone in 49 wins.
There were plenty of BIG Heavyweights around in every decade since 1900, they are not hard to find if you just look for them. Willard, Baer. Abe Simon, Carnera, are just a few of the higher rated ones.
Not true, Carnera was something of a freak, that is how he got into the fight game - he was a circus strongman - most heavyweights - in fact, the vast majority of them were around 6ft and around 13 and a half to 14 stone. Max Baer was 6ft 2ins and around 14st 10lbs - hardly a giant but then - a
boxing expert like you should know all this, why am I telling you?
More bollox from you as is to be expected, as you seem to know less than eff all about boxing.
I know more than you in my sleep.
There are no such things as a standard diets, or standard training methods. Each fighter does what is best for him, with some preferring old school methods, and some preferring the latest technology. It might come as surprise to you but some fighters eat junk food between fights, and even during training camps, and they do quite well out of it. Archie Moore for instance always chewed steak to suck all the juices out of it then spat out the meat, to keep his weight down. This was in the 40's. So what the eff are you waffling about when you say that diet is more significant today than it was then?
That was because Archie Moore was trying to make light heavyweight. When he wasn't - he ate the steak normally.
Yes, I know some fighters eat junk food during fights - I don't think Tony Tubbs eats tofu salad daily - but the thing is, their training regimes, their strength and size and the latest in nutritional knowledge values them, as does the availability of a wide ranges of foods, which weren't around then.
See you can be quite clever when you try.
You probably think Bellew will win though.
The average weight in Tyson's day was NOT 17 stone.
Tyson fought in two eras, in the mid to late 80's - his opponents were around 15 and a half to 16 stone, in his latter career he rarely fought people under 17 stone - it's all there, go and look it up.
There have always been weight differences too, that is why the Heavyweight division existed for guys who simply couldn't make Light Heavy then Cruiser when that came into being. I have no idea what you are getting at with your weight difference figures. Tyson's optimum fighting weight was 218 - 220, Lewis's was in the 240's
Tyson fought Lewis at around 234lbs - he was at 16 and a half stone, now YOU'RE going back in the fornicating time machine with Tysons weight
Honestly, what are you like?
Grow up ffs moron, they are matches between guys who fought at the times they fought pitted against each other. You can eff and blind as much as you like you will get it back with interest, idiot.
No, you grow up you absolute tit, you trying to control the debate - fornicate off - you can't stop anyone debating point - don't like it, fornicate off? What are you going to do if I bring it up again and again.
Stupidity in and of itself isn't so bad, wearing it like a medal the way you do is laughable. Are you seriously saying people NEVER had access to red meat, white meat, fresh fruit and vegetables, or poultry until the 1960's? Do you believe Brits just invented the observations " They are overfed, over sexed, and over here " in reference to G.I's during WW2?
You can't be so stupid and be so ignorant of history, people eat more calories today than ever, people have a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than ever before, people eat 30% more calories today than they did in 1970 - never mind 1940 - people didn't have the access to the amount of food and the volume of food - they didn't - Jack Dempsey was a hobo all throughout his childhood - do you think he got three quality meals a day riding the rails? Did he bollix
By the way wasn't Marciano a G.I.? What part of " the amount of calories people consume is, and always has been a matter of personal choice? "
No, people eating three quality meals a day is a rather modern concept. People back in the 1930's and 40's were poor and they couldn't afford to eat all that well, have you heard 'The Great Depression'? James J. Braddock went without meals as he was fighting - he always struggled to put on an extra stone to be effective at heavyweight because he couldn't ge tthe right kind of food nor the volume - which would have made him 13 and a half stone.
You seem really ignorant of history, both boxing and social, go and read a book.
Exactly. Owens or Lewis are nowhere near Bolt. The problem here is you are assuming it is purely down to nutrition and training. That is bollox.
Owens was a champion and he wasn't beaten in his prime, it counts for something and I think I have already said this in the first post - there are lots of factors - they're just two.
We are far from agreeing,
We are - you think we're not because you're not that smart. I claimed that
as stated above you claim modern athletes improvements are ONLY down to nutrition and methods of training. I believe you also mentioned lifestyle, as if you think all modern athletes don't smoke or drink booze. Some do.
I made this claim:
If Rocky Marciano had been brought up in a more modern time - as in he was able to face Mike Tyson - where he had access to better food, more of it and a more advanced training regime - especially regarding weight training, protein supplements and dare I say it - steroids - he wouldn't be 185lbs, and he certainly wouldn't be facing Tyson at 185lbs
If he was on the gear, as most heavyweights these days are - he wouldn't be 185lbs!
I'm not the one trying to compare guys from bygone era's to the present time. I KNOW the modern guys would piss all over them. It is the numpties who want to create a mythical version of the oldies who are trying to compare.
Awwwwwwwwwwww - diddums - well, nothing you can do about, go and suck on a werthers original and try and chill out yeah? be thankful for being in Spain and having a happy life in the sunshine alongside all your Brit neighbours in Communidad Valencia.
'I don't live anywhere near the Brits...' Course you don't
If I thought a muppet like you had an opinion worth more than pig shite I might be bothered by it. As you don't I couldn't care less.
That's why you spend half an hour typing up a response - because you're
not bothered Are you like this with your grandkids and the missus? I bet you are!
You really are clueless about the game aren't you. Your argument might have some foundation if Marciano hadn't beaten ANY guys over 200lbs with significant height and reach advantages over him. Tyson beats him because he is too, fast, hits too hard, and is too skillful for Marciano, NOT simply because he was born in the 60's.
One minute you saying he doesn't stand a chance and now you are saying he does. You aren't cut out for this debating lark are you?
Marciano fought ONE MAN in 49 fights who was over 16 stone - and none of his title defences were against anyone over 14 stone 4lbs - except for Don Cockell - a light heavyweight with a glandular problem.
Do you usually catch the Sunshine bus?
This coming from the man who can't use the quote function.
Exactly which 6' 1inch 220lb Marciano would this be then?
The one I made up, what are you going to do about it?
One who exists in your head perhaps? Why stop there, just make him 6' 10" and 270lb, so he can deal with Lewis, the K2 brothers, Tyson Fury, or any other giants that might come along in the near future.
Now you are being silly. Mind you, I think all this who would beat who from different eras is silly, why not add some complex debate? I know you don't like it, because you are nothing but a control freak, some kind of online fascist - probably was a traffic warden before you retired to Spain.
Wrong again, you are the prat, with reading difficulties. I clearly stated that BOLT'S competitors have exactly the same access to the foods and training methods he has. Yet he blows them away.
Who cares what YOU stated, I was comparing what Bolt and Owens may or may not have ate, it doesn't matter what Bolts competitors do or don't - they can't beat him but guess what? Nor did Owens competitors back in his day.
Yeah, and no doubt with a little bit of research I'll find another scientific report by a different group of scientists refuting that one.
Except you won't - you can make one up of course that people in the 1930's had the same access to good nutrition as they do now, I wonder who will publish it?
1. Are you now claiming Bolt is faster than Owens purely because he doesn't smoke?
2. Are you further claiming there are no top class athletes performing in the world today who do smoke?
I am claiming there are myriad of factors that help Bolt over Owens - that's one but there are many many others.
Yes, and those lifestyle habits are a matter of personal choice as they have ALWAYS been for millennia. Some athletes smoke, some booze, some do dope, others take nothing.
Bolt - Owens - other athletes - not important - understood?
I have no idea or interest.
Noooooooooooooooooooo he does not.
I would be offended if they did, as they are like politicians. Any given 3 of them will give you different answers to the same question.
Why would he lie about not smoking if he doesn't.
Typical girlish reaction, to a fact. Which is sports scientists, and nutritionists can't even agree among each other.
Whereas your reaction is typical miserable auld git reaction - something an ex traffic warden would write up because it isn't in his very narrow parameters of logic.
You're not a sports scientist and you aren't a nutritionist. So you're argument regards this is moot. To say they haven't any clue what they are talking about when you slapped parking tickets on cars on double yellow lines for the last remaining years of your working life just won't do.
Everything you mention here from nutrition to diet is a matter of choice, and ALWAYS has been.
Go and read a book about the Great Depression, The Jarrow March, about Britain in the 30's - or after the war when there was rationing for TEN YEARS in the UK.
The ignorance is purely yours. Obesity isn't a natural phenomenon it is a matter of choice.
There was very little obesity in the 1930's.
In exactly the way Jesse Owens was superior to everyone he competes against in the 30's, Bolt is superior today. It is the same with boxing, each era throws up one Heavyweight superior to the rest. If it were " solely " about size, weight and strength Louis wouldn't have beaten guys bigger, heavier or stronger than him, neither would Marciano. or Tyson, but they did.
This is where your argument falls doing AGAIN - we're not talking about bigger guys who are inferior (what of them there were - very few) we are talking about match up where he is fighting his peers.
The number of fights is irrelevant. A fighter can only beat what ids in front of him, and these guys did exactly that, because they were better fighters, size had nothing to do with it.
Well no, because there was very little difference in size between the fighters.
Tyson was a small heavyweight in his era, he did quite well for himself up until Douglas. Similarly there are and always have been " big " Heavies who simply are not, or were not good enough to get to the top.
Nooooooooooooo - Tyson was a short heavyweight, his weight, strength and build was about normal for a heavyweight in the mid 80's - around 218-220lbs.
Wrong again, see above.
When have you been right?
Thanks for that, luckily enough I have the sun and the ability to make that choice. Here is some advice for you. Study up on the fight game before you post such rubbish concerning fighters and their ability, instead of obsessing about what they eat.
What you need to do is
Read some books, not the Beano Annual of 1971
Learn to use the quote function on posts
And find some logic somewhere - ask the hamster running on the wheel in yer head.
