BoxRec

polecateddy wrote:

Ezzard wrote:And again...

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... t=resizing

So according to this logic, not only was Marciano likely to beat all cruiserweight champions, and most heavyweight champions AS HE WAS THEN. If additionally he was born and trained in present times he would literally be knocking out both K brothers on the same night, such was his immense improvement. Or is in fact the logic that the 1950's version wouldn't do very well today, but a modern version might? Yes, latter version I think!

Just a fun discussion is all...

You've defined a debate with such tiny parameters that it seems pointless to me. Why hold any of this to heart? "Cars are faster than they used to be" seems to be the rallying cry.

A bloke working on a production line for Ford in 2013 is not a better engineer than Karl Benz. If we bring Mr Benz back AS HE WAS THEN...perhaps Joe on the production line does know more...I think that's ludicrous...and completely irrelevant...

Unless it's all just a wind up, which seems to be the better option.

Samuel Johnson never used a typewriter. William Faulkner had no access to Microsoft Word. Shakespeare never had Final Draft 8.0...modern script writers can keep multiple documents...constantly hone their scripts...track changes....lock pages...allowing them to develop their stories in a way that old Will never could.

If someone brings Sonny Liston back AS HE WAS WHEN HE WAS 6 YEARS OLD... I could beat the sh1t out of him...or at least hold him off for a draw...if I'm on the right juice, that is...

Ezzard wrote:

polecateddy wrote:

Ezzard wrote:And again...

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... t=resizing

So according to this logic, not only was Marciano likely to beat all cruiserweight champions, and most heavyweight champions AS HE WAS THEN. If additionally he was born and trained in present times he would literally be knocking out both K brothers on the same night, such was his immense improvement. Or is in fact the logic that the 1950's version wouldn't do very well today, but a modern version might? Yes, latter version I think!

Just a fun discussion is all...

You've defined a debate with such tiny parameters that it seems pointless to me. Why hold any of this to heart? "Cars are faster than they used to be" seems to be the rallying cry.

A bloke working on a production line for Ford in 2013 is not a better engineer than Karl Benz. If we bring Mr Benz back AS HE WAS THEN...perhaps Joe on the production line does know more...I think that's ludicrous...and completely irrelevant...

Unless it's all just a wind up, which seems to be the better option.

Samuel Johnson never used a typewriter. William Faulkner had no access to Microsoft Word. Shakespeare never had Final Draft 8.0...modern script writers can keep multiple documents...constantly hone their scripts...track changes....lock pages...allowing them to develop their stories in a way that old Will never could.

If someone brings Sonny Liston back AS HE WAS WHEN HE WAS 6 YEARS OLD... I could beat the sh1t out of him...or at least hold him off for a draw...if I'm on the right juice, that is...

...and of course I'm hardly going to win over someone whose username is Ezzard! Lol

I think both arguments are valid....im definitely pro old school. Fighters fought more often, more competitive, tougher, old school teaching with nuances that aren't so prevalent in todays boxing. Argue against that modern size, efficient skill, technology to study oneself and others, physical evolution. You simply cannot ignore someones physical strength when looking at different eras...and size. It is very hard fighting a skilled , large man like klitschko....
Saying that look at the punch output that marciano had..and he could do it for 15 rounds too....look at the undying determination...will to win..never quit....passion out of hunger...
I do think saying all that if a Klitschko was to fight a prime rocky there would be too much size difference..if it was done on a pound for pound basis then would be a bit different...an 18 stone Rocky or a 13 stone Klitschko....lol

polecateddy wrote: ...and of course I'm hardly going to win over someone whose username is Ezzard! Lol

Nice to disagree in the best of spirits...

The Great John L wrote:

polecateddy wrote:...People couldn't even run under 4 minutes for the mile, which most people can do today....

Most people can run under 4 minute miles? Really?

LOL PCT is becoming the best comic on Boxrec. Keep 'em coming.

C'mon guys, it's pretty evident that Froch is much faster than SRR was at his best. Even the caveman Abraham is faster than that relic Robinson.

I can't believe anyone would mention Chagaev as any example of evolution. He'd probably lose to Carmen Basilio.

polecateddy wrote:The fact is your Froch's and Klitschko's hit faster, and hit harder than your 1950's fighters. Not to mention to the use of digital video of sparring to correct mistakes.

See, if this was true, then we would be in a different discussion, but it's NOT. Froch doesn't punch as fast as many, many fighters of the past, and there's plenty of footage to watch that proves this. Furthermore, people aren't hitting significantly harder; as much as you'd like to say you can, everyone in boxing agrees that you can't significantly improve a fighters chin with training, so we should be seeing far more early rounds knockouts, but that's not the case. I don't have a degree in sports science, but I can see that Rocky had amazing stamina, because I can watch his fights. I've also watched plenty of similar weight guys from more recently, like Thompson, Haye, Mormeck, Holyfield etc, and of those, I only see remotely similar stamina in Holyfield. If everything you were saying was true, there would be lots of observable differences that actually just aren't there.

What I'll absolutely give you is that videos for correcting mistakes is a huge benefit, and I'd love to see that combined with the sort of huge experience that some of the old-timers had.

The Great John L wrote:

polecateddy wrote:...People couldn't even run under 4 minutes for the mile, which most people can do today....

Most people can run under 4 minute miles? Really?

Perhaps by most people, he meant most male, professional 1500m/mile runners? I'm much fitter than the average 29yo, have a BMI in the low 20s and exercise regularly and I can run a mile in around 5 mins 30 seconds.

One thing that I have never understood is how some fighters from a long time ago weighed so much less on the scales they appear. Marciano was rock solid and looked like he weighed around 200. Yet he usually weighed in around 185.

Jersey Joe Walcott was ripped. He looked much bigger than Chris Byrd. Bryd was pretty soft by comparison. You would think Walcott outweighed him by at least 15 pounds. Yet somehow, Byrd often outweighed Walcott by 15-20 pounds.

jezzamundo wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

polecateddy wrote:...People couldn't even run under 4 minutes for the mile, which most people can do today....

Most people can run under 4 minute miles? Really?

Perhaps by most people, he meant most male, professional 1500m/mile runners? I'm much fitter than the average 29yo, have a BMI in the low 20s and exercise regularly and I can run a mile in around 5 mins 30 seconds.

Yeah, that was a joke. Not to be taken literally by Americans!

Ambling Alp II wrote:One thing that I have never understood is how some fighters from a long time ago weighed so much less on the scales they appear. Marciano was rock solid and looked like he weighed around 200. Yet he usually weighed in around 185.

Jersey Joe Walcott was ripped. He looked much bigger than Chris Byrd. Bryd was pretty soft by comparison. You would think Walcott outweighed him by at least 15 pounds. Yet somehow, Byrd often outweighed Walcott by 15-20 pounds.

That's a good point. I particularly agree with your take on Jersey Joe Walcott and Chris Byrd. Both are bang on 6 foot. Byrd fought at middleweight as an amateur in his early 20s, as a pro was a natural light heavyweight who grew to be a natural cruiserweight, but chose to fight at heavyweight for the extra money. Walcott could make middleweight at age 17, was a light heavyweight by 19 and by 21 could no longer make the 175lb limit. He was a late bloomer who in his heavyweight prime generally weighed from 194-201lb. Byrd drained/starved himself down to 174lb at age 37, something that Walcott couldn't possibly do as he clearly had a very low bodyfat % while fighting in the mid 190s. Ultimately the difference in weight has to come down to bodyfat - Walcott had very little, while Byrd wasn't fat, he was quite thick waisted and soft looking in comparison.

Chris Byrd ate like a horse. Jersey Joe did manual labor for much of his career. Couple that with Boxing training and you're left with a piece of iron.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Chris Byrd ate like a horse. Jersey Joe did manual labor for much of his career. Couple that with Boxing training and you're left with a piece of iron.

Yeah but it was the 50s and they all punched in slow motion. Plus he couldn't run a 4 minute mile and he didn't have fancy printouts showing his blood oxygen levels. Byrd on the other hand would have boxed circles around him.

One should look at the impressive title reigns of ED Dunkhorst,Carl Morris,Abe Simon, and Buster Mathis to see how insurmountable weight advantage is.

Ambling Alp II wrote:One should look at the impressive title reigns of ED Dunkhorst,Carl Morris,Abe Simon, and Buster Mathis to see how insurmountable weight advantage is.

Yes, and of course, being that those guys were born before the 90's, they couldn't punch at all, and were a slow as a sloth.I've seen the footage to prove it.

Not sure if you are joking or not. I will reply as if you are serious.
Of course they were born before the 90's. So what?
How much footage of Dunkhorst and Morris have you seen?
Morris and Simon could punch, and Mathis certainly was not slow.

My main point is that there have been big heavyweights throughout boxing history. They were not better than smaller fighters who were much more skilled.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure if you are joking or not. I will reply as if you are serious.
Of course they were born before the 90's. So what?
How much footage of Dunkhorst and Morris have you seen?
Morris and Simon could punch, and Mathis certainly was not slow.

My main point is that there have been big heavyweights throughout boxing history. They were not better than smaller fighters who were much more skilled.

I think the truth is more skill works to a point. Take a peak Chris Bryd - There was a really skilled guy, but he couldn't outbox Vitali Klitschko. (And yes, I know he eventually got the retirement win)

zero wrote:He wouldn't do well at all. Can you imagine Vitali or Lewis hitting, him it’d be good night! I'm a firm believer that nostalgia plays a big part in past greats ability, when compared to modern fighters, especially when discussing fighters from 50 or more years ago.

How can it be nostalgia when even contemporary modern people think they were awesome?

It always boils down to this weight and "size" difference, totally underestinmting skill, timing, speed of feet, power, heart, desire, balls,etc
The extra weight at HW isn't as much of a danger to the opponent as a percentage of bodyweight. Its a myth that a Vitali sized HW hits harder than a 220 HW. Any extra strength is negated by slower hand and foot speed and cardio having to move the bulk, whereas a 7lb jump on a 137lb fighter is useable weight and a higher percentage of his bodyweight.
Its for this reason lighter fighters like Tyson, Holyfield, Haye and a lot of the older fighters like Louis, Frazier, 14st Marciano even, would still be effective today. IMO.

polecateddy wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure if you are joking or not. I will reply as if you are serious.
Of course they were born before the 90's. So what?
How much footage of Dunkhorst and Morris have you seen?
Morris and Simon could punch, and Mathis certainly was not slow.

My main point is that there have been big heavyweights throughout boxing history. They were not better than smaller fighters who were much more skilled.

I think the truth is more skill works to a point. Take a peak Chris Bryd - There was a really skilled guy, but he couldn't outbox Vitali Klitschko. (And yes, I know he eventually got the retirement win)

That fact that Byrd was a light-hitting natural light heavyweight (who would've been small in the 1940s as he was in the 90s) who was competitive with Vitali (and got the W) disintegrates your argument into pieces.

dempseyfire wrote:

polecateddy wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure if you are joking or not. I will reply as if you are serious.
Of course they were born before the 90's. So what?
How much footage of Dunkhorst and Morris have you seen?
Morris and Simon could punch, and Mathis certainly was not slow.

My main point is that there have been big heavyweights throughout boxing history. They were not better than smaller fighters who were much more skilled.

I think the truth is more skill works to a point. Take a peak Chris Bryd - There was a really skilled guy, but he couldn't outbox Vitali Klitschko. (And yes, I know he eventually got the retirement win)

That fact that Byrd was a light-hitting natural light heavyweight (who would've been small in the 1940s as he was in the 90s) who was competitive with Vitali (and got the W) disintegrates your argument into pieces.

The difference though is that Byrd wasn't a slugger-type, he was a masterful boxer. How many natural middleweight-light heavyweight types do we know of in the past half century who were sluggers capable of fighting very big men? That is the only last defense that polecateddy has left.

Then again, Marciano wasn't a natural middleweight-lightheavyweight type either, he trained down in weight. WHat we need to do is compile a list of men 6' and shorter, 200 pounds and lighter over the past half century who had success against bigger, heavier, taller men. Jesus bless.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure if you are joking or not. I will reply as if you are serious.
Of course they were born before the 90's. So what?
How much footage of Dunkhorst and Morris have you seen?
Morris and Simon could punch, and Mathis certainly was not slow.

My main point is that there have been big heavyweights throughout boxing history. They were not better than smaller fighters who were much more skilled.

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that I'm absolutely joking. Polecateddy is genuinely suggesting that a puncher from the 50's would be a non puncher now, and that fast fighters from then would be slow by comparison with fighters now. He even believes that chins have been improved by modern training methods. My post was poking fun at his ridiculous belief.

dempseyfire wrote:That fact that Byrd was a light-hitting natural light heavyweight (who would've been small in the 1940s as he was in the 90s) who was competitive with Vitali (and got the W) disintegrates your argument into pieces.

What!.....Byrd was well behind on the scorecards (89-82, 88-83, 88-83) at the end of the 9th. That dosen't sound very competitive to me.

SamWise72 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure if you are joking or not. I will reply as if you are serious.
Of course they were born before the 90's. So what?
How much footage of Dunkhorst and Morris have you seen?
Morris and Simon could punch, and Mathis certainly was not slow.

My main point is that there have been big heavyweights throughout boxing history. They were not better than smaller fighters who were much more skilled.

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that I'm absolutely joking. Polecateddy is genuinely suggesting that a puncher from the 50's would be a non puncher now, and that fast fighters from then would be slow by comparison with fighters now. He even believes that chins have been improved by modern training methods. My post was poking fun at his ridiculous belief.

I never said fast fighters then would be slow fighters now - you're embellishing for effect. The main thrust of my thesis is 5'10'' and 185 pound Rocky Marciano if magically transported forward in time would be too small to beat the majority of the recent belt holders, certainly at heavyweight, and also (controversially) at cruiserweight. Nobody really agrees, and that's fine. I would also add that I disagree strongly with this idea that boxing training has evolved considerably since the 1940's and 50's, the time of Marciano's development and rise to the top. At one point I think I said that there isn't a single other sport where the world champion then could be a champion today. The rebuttable to that was that ...well boxing is unique ...they all train basically the same. Err... well don't runners basically run? Weight lifters lift weights, etc? It just strikes me as that is just ignorance and nostalgia - a terrible mix!

polecateddy wrote:I never said fast fighters then would be slow fighters now - you're embellishing for effect.

Well not exactly, but close.

polecateddy wrote:The fact is your Froch's and Klitschko's hit faster, and hit harder than your 1950's fighters.