BoxRec

edit

edit

DaveV17 wrote:DF worte:"Foreman not a top contender? He beat Cooper, Stewart, Coatzer, Cooney, and Rodriguez. In 1992, that made you a top contender you buffoon. Check the rankings."

I believe you are the BUFFOON, your post was so ridiculous and full of errors that you have lost all credibility.
1-Cooper had lost 2 of his last 3 when he fought Foreman. He was obviously not rated.
2-Cooney had not fought for a year and a half when he fought Foreman, and had been knocked out easily by Michael Spinks when he did fight, in fact, in 1994 when Moorer and Foreman fought, Cooney had not won a fight in over 8 years.
3-Coetzer had lost his last 2 before fighting Foreman so he obviously was not a rated fighter either.
4-Rodriquez had was 1-1 for his last two fights, and the fight with Foreman was only his third outside of Brazil.
How could Foreman be a contender when he fought Moorer? He had not fought for one and a half years, and that was a loss to Morrison. By the way, Foreman fought Moorer in November of 1994, not 1992. Get in the game, this wasn't the 70s when a 7-0-1 novice could be the only champ.

DF wrote:"This Holyfield would lose to Spinks just like he lost to Toney . . being completely outworked . . . and eventually stopped. It would be embarassing. Evander would probably fall out of the ring from exhaustion. Spinks KO'd Bernard Mercado, a 6'5 big punching 225 lber . . but loses to the shot Holyfield we have now. Really smart deduction there.

Mercado was nothing special, a club fighter. Mike Weaver, John Tate, and even Jimmy Thunder got him out much quicker than Neon Leon did. So now you see similarities between James Toney and Leon Spinks. Well, I do too, they both had two arms and legs. Your credibility goes even lower.

As for your wager, I'll wait and see who Evander fights first. If he fights Wlad or Peter, I can't see him doiing well. If he can find a Leon Spinks caliber champ, you've got a bet. Holyfield is too brave for me to bet blindly not knowing who he will fight.

Look up the major santioning bodies' rankings for the years 1988-1993. Stewart, Coatzer, Rodriguez, and Cooper were all in the top 10 (some in the top 5) for a period of time.

I love how you praise Joe Hipp's "durability" but then call Mercado a club fighter . . haha. I guess Joe Hipp is now one of the big athletic HWs of the 1990s, since he went life and death with Morrison???


And Spinks was not the only champ. You do know of a fight called Norton-Holmes for the WBC belt? Norton had been robbed vs Ali and robbed of another title shot. He was as much the HW champ as Ali. And Norton would have destroyed Spinks. And we saw what happened when Spinks fought Holmes.[/i]

Patterson was younger than Foreman and Holmes at that point but I thought my point was still valid. What point are people trying to make regarding Foreman and Holmes? They had some success in their 40s but aside from this I'm not sure what the larger argument is. I pointed out that Holyfield was still ranked highly until he was about 40 years old and he is still fighting at age 44. Likewise, Oliver McCall is in his 40s and is still winning fights.

Bernard Hopkins was middleweight champ into his 40s and beat Tarver at age 41.

Bowe didn't stop any really durable guys during his career aside from the third Holyfield fight. Why do people think he was a huge puncher?

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Alp wrote:'1.You aren't familar with the term punchers chance? how can anyone that has followed boxing for any lenght of time not have of heard of this term? Or do you just tune out almost everyhting that others have to say?"

I didn't say I didn't know what "puncher's chance" meant, I just asked you and your friend how Morrison could have a puncher's chance when you two both had posted that you didn't think Morrison was a good puncher. I mentioned that you two might be the only people in the world who didn't consider Morrison a good puncher.

Styles make fights. That is what I have been telling you and DF. If a hard puncher fights a man who can't evade him and doesn't have a great chin, the hard puncher has the advantage. Does that make sense to you?

I can't speak for dempseyfire, but what I meant is that in boxing, almost anyone has a remote punchers chance, unless one fighter has no power at all or one guy has a granite chin. That is the only chance I would give Morrison.

I have asked over and over and over who had Morrison ever stopped that was close to the level of Norton and you won't give an answer. Since Morrison never proved that he had great power, his punchers chance is remote.

As for the styles make fights comments regarding Norton and Morrison you keep ignoring two important points.
1.How is Morrison going to get to Norton so easily? Norton had a very good jab to keep morrison away. He wasn't easy to hit at all.

2. Why do refuse to look at what Norton could do to Morrison? That is equally as important as to what Morrison could do to Norton.
What do you think is going to happen if glass jaw Morrison gets nailed?

You are not really evaluating a fight very well if you aren't looking at the strengths and weakness of both fighters. All you do is look at what you blieve to be strength of Morrison against what you believe to be a weakness of Norton.

I have asked these questions several times and you keep ducking them.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Patterson was younger than Foreman and Holmes at that point but I thought my point was still valid. What point are people trying to make regarding Foreman and Holmes? They had some success in their 40s but aside from this I'm not sure what the larger argument is. I pointed out that Holyfield was still ranked highly until he was about 40 years old and he is still fighting at age 44. Likewise, Oliver McCall is in his 40s and is still winning fights.

The point is that even though Foreman and Holmes were in their 40's and way past their best they both competed very well against guys in their primes. Foreman won the title at 45 and Holmes almost did. Both gave Holyfield trouble. for fighters of this age, it's great achievement.

That Patterson beat Bonavena at the age of 37 is a nice win. however, Patterson wasn't anywhere close to winning the title at that age.

Heavyweights start to decline sometime in their early 30's. Fighters that haven't had many ring wars avoid Father Time a little longer than those that did but eventually aging catches up to everyone.

If Foreman and Holmes can do this well, at this far past their best, imagine what they would have done when they were at their best?

Dave V17 keeps saying that Foreman was actually at his best in his 40's which is of course ridiculaus.

Holyfield is still fighting but he is a shell of his former self. He isn't a top contender. He probably isn't one of the top 50 heavyweights in the world. He had declined dramtically. If Holyfield fights say Samuel Peter, and gets knocked out easily, are you going to use this as evidence that heavyweights of this decade are better than fighters of Holyfield's era? That is what you are doing when you criticize Foreman and Holmes for fights in the 1990's.

Why do we have to keep explaining what happens to athletes when they get older?
How may NFL running backs are in their mid 40's?
How many NBA players are their mid 40's?
How many top tennis players are in their mid 40's?

Most importantly,since Foreman won the title at the age of 45 (and it wasn't a paper title. Moorer had 2 of the 3 major belts) no one has come close to duplicating this?
Why aren't Holyfield,McCall,Morrison etc. in the top 10?

Back to the original premise....am I just being too sentimental if I were to bet heavy on Jerry based on better skills? Tommy hits harder but I think Jerry would work that puzzle out just fine. Prime vs Prime.

Skills can (and usually do) improve but the ability to execute them diminishes. Anyone fighting competitively in their 40s with even well picked opponents must have something going for them.

The pace of HW fights has dropped off as they've got bigger and this has been a major factor that has allowed boxers to go on longer, peak later and stretch their careers. Boxers also fight less and fights are shorter and stopped sooner (in general).

When you consider how long Archie Moore fought for, and what a schedule he kept up, you have to say that he was truly amazing.

edit

Tommy Morrison as stated before was an excellent offencive fighter with KO power in his left hook, the guy also had bags of heart. But in my opinion winning life and death struggles against a near shot Razor Ruddock and Carl Williams does not bode well for his chances against a peak Jerry Quarry.

Granted Morrison 'may' have advantages in size and physical strength, but boxing is not that simple otherwise the likes of Valuev and Bruno would be all time greats.

Look this is Boxing and there is of course a chance that the powerfull, aggressive Morrison may just steamroll over Quarry, but I doubt it, who ever managed that?


There is also a chamce that the smart counterpunching Quarry could do to Morrison what he did to Shavers, (Bentt - Morrison anyone?). But prime against prime looking at who both fighters beat and how they looked doing It, I have to go with the Jerry Quarry who beat Big Ron Lyle to beat the Morrison who beat the faided Ruddock & Williams.

Jerry Quarry survives a few shakey moments to beat Morrison between 6 to 10 rounds.

DaveV17 wrote:Alp asked:"Why do we have to keep explaining what happens to athletes when they get older?
How may NFL running backs are in their mid 40's?
How many NBA players are their mid 40's?
How many top tennis players are in their mid 40's?"

Think about this one Alp, How Many Running Backs, NBA players, and tennis players today are the size of their 70s counterparts? The players today are just as skilled, but they are much bigger and stronger - even in tennis. Take a look at the builds of NBA players in the 70s and compare them to the contemporary players.

But, according to you and a few others, Boxing peaked in the 70s, and today's boxers couldn't compete with the boxers of that era. Is boxing the only sport in which the athletes didn't improve? The truth is boxing and boxers are improving and they are getting bigger and stronger.

I agree with Holyfield. When he was asked about fighting Ali and the 70s heavyweights, he said he could beat anyone who came before him because he knew everything thay knew plus some new skills.

You keep saying that Holyfield is not a top 50 heavyweight. Who cares where he is ranked. Do you think a promoter of sanctioning body will care? He is a name, and he can get a title shot if he doesn't get too brave and fight someone with a style that he can't handle before he gets a shot. Foreman had not fought in a year and a half when he fought Moorer, and it had been almost 2 years since he had won a fight. Was he ranked? If so, it just shows how much rankings mean.

Dave technologies and science (diet, pharmaceuticals, etc) have allowed sportsmen and women to be bigger and stronger and quicker (in general). BUT here's an example of a sport going backwards...

In English football we have David Beckham. He's been arguably the best player of his generation for England. In the 1960s there was a player called Bobby Charlton who was arguably the best English player of his generation. In the 1966 World Cup tournament, Charlton is about to take a corner with his right foot...he takes notice fo the wind and changes to take it with his left foot.

Beckham with all of the advantages of technology and science would never, ever, ever attempt to take a corner with his left foot. This is not a slight on Beckham either, most players would be unable/unwilling to do this.

Dave

The thing that bothers me with your argument (and similar arguments) is that you are essentially saying that the guy with the most up to date diet, training, equipment, PEDs, etc... will be the best... If this is the case then why bother discussing any of it? You're basically boiling the sport down to factors that are not genuinely boxing related.

I agree that in the very upper echelons of any pro sport that even the smallest of advantages can make a big difference.

In rating a fighter though surely we have to look at what they achieved in relation to the time in which they achieved it, factor in the advantages and disadvantages of the eras, and try to draw conculsions where we can???

DaveV17 wrote:Alp asked:"Why do we have to keep explaining what happens to athletes when they get older?
How may NFL running backs are in their mid 40's?
How many NBA players are their mid 40's?
How many top tennis players are in their mid 40's?"

Think about this one Alp, How Many Running Backs, NBA players, and tennis players today are the size of their 70s counterparts? The players today are just as skilled, but they are much bigger and stronger - even in tennis. Take a look at the builds of NBA players in the 70s and compare them to the contemporary players.

But, according to you and a few others, Boxing peaked in the 70s, and today's boxers couldn't compete with the boxers of that era. Is boxing the only sport in which the athletes didn't improve? The truth is boxing and boxers are improving and they are getting bigger and stronger.

I agree with Holyfield. When he was asked about fighting Ali and the 70s heavyweights, he said he could beat anyone who came before him because he knew everything thay knew plus some new skills.

You keep saying that Holyfield is not a top 50 heavyweight. Who cares where he is ranked. Do you think a promoter of sanctioning body will care? He is a name, and he can get a title shot if he doesn't get too brave and fight someone with a style that he can't handle before he gets a shot. Foreman had not fought in a year and a half when he fought Moorer, and it had been almost 2 years since he had won a fight. Was he ranked? If so, it just shows how much rankings mean.

The NFL and NBA were still in developmental stages in the 1960s/early 1970s. They were not getting players from the wide talent pool they are fielding from now. Football and basketball have gotten bigger and much more popular since the 1960s while boxing has enjoyed a steep decline, with an ever smaller talent pool of fighters. It's a simple concept and why you can't compare boxing to the NFL. Until the 1980s most professional football players did it as a PART-TIME job and went back to their regular jobs during the off-season. They wern't even year-round athletes.

That being said, I def. believe the best NFL stars of the 70s could compete today. Jim Brown was big for his day and would be big today . . in more recent times Barry Sanders was very small for a halfback (much smaller than Brown or OJ) and he's considered one of the best ever. Could Gale Sayers outrun cornerbacks today? Of course.

Also, I believe once the NFL and NBA reached a certain plateau in the 1980s and they gained widespread popularity, your argument about improved players overall ends. I, like many, feel the NBA in terms of performance and skill was at a peak in the late 80s/early 90s.

The 92 Bulls destroy San Antonio. And that the 90' 49ers beat the Colts (could go either way . .they def. beat the friggin' Bears!)

DaveV17 wrote:Alp asked:"Why do we have to keep explaining what happens to athletes when they get older?
How may NFL running backs are in their mid 40's?
How many NBA players are their mid 40's?
How many top tennis players are in their mid 40's?"

Think about this one Alp, How Many Running Backs, NBA players, and tennis players today are the size of their 70s counterparts? The players today are just as skilled, but they are much bigger and stronger - even in tennis. Take a look at the builds of NBA players in the 70s and compare them to the contemporary players.

But, according to you and a few others, Boxing peaked in the 70s, and today's boxers couldn't compete with the boxers of that era. Is boxing the only sport in which the athletes didn't improve? The truth is boxing and boxers are improving and they are getting bigger and stronger.

I agree with Holyfield. When he was asked about fighting Ali and the 70s heavyweights, he said he could beat anyone who came before him because he knew everything thay knew plus some new skills.

You keep saying that Holyfield is not a top 50 heavyweight. Who cares where he is ranked. Do you think a promoter of sanctioning body will care? He is a name, and he can get a title shot if he doesn't get too brave and fight someone with a style that he can't handle before he gets a shot. Foreman had not fought in a year and a half when he fought Moorer, and it had been almost 2 years since he had won a fight. Was he ranked? If so, it just shows how much rankings mean.

As usual you ducked my questions.
Of course there aren't athletes that old becasue even with training and your magic pills athlete decline as they get older. Just like foreman and Holmes. the fact that they did decline so much yet did as well as they did in the 1990's is a strong indication that the heavyweight division was stronger in the 1970's than it was in the 1990's.
I will answer your questions even though as usual you ducked mine:

Actually the top running backs aren't that much bigger than they were in the 1970's.
The NBA-Do you have the Classic Sport Network? How many people over the age of 30 think the NBA is stronger than ever right now? Size? How many good centers are there right now? Yao Meng and a washed up Shaq. (btw why is Shaq not as good as he used tobe. Could it be that he is getting older?)
In the 1970;s you had Abdul Jabbar,Reed,Lanier,Gilmore etc.
The players are just as skilled? How many coaches would agree with that?
You had teams that could actually run the fast break and could actually shoot medium range jumpers.
Tennis- there certainly isn't much change in size form back then. Federer is 6'1 and 170 and is #1 in the world.

When sports first develop they do improved steadily for a while. Then after a while the improvement stops. Football, baseball,basketball hasn't improved in decades. Tennis players, minus the racquets, haven't either.
There are great,good,average,below average, and bad athletes in every sport in every era.

In boxing it goes in cycles. In a given era, there will be some weight classes that are strong and others weak. In the 1970's the heavyweight division was awesome. In the 1950's the middleweight division was laded. In the 1920's the lightheavyweight division was strong. The early 1980's had some great welterweights.

I didn't say anthing about Holyfield being ranked by a sanctioning body. I said that he isn't a Top 50 heavyweight right now. Foreman was a Top 10 heavyweight when he was in his mid 40's even though he was obviously well past his prime. Foreman and Holmes went the distance with Holyfield and gave him some trouble. Do you really think holyfield could do that against the top heavyweights of today?
Is Holyfield as good as ever was? I have only asked you this about a dozen times now.

Holyfield said he could beat anyone in the 1970's or before and that makes it so? Wow. I guess any heavyweight that comes after Holyfield must be better than Holyfield because they know all his skills.
Please tell me the new boxing skills that have been developed since the 1970's? Would love to hear them.

Ambling Alp wrote:

DaveV17 wrote:Alp asked:"Why do we have to keep explaining what happens to athletes when they get older?
How may NFL running backs are in their mid 40's?
How many NBA players are their mid 40's?
How many top tennis players are in their mid 40's?"

Think about this one Alp, How Many Running Backs, NBA players, and tennis players today are the size of their 70s counterparts? The players today are just as skilled, but they are much bigger and stronger - even in tennis. Take a look at the builds of NBA players in the 70s and compare them to the contemporary players.

But, according to you and a few others, Boxing peaked in the 70s, and today's boxers couldn't compete with the boxers of that era. Is boxing the only sport in which the athletes didn't improve? The truth is boxing and boxers are improving and they are getting bigger and stronger.

I agree with Holyfield. When he was asked about fighting Ali and the 70s heavyweights, he said he could beat anyone who came before him because he knew everything thay knew plus some new skills.

You keep saying that Holyfield is not a top 50 heavyweight. Who cares where he is ranked. Do you think a promoter of sanctioning body will care? He is a name, and he can get a title shot if he doesn't get too brave and fight someone with a style that he can't handle before he gets a shot. Foreman had not fought in a year and a half when he fought Moorer, and it had been almost 2 years since he had won a fight. Was he ranked? If so, it just shows how much rankings mean.

As usual you ducked my questions.
Of course there aren't athletes that old becasue even with training and your magic pills athlete decline as they get older. Just like foreman and Holmes. the fact that they did decline so much yet did as well as they did in the 1990's is a strong indication that the heavyweight division was stronger in the 1970's than it was in the 1990's.
I will answer your questions even though as usual you ducked mine:

Actually the top running backs aren't that much bigger than they were in the 1970's.
The NBA-Do you have the Classic Sport Network? How many people over the age of 30 think the NBA is stronger than ever right now? Size? How many good centers are there right now? Yao Meng and a washed up Shaq. (btw why is Shaq not as good as he used tobe. Could it be that he is getting older?)
In the 1970;s you had Abdul Jabbar,Reed,Lanier,Gilmore etc.
The players are just as skilled? How many coaches would agree with that?
You had teams that could actually run the fast break and could actually shoot medium range jumpers.
Tennis- there certainly isn't much change in size form back then. Federer is 6'1 and 170 and is #1 in the world.

When sports first develop they do improved steadily for a while. Then after a while the improvement stops. Football, baseball,basketball hasn't improved in decades. Tennis players, minus the racquets, haven't either.
There are great,good,average,below average, and bad athletes in every sport in every era.

In boxing it goes in cycles. In a given era, there will be some weight classes that are strong and others weak. In the 1970's the heavyweight division was awesome. In the 1950's the middleweight division was laded. In the 1920's the lightheavyweight division was strong. The early 1980's had some great welterweights.

I didn't say anthing about Holyfield being ranked by a sanctioning body. I said that he isn't a Top 50 heavyweight right now. Foreman was a Top 10 heavyweight when he was in his mid 40's even though he was obviously well past his prime. Foreman and Holmes went the distance with Holyfield and gave him some trouble. Do you really think holyfield could do that against the top heavyweights of today?
Is Holyfield as good as ever was? I have only asked you this about a dozen times now.

Holyfield said he could beat anyone in the 1970's or before and that makes it so? Wow. I guess any heavyweight that comes after Holyfield must be better than Holyfield because they know all his skills.
Please tell me the new boxing skills that have been developed since the 1970's? Would love to hear them.

Haha, I forgot that apparent contradiction. If the new fighters are always superior, how the hell does Evander believe he can beat guys a generation or more younger than himself at 44 years old??? He is attempting to defeat his own logic.

But this is the same guy who believes Benny Hinn healed him from a heart condition. I would take everything that Commander Vander says with a grain of salt

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Okay, so I'm to believe that only the sports with measurables have gotten better over the years? Track and Field, weight lifting, etc., got better, the athletes improved their times and weights, but the other sports are got worse? You "older is better" guys always say the same thing. If it can't be proved on paper, the older guys were better...LOL.

Does it ever occur to you that the ocmpetition is better, there are more big, strong guys so that a 6-11 over weight guy like Lanier doesn't stand out anymore, or a 228 pound Jim Brown with 4.8 or 9 speed doesn't get noticed today, maybe he doesn't even make the team. Sometimes I think it is hopeless discussing conditioning, and athletics with you two. Lucky for the NFL that Dick Butkus isn't out there today or Red Grange, the new guys couldn't compete...In reality, a lot of the NFL stars of the 70s couldn't start for major colleges today if they came back just as they were when they played.

What is the contradiction about Holyfield saying he could beat all who came before him? He is still in boxing, still adapting, still learning. He isn't living in the past. He has not joined the older generation yet. He is a part of the boxing scene in 2007.

Shaq is not as good as he once was? I don't watch much pro basketball, but it might have something to do with him having less desire to play, financial comfort, gaining weight, he may not prepare the same way, he may have nagging injuries that have accumulated playing about 100 games per year...Give him time off from basketball, some motivation to play again, a good conditioning program and see what would happen. The body does not fall apart like some of you believe. Lifestyle, motivation, and desire mean more than chronological age.

I don't know either of you, but if you reached 22 or 25 or 30 or whatever and decided that you were old, then you were. When one stops trying, stops conditioning, and thinks he is old, he will soon be old. Others can go on and on. It is up to the individual. Please take a look at this link, it might inspire you.

http://www.arthurdevany.com/about.html

Dave . . .I don't think myself or Alp are trying to rain on anyone's parade. Yes, a positive outlook and living clean can work wonders.

But we are talking about PROFESSIONAL BOXING, the most grueling, physically demanding sport there is. Whatever a person does, they can't be the same at 40 as they were at 25. It's just not possible. You can be fit. You can be healthy. But you can't turn back the clock.

Regarding Red Grange, did you not read anything I posted about football and its changes in the past 30-40 years? Olympic records that are broken are broken not because there are overall faster people now than 100 years ago. That's just not true. It's b/c you have MORE people training for track and field/swimming now than 50 years ago, and with more competetition you will eventually do better than before (and with track and field for example, the changes made regarding track spikes and running surfaces have made a big difference)

Carl Lewis was at his best 20 years ago (yes, time has flown by). Would he not be able to beat any man today in a 100m dash at his best?

Evolutionary changes take place over a looooong period of time. Our generation is not stronger or faster than our fathers, or grandfathers.

It seems that you know as little about other sports as you do about boxing.
Is that really a fair comparison, track and weight lifting? There is wide spread use of illegal drugs in those sports now.

Why is free throw shooting worse so bad now?
Why can't shoot jumpers very well now?
Why have golf scores stayed about the same even with the advances in equipment?
Mickey Mantle was timed running from home to first in 3.1 seconds in the 1950's.
Why is Sammy Baugh punting average of 51.4 yards record was set in 1940. the record still stands.
You seriously don't think Butkus couldn't play now?
Bob Lanier was overweight? He weighed a very solid 250. He had good fundamentals and could play in the post, something that maybe 2 centers in the NBA can do at all right now. He would certainly be an All-Star now as would Gilmore and Reed. Abdul-Jabbar would be the MVP.
Where did you get your information that Jim Brown ran a 4.9 40?
(btw please don't tell me that you think all of the best football players have the best 40 times and lift the most weight.)
He was very fast and was a rock sold 230. He was a phenonemal ahtlete. He was also a All American lacrosse player and played college basketball as well.

There are good bad and inbetween players in all eras in these sports as well as boxing. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes a healthy lifestyle,motivation and desire certainly helps. A person in their 40's is going to be in better shape than a person in their 40's that doesn't. However, if you had these things in your 20's, your not going to be as good when you are in your 40's.
If that wasn't true, you would see top NFL players, NBA stars, baseball players, tennis palyers in their mid 40's. But you don't. Because they can't even with all the desire, excercise and magic pills in the world.

What is the contadiction about Holyfield beating all those that came before him becasue he know their skills?
Well, then the boxers that come after him will all be better than him right?
Please, once again I will ask, what are these boxing skills that Holyfield knows that the fighters from the 1970's didnt know?

Are you really that naive to think that Holyfield is as good as he ever was since he has beaten a few journeyman?
Are you going to duck all these questions as well, Dave?

edit

Wear and tear? Well we are finally getting some place. Fighters get wear and wear and tear. That is one reason why they aren't as good when they get older. Yet you can't see that when talking about Norton and others when they have wear and tear?

I have asked you several times where your proof is that Foreman was stronger in his 40 than his 20's. the best you can come up iwth is that George said so. George says a lot of things that weren't true.
Do you really believe that he thought that the heavyweights of the 1990's were better than the 1970's? He had a lot of respect for Norton,Frazier and Ali. they must have been great because George says so, right?

Can you name me all of the centers that are playing right now that are better than Lanier?
How about Abdul-Jabbar?

The punt returners let the ball roll around more? how do you know that? Of course hang time is important but I would think you know that punting average over the course of an entire season means something.

You ignored my other points. How come Mantle was so fast? How come golf scores aren't way better with better equipment? why is free throw shooting and shooting not as good?

You arguements have no logic. Athletes are better because you say they are bigger and stronger. Yet you say that Holyfield is still good because he relies on speed and accurracy. Logic follows that fighters from years ago who relied on speed and accurracy could beat todays athletes that rely on size and strength.

We have given example after example of a skilled smaller man beating a bigger man who wasn't as skilled. Why do you continue to ignore that?

I will ask again, what are the new boxing skills that Holyfield has that the boxers of the 1970's didn't?

DaveV17 wrote:Alp, I will answer this question for you one more time. Holyfield is almost certainly not as good now as he was at one time. The reason is wear and tear. His reflexes may not be what they once were. Holyfield is a reflex fighter, he relied on speed, and accuracy, he was not huge for his era, extra strength does not benefit him as it would a fighter who relied on strength.

Foreman was better in his 40s. His forte was strength when he was young. when he fought again in his 30s and 40s he was even stronger. He learned to relax, he was not exhausted after 3-4 rounds. Foreman himself said he was better in his second career. Who knows better than him?

Why do you try to waste my time on things like the Sammy Baugh punt average record. I suspect that you know that means nothing. Today, height and hang time are what is desired and the punter does not want to out punt the coverage. In Baugh's time, the punt returners may have let the ball hit the ground and roll more too. Today, there are punt return specialist who will catch anything. I bet that Baugh's punts look nothing like what the best punters today produce. Either you know about as much about football as you know about boxing or you were trying to bluff me.

Lanier was overweight at St. Bonaventure but he made his weight work for him. He was playing against players smaller and much lighter than him and he muscled inside well. Put him inside with Shaq and he would look like a slow, ineffective fat man. I don't care to convince you, but I know what I see and today's athletes are bigger, stronger, and better than 30 years ago.

You are wrong about Foreman. He had great strength but there are tons of boxers who have been incredibly strong and powerful and wern't George Foreman. Foreman was a great athlete, and he had very good speed and reflexes for such a big man. Watch his jab vs Chuvalo and Frazier, and his finishing combination on Norton. The athleticism combined with his power was what made him so dangerous. In his 40s he was much slower of hand and foot . he could still snap the left jab but his other punches lacked the velocity and snap he'd enjoyed in his youth. And if you watch young and old Foreman fights back to back, you can see his stamina in his 20s was much better, even with his balls to the wall style he employed.
Foreman is a salesman . . .he will say anything.

edit