BoxRec

dempseyfire



Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2215

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:58 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So i guess you haven’t noticed that kids are bigger and taller then their parents, and that even at the HS sports level, records drop like flies huh ?
I can only suggest you look into it a little deeper.
Myth ?
Hardly

Bananas ? Yes, that is about the extent of what they know, and that is not even a scratch of what it involves.
Here is a quick lesson in human physiology and sports history for you. Potasium and sodium in the proper proportions, equal ..are you ready ? ELECTROLITES. This was discovered more or less at tha same time in the 60s at the University of Florida and the university of Oklahoma. (they dispute who was first) Electrolites allow the body to re-hydrate 50 to 75 times faster, and thus allow the body to accept oxegyn and to level off amino acids, and allow for more efficient training and to RECOVER faster, NOT just when you take them in, but LONG term. Can you guess the well known product was created based on this discovery ? I bet you can huh ? Here is a hint though, Joe Louis never had it.
That too is just the front end of how nutrition is managed, but I will leave you to your own research if you like. Again, FAR from a myth.

Speaking of bananas, there is a means to determine ideal body weight for a fighter to dry out to involving eating banans, but no, they didn’t know about that testt in the 30s either.

As for SRR..Ummm...didn’t Joey Maxim fight in the same heat that night ?
Why didnt he almost have a organ shutdown...i''l give you a hint...he obviously had better prepared nutritionally, and the ironic part of it is, at the time, he had no way of even knowing it. It was by chance, but it was no accident.

And no..they did NOT know the methods for isolating muscle groups in the way we do taday, not even close. they among other things, thought abs were abs. Today we know different, and those who develop all 3 groups properly, don’t get KOd from a left to the liver.

Athletes exel today because of "Equipment" ? Ahhhh...so it's the shoes !!!!
LOL
tell me where I can pick up a pair that would make me rush like Reggie Bush, and I'll be the oldest walk on in NFL history
LOL..sorry, but that's just funny

A 98 MPH fastball in the 30s ? Do tell !!!
Sorry, Not Feller, not Johnson and NO one from the 30s or 40s, and most likely not the 50s

We will never agree on this, that is obvious, but just so i understand and am clear on your point of view, ....

You belive, that if we ghad a time machine, and we could warp ..say SRR or joe louis, as they were in their prime to 2007, thet would not only duplicate, but EXCEED what the achieved then,,,today ?

Ummm...is that what your saying ?

Caramn Basillio in his famous sarcastic and satirical way summed this up the best.
He was asked by a reporter back in the 890s from a Syracuse TV station in an interview to compare himself with Harvin Hagler.
He took a puff on his cigar and said "well, he is a lot younger then me, but I still think I can take him"
This was followed by dead silence and a nervous smile form the reporter.
Carmen then said "Waddaya nuts" ?
By that, he said exactly what I am saying now.
Pretty much sums it up i think.


Yes, I believe Joe Louis knocks out every champion we have masquearading right now. Ditto with Robinson. They were superior b/c they had better teachers, were in better condition, and came from much deeper talent pools (boxing has been declining the past 30 plus years as opposed to football and basketball)

But apparently, the guys now have every advantage b/c of Gatoraide (even though during a fight every top trainer still gives their fighter "old fashioned" H2O . . .please explain that one . . .if you are saying they have a great advantage b/c they drink Gatoraide while training. . .well . . .I don't even know how to respond to that one)

Since apparently back in the day they got knocked out from body shots all the time b/c they didn't know about training muscle groups, show me one special abdominal exercise fighters use today which they didn't do in Dempsey's time . . .since everything is so much more advanced . . .I'm asking you to simply prove it. All you have to do is look at the results. Fighters like Taylor, Tarver, and all the HW 'champs' fatigue heavily during 12 round fights, whereas Robinson, Frazier, Louis, Armstrong, Zale etc. went 15 excruciating rounds on a regular basis. The proof is in the pudding.
You mention Marvin Hagler . . . .a very old school guy who did an old school training regiment. I know several people who worked out at his gym in Brockton. There were no special machines or fancy engineered diets. Just lots of bag work, skip rope, TONS of road work, sparring, and exercises guys have done for decades.

EVen today, I can't think of many fighters who use many "high tech" fitness regimes. Freddie Roach uses old school methods (Toney jumped on with Billy Blanks' "state of the art" regimen and that did GREAT for him), as does Emmanuel Steward. The only guys I can think that have been known to partake in a good deal of "modern super scientific training regimens" are Holyfield, De la Hoya, and a few others . . . .not suprisingly, guys who have been known to fade down the stretch.

I'm not arguing that sports science has not grown and evolved. But it's effects on the sport of boxing, in terms of producing a superior fighter, are mute. Boxing has been around in one form or another for hundreds of years, and it's not magic that enabled guys 100 years ago to go 15,20, and 45 hard rounds. They had tried and proven training methods which WORKED.

cosand wrote:

dempseyfire



Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2215

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:58 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So i guess you haven’t noticed that kids are bigger and taller then their parents, and that even at the HS sports level, records drop like flies huh ?
I can only suggest you look into it a little deeper.
Myth ?
Hardly

Bananas ? Yes, that is about the extent of what they know, and that is not even a scratch of what it involves.
Here is a quick lesson in human physiology and sports history for you. Potasium and sodium in the proper proportions, equal ..are you ready ? ELECTROLITES. This was discovered more or less at tha same time in the 60s at the University of Florida and the university of Oklahoma. (they dispute who was first) Electrolites allow the body to re-hydrate 50 to 75 times faster, and thus allow the body to accept oxegyn and to level off amino acids, and allow for more efficient training and to RECOVER faster, NOT just when you take them in, but LONG term. Can you guess the well known product was created based on this discovery ? I bet you can huh ? Here is a hint though, Joe Louis never had it.
That too is just the front end of how nutrition is managed, but I will leave you to your own research if you like. Again, FAR from a myth.

Speaking of bananas, there is a means to determine ideal body weight for a fighter to dry out to involving eating banans, but no, they didn’t know about that testt in the 30s either.

As for SRR..Ummm...didn’t Joey Maxim fight in the same heat that night ?
Why didnt he almost have a organ shutdown...i''l give you a hint...he obviously had better prepared nutritionally, and the ironic part of it is, at the time, he had no way of even knowing it. It was by chance, but it was no accident.

And no..they did NOT know the methods for isolating muscle groups in the way we do taday, not even close. they among other things, thought abs were abs. Today we know different, and those who develop all 3 groups properly, don’t get KOd from a left to the liver.

Athletes exel today because of "Equipment" ? Ahhhh...so it's the shoes !!!!
LOL
tell me where I can pick up a pair that would make me rush like Reggie Bush, and I'll be the oldest walk on in NFL history
LOL..sorry, but that's just funny

A 98 MPH fastball in the 30s ? Do tell !!!
Sorry, Not Feller, not Johnson and NO one from the 30s or 40s, and most likely not the 50s

We will never agree on this, that is obvious, but just so i understand and am clear on your point of view, ....

You belive, that if we ghad a time machine, and we could warp ..say SRR or joe louis, as they were in their prime to 2007, thet would not only duplicate, but EXCEED what the achieved then,,,today ?

Ummm...is that what your saying ?

Caramn Basillio in his famous sarcastic and satirical way summed this up the best.
He was asked by a reporter back in the 890s from a Syracuse TV station in an interview to compare himself with Harvin Hagler.
He took a puff on his cigar and said "well, he is a lot younger then me, but I still think I can take him"
This was followed by dead silence and a nervous smile form the reporter.
Carmen then said "Waddaya nuts" ?
By that, he said exactly what I am saying now.
Pretty much sums it up i think.


Yes, I believe Joe Louis knocks out every champion we have masquearading right now. Ditto with Robinson. They were superior b/c they had better teachers, were in better condition, and came from much deeper talent pools (boxing has been declining the past 30 plus years as opposed to football and basketball)

But apparently, the guys now have every advantage b/c of Gatoraide (even though during a fight every top trainer still gives their fighter "old fashioned" H2O . . .please explain that one . . .if you are saying they have a great advantage b/c they drink Gatoraide while training. . .well . . .I don't even know how to respond to that one)

Since apparently back in the day they got knocked out from body shots all the time b/c they didn't know about training muscle groups, show me one special abdominal exercise fighters use today which they didn't do in Dempsey's time . . .since everything is so much more advanced . . .I'm asking you to simply prove it. All you have to do is look at the results. Fighters like Taylor, Tarver, and all the HW 'champs' fatigue heavily during 12 round fights, whereas Robinson, Frazier, Louis, Armstrong, Zale etc. went 15 excruciating rounds on a regular basis. The proof is in the pudding.
You mention Marvin Hagler . . . .a very old school guy who did an old school training regiment. I know several people who worked out at his gym in Brockton. There were no special machines or fancy engineered diets. Just lots of bag work, skip rope, TONS of road work, sparring, and exercises guys have done for decades.

EVen today, I can't think of many fighters who use many "high tech" fitness regimes. Freddie Roach uses old school methods (Toney jumped on with Billy Blanks' "state of the art" regimen and that did GREAT for him), as does Emmanuel Steward. The only guys I can think that have been known to partake in a good deal of "modern super scientific training regimens" are Holyfield, De la Hoya, and a few others . . . .not suprisingly, guys who have been known to fade down the stretch.

I'm not arguing that sports science has not grown and evolved. But it's effects on the sport of boxing, in terms of producing a superior fighter, are mute. Boxing has been around in one form or another for hundreds of years, and it's not magic that enabled guys 100 years ago to go 15,20, and 45 hard rounds. They had tried and proven training methods which WORKED.

**Sigh**
We should really keep this conversation civil and on the high road, rather then setting up straw men arguments.

You know very well, I never said anything close to "Fightrs today have an advantage because they drink Gatoraid"
The gatoraid story is was an anecdote to give an example of how sports medical and conditioning methods have advanced.

On a high energy nutrition regiment, actual supplements are used. And yes, this does have benefits in the long term as far as recovery and stamina is concerned.

As for muscle isolation, there are machines for the abs and leg muscle groups that cant be duplicated through regular exercise, that were not dreamed of prior to the 70s

These things are not in dispute anywhere in the sports of medical community, it is simply a fact.


Who uses the methods I am talking about ?
Wilfried Sauerland
Manny Stewart
Jesus DeLeon
Dietmar Poszwa
Kenny Weldon
Billy Blank
Michael Timm
and others
How many champions and contenders does that cover ?


Who were amoung the first use them back in the early days ?
Angelo Dundee
Gil Clancy
Ray Arcel (admittedly only to an small extent, and late in his career)
Johnny DeJohn
To name a few
How many past contenders and champions does that cover ?

By the way, Noazim Richardson, Teddy Atlas, Charlie Muniz and Freddie Roach all agree with you, and think the modern methods are snake oil.,,,,, but ALL have called in nutritionists and sports med techs at one time or another, the most recent glaring example was the Tarver- Bhop fight. Does that tell you anything ?

As to your claim that SRR and JL would dominate today’s fighter, we will never know if you are right.
I can say for sure though, that neither, SRR especially, would ever have faced the combination of agility and power they would face in their trip to the 21st century.
I see SRR looking at Taylor entering the ringh and saying to himself.."OH Shit" !
I see Louis taking one look at Wald or Valuev and thinking.."What the hell is this ?

But if you think they would dig down with good old fashion guts and sweep the divisions, we will have to agree to disagree.

cosand wrote:This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

dempseyfire wrote:Following a debate with Dave V17, who claims Ray Austin would have been a top contender in the 1970s.

pound per pound wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Following a debate with Dave V17, who claims Ray Austin would have been a top contender in the 1970s.

Demspeyfire,

Austin is a fringe contender type with decent size, durability and some skills. Austin probably beats Sultan Ibragimov if the referee correctly rules it was a punch, and not a slip. This moves him into title contention. Austin is decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's. I repeat Austin was decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's.

No one has broken into my account and is typing for me. It doesn't take a lot of balls to say what I have just said. It only takes a little research and understanding of the truth.

Floyd Patterson fought a bunch of guys on Austin's level for the title. Among them are Rademacher, London, Harris, and McNeeley. Heck, Austin would have given Patterson a better fight than some of those guys.

Then we move on to Ali. Ali gave title shots to Chavalo who had already lost 11 times, Henry Cooper, Wepner, Cooperman, Dunn, and Evanglesita! These guys are in Austin’s ballpark. Maybe Chavalo was a bit better. He has to be because the film shows he.... GASP.... had some moments vs a peak Ali on Youtube.

Fraizer gave title shots to Daniles and Stander.

Foreman gave a shot to Roman.

We can’t fault Vlad for being forced into a mandatory vs Austin. Vlad crushed Austin in two rounds and ended in fight with an artistic 5 hook combination. I am satisfied.

What is not satisfying is Ali, Patterson, and even Frazier carrying their grade B title opponents for 2-7 times the amount rounds it took Vlad to deposit Austin on the canvas.

Now I ask you, what's more imrpessive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their cinderlla boys many more rounds?

- P4P 3-19-07

Ambling Alp wrote:

cosand wrote:This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

GM's don't draft 210 pound linebackers? No they haven't often done that since the 1950's. (Though you may have heard of Brian Urlacher, who was a safety in college)
They also don't draft 300 pound quaterbacks running backs or wide receivers. They know that after a point, size goes from an asset to liabilty. they also know that something called skill is important. This is why even you see players in every sport in a wide variety of sizes.

As for some of you other comments in other posts concern athletes from the past:
You mention that Paul Hornung wouldn't rush for 1000 yards in a season if he played today. I agree with that. As a expert about athletes from the past, you should know that he never came close to running for 1000 yards when he played in the 1950's and 1960's.

You keep saying that pitchers in MLB throw faster. (as if the mph on a fastball is the only thing that matters when it comes to pitching).
Well, first of all, how many top pitchers today do you think throw 98 mph?

There wasn't a radar gun until the early 1960's. Interesting that several pitchers threw well over 90Mph when the radar was used in the 1960's.
You don't think that any pitchers before the 1950's threw tha fast? How could you possibly know? Their speeds weren't measured by a radar gun.

It's not like everyone was saying in the 1960's that pitchers were faster than they were in the 1950's or the 1940's.

btw, there is a famous film where they tested Bob Feller throwing a fast ball with a motorcycle driving by at 95mph. It was clear that Feller's pitch was faster. I'm surprised that an expert of athletes from the athletes from way back that you haven't seen this clip.


Also it's interesting that pitchers now only pitch once every 5 games and aren't expected to go 9 innings. That is considered too hard on their arms, even with modern training. However, from the late 19th century up until the 1970's it was common to see 4 man staffs with pitchers often going 9 innings.

You are not understanding some crucial points:
Size and speed is important, but there is so much more to being a great fighter or a great athlete in most other sports.
There is such a thing as skill. And toughness. And experience. And heart. And smarts. And so on.

Yes, with a modern training regiment a person can fit faster. However, that doesn't mean that older training methods didn't work. Running does work. Situps do work. Skipping rope does work. It might have taken the fighters back then longer to get in great shape, but many did it.
Do you really think that the body fat % of todays top 10 heavyweights are lower than in most of other eras?

There are mediocre, good and great athletes both today and from years ago.

dempseyfire wrote:

pound per pound wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Following a debate with Dave V17, who claims Ray Austin would have been a top contender in the 1970s.

Demspeyfire,

Austin is a fringe contender type with decent size, durability and some skills. Austin probably beats Sultan Ibragimov if the referee correctly rules it was a punch, and not a slip. This moves him into title contention. Austin is decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's. I repeat Austin was decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's.

No one has broken into my account and is typing for me. It doesn't take a lot of balls to say what I have just said. It only takes a little research and understanding of the truth.

Floyd Patterson fought a bunch of guys on Austin's level for the title. Among them are Rademacher, London, Harris, and McNeeley. Heck, Austin would have given Patterson a better fight than some of those guys.

Then we move on to Ali. Ali gave title shots to Chavalo who had already lost 11 times, Henry Cooper, Wepner, Cooperman, Dunn, and Evanglesita! These guys are in Austin’s ballpark. Maybe Chavalo was a bit better. He has to be because the film shows he.... GASP.... had some moments vs a peak Ali on Youtube.

Fraizer gave title shots to Daniles and Stander.

Foreman gave a shot to Roman.

We can’t fault Vlad for being forced into a mandatory vs Austin. Vlad crushed Austin in two rounds and ended in fight with an artistic 5 hook combination. I am satisfied.

What is not satisfying is Ali, Patterson, and even Frazier carrying their grade B title opponents for 2-7 times the amount rounds it took Vlad to deposit Austin on the canvas.

Now I ask you, what's more imrpessive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their cinderlla boys many more rounds?

- P4P 3-19-07

Frazier had pretty much cleaned out the division for the past 5 years, beating Bonavena, Machen, Quarry, Mathis, and Ali, before he fought Terry Daniels.

Ali had foughts and defeated Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Liston, Quarry etc. before he defended vs the likes of Coopman and Evangelista (the latter who I think was better and more dangerous than Austin).

Big whup!!! I never said a champ had to defend vs the number 1 challenger everytime. I wasn't even giving Wlad crap for defending vs Austin (although he hasn't solidified his claim as 'the' champ at all . . he just has the best credentials of the 4 top contenders)

This thread came from a poster saying Austin was as good as Chuvalo and would've beaten a few top true top contenders in the 70s. Of course he could've been a gimmee defense just like Coopman and Daniels were . . . but would I give him a chance at all vs Frazier, Quarry, Lyle, Foreman, Jimmy Young etc.

No. The guy is slow as hell, sloppy, not very aggressive, has poor defense, and a crappy pawing jab. I don't see him being above a Jack O'Halloran level heavyweight journeyman.

pound per pound wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

pound per pound wrote: Demspeyfire,

Austin is a fringe contender type with decent size, durability and some skills. Austin probably beats Sultan Ibragimov if the referee correctly rules it was a punch, and not a slip. This moves him into title contention. Austin is decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's. I repeat Austin was decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's.

No one has broken into my account and is typing for me. It doesn't take a lot of balls to say what I have just said. It only takes a little research and understanding of the truth.

Floyd Patterson fought a bunch of guys on Austin's level for the title. Among them are Rademacher, London, Harris, and McNeeley. Heck, Austin would have given Patterson a better fight than some of those guys.

Then we move on to Ali. Ali gave title shots to Chavalo who had already lost 11 times, Henry Cooper, Wepner, Cooperman, Dunn, and Evanglesita! These guys are in Austin’s ballpark. Maybe Chavalo was a bit better. He has to be because the film shows he.... GASP.... had some moments vs a peak Ali on Youtube.

Fraizer gave title shots to Daniles and Stander.

Foreman gave a shot to Roman.

We can’t fault Vlad for being forced into a mandatory vs Austin. Vlad crushed Austin in two rounds and ended in fight with an artistic 5 hook combination. I am satisfied.

What is not satisfying is Ali, Patterson, and even Frazier carrying their grade B title opponents for 2-7 times the amount rounds it took Vlad to deposit Austin on the canvas.

Now I ask you, what's more imrpessive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their cinderlla boys many more rounds?

- P4P 3-19-07

Frazier had pretty much cleaned out the division for the past 5 years, beating Bonavena, Machen, Quarry, Mathis, and Ali, before he fought Terry Daniels.

Ali had foughts and defeated Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Liston, Quarry etc. before he defended vs the likes of Coopman and Evangelista (the latter who I think was better and more dangerous than Austin).

Big whup!!! I never said a champ had to defend vs the number 1 challenger everytime. I wasn't even giving Wlad crap for defending vs Austin (although he hasn't solidified his claim as 'the' champ at all . . he just has the best credentials of the 4 top contenders)

This thread came from a poster saying Austin was as good as Chuvalo and would've beaten a few top true top contenders in the 70s. Of course he could've been a gimmee defense just like Coopman and Daniels were . . . but would I give him a chance at all vs Frazier, Quarry, Lyle, Foreman, Jimmy Young etc.

No. The guy is slow as hell, sloppy, not very aggressive, has poor defense, and a crappy pawing jab. I don't see him being above a Jack O'Halloran level heavyweight journeyman.

Austin has looked better in other fights. He was over matched vs Vlad. Vlad moved well and has excellent hand speed. He made Austin miss and look slow. The knockout was impressive. That punch stops many past champions. You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again.

What's more impressive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their Cinderella boys many more rounds?

pound per pound wrote:What's more impressive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their Cinderella boys many more rounds?

pound per pound wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

pound per pound wrote: Demspeyfire,

Austin is a fringe contender type with decent size, durability and some skills. Austin probably beats Sultan Ibragimov if the referee correctly rules it was a punch, and not a slip. This moves him into title contention. Austin is decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's. I repeat Austin was decent enough to have fought for the heavyweight title in the 1960's or 1970's.

No one has broken into my account and is typing for me. It doesn't take a lot of balls to say what I have just said. It only takes a little research and understanding of the truth.

Floyd Patterson fought a bunch of guys on Austin's level for the title. Among them are Rademacher, London, Harris, and McNeeley. Heck, Austin would have given Patterson a better fight than some of those guys.

Then we move on to Ali. Ali gave title shots to Chavalo who had already lost 11 times, Henry Cooper, Wepner, Cooperman, Dunn, and Evanglesita! These guys are in Austin’s ballpark. Maybe Chavalo was a bit better. He has to be because the film shows he.... GASP.... had some moments vs a peak Ali on Youtube.

Fraizer gave title shots to Daniles and Stander.

Foreman gave a shot to Roman.

We can’t fault Vlad for being forced into a mandatory vs Austin. Vlad crushed Austin in two rounds and ended in fight with an artistic 5 hook combination. I am satisfied.

What is not satisfying is Ali, Patterson, and even Frazier carrying their grade B title opponents for 2-7 times the amount rounds it took Vlad to deposit Austin on the canvas.

Now I ask you, what's more imrpessive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their cinderlla boys many more rounds?

- P4P 3-19-07

Frazier had pretty much cleaned out the division for the past 5 years, beating Bonavena, Machen, Quarry, Mathis, and Ali, before he fought Terry Daniels.

Ali had foughts and defeated Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Liston, Quarry etc. before he defended vs the likes of Coopman and Evangelista (the latter who I think was better and more dangerous than Austin).

Big whup!!! I never said a champ had to defend vs the number 1 challenger everytime. I wasn't even giving Wlad crap for defending vs Austin (although he hasn't solidified his claim as 'the' champ at all . . he just has the best credentials of the 4 top contenders)

This thread came from a poster saying Austin was as good as Chuvalo and would've beaten a few top true top contenders in the 70s. Of course he could've been a gimmee defense just like Coopman and Daniels were . . . but would I give him a chance at all vs Frazier, Quarry, Lyle, Foreman, Jimmy Young etc.

No. The guy is slow as hell, sloppy, not very aggressive, has poor defense, and a crappy pawing jab. I don't see him being above a Jack O'Halloran level heavyweight journeyman.

Austin has looked better in other fights. He was over matched vs Vlad. Vlad moved well and has excellent hand speed. He made Austin miss and look slow. The knockout was impressive. That punch stops many past champions. You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again.

What's more impressive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their Cinderella boys many more rounds?

DaveV17 wrote:Dempseyfire say that Ron Stander beats Calvin Brock? In real life Stander couldn't beat Rico Brooks or John "Speedy" Jordan in his prime. Calvin Brock would butcher Ron Stander.
Dempseyfire thinks that Terry Daniels beats Ray Austin? Daniels couldn't beat Jack O'Halloran...O'Halloran knocked Daniels out 6 months before Daniels fought Frazier.

Ridiculous.

The Great John L wrote:

pound per pound wrote:What's more impressive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds or Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their Cinderella boys many more rounds?

Not sure who you’re referring to regarding Frazier’s “Cinderella” boys.

pound per pound wrote:Now the question to you and Dempseyfire is, What's more impressive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds OR Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their Cinderella boys many more rounds? Can I please get a direct non-spin answer here?

The Great John L wrote:

pound per pound wrote:Now the question to you and Dempseyfire is, What's more impressive Vlad crushing Austin in two rounds OR Patterson, Ali and Frazier taking their Cinderella boys many more rounds? Can I please get a direct non-spin answer here?

OK, Wlad KO2 over Austin is more impressive than Frazier KO4 over Daniels. Wlad KO2 over Austin is not more impressive than Frazier KO5 over Stander.

Now since you want be so simple as to compare one or two hand picked fights from Frazier’s career to Wlad’s devestating KO of the dreaded Austin, I’ll ask you a question and I also expect a “non-spin” answer.

What is more impressive, Frazier’s decision over Ali, or Wlad’s KO losses to journeymen Purrity, Sanders and Brewster?

And please, no excuses just answer the question.

Ambling Alp wrote:Just because one guy knocks out an average fighter quicker than another fighter knocks out out another average fighter doesn't really mean much.

In the case of Ali, he was at the end of his career when he fought Coopman, Dunn and Evangelista. He beat Coopman and Dunn very easily. He didn't knock them out in two rounds, but so what? He completely dominated them and stopped them easily.

Ali stopped Cooper and London easily. Cooper got stopped in the 5th and London in the 3rd. Neither were great fighters, but at least they came to fight, unlike Austin. They were just way overmatched against Ali. Have you actually seen either the Cooper or London fights?
It's different if you are fighting top contenders like Ali did and once in a while fight a fighter of less skill. You don't mention all of the great fighters that Ali beat. Ali fought lesser contenders in addition to the very fighters he fought. Take Coopman and Dunn. Yes Ali fought both of them in 1976. However, he also fought Norton and Young that same year. Klitschko has done nothing like that. He made 4 title defense in one year when he was 34 years old.

Frazier easily beat Daniels and Stander. Neither made it past 5 rounds. So he didn't knock them out in the 2nd round, so what?

You have more of a case with Patterson since he was fighter lesser contenders instead of top fighters. However, at least Patterson beat some good fighters later in his career after he was champion.

You seem to be assuming that Ko2 is always better than Ko3, and that Ko 3 is always more impressive than Ko4 and so on. Thats not always the case.

Klitschko shouldn't be criticized for fighting Austin. He didn't have much choice. However, he shouldn't be praised that this some big achievement because he knocked out a stiff early.

pound per pound wrote:Frazier win over Ali is more impressive. See how easy a direct answer is.

You shorted my entire question which compared Vlad's Austin fight to numerous non-worthy title opponents of Patterson's, Ali's and Frazier fought.

Stander was nothing special. He was knocked out nine times in his career. Yet Stander buckled Smoking Joe's knees in the fight. It took Frazier 5 rounds to get rid of Stander. If Austin had similar showing vs Vlad, many critics would out in full force. You know it and so do I. My point is Vlad doesn't get a fair shake, while other more popular champions get a complete pass due to ignorance or omission.

I think Vlad's win over Austin in two is far more impressive than the other champions carrying or sometimes struggling with their Cinderlla boys. Austin has a solid chin. Other punchers like Whitaker, Ibragimov, and Scott took Austin the distance and could not beat him. Vlad smoked Austin with one big shot, and then quickly finished off a combination of others. Vlad did not carry Austin at all. Austin has only been stopped once prior, and it took nine rounds to do the trick. H Eneeds to be knocked out seven more times to catch Stander.

pound per pound wrote: I don't think Vlad has been an in-active champion.

The Great John L wrote:

pound per pound wrote: I don't think Vlad has been an in-active champion.

I don’t think he’s been an in-active champion either. In fact, Wlad isn’t a champion at all. He’s a “title” holder, just like Valuev, Oleg and Briggs. If and when he unifies, then he will be a champion.

pound per pound wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Just because one guy knocks out an average fighter quicker than another fighter knocks out out another average fighter doesn't really mean much.

In the case of Ali, he was at the end of his career when he fought Coopman, Dunn and Evangelista. He beat Coopman and Dunn very easily. He didn't knock them out in two rounds, but so what? He completely dominated them and stopped them easily.

Ali stopped Cooper and London easily. Cooper got stopped in the 5th and London in the 3rd. Neither were great fighters, but at least they came to fight, unlike Austin. They were just way overmatched against Ali. Have you actually seen either the Cooper or London fights?
It's different if you are fighting top contenders like Ali did and once in a while fight a fighter of less skill. You don't mention all of the great fighters that Ali beat. Ali fought lesser contenders in addition to the very fighters he fought. Take Coopman and Dunn. Yes Ali fought both of them in 1976. However, he also fought Norton and Young that same year. Klitschko has done nothing like that. He made 4 title defense in one year when he was 34 years old.

Frazier easily beat Daniels and Stander. Neither made it past 5 rounds. So he didn't knock them out in the 2nd round, so what?

You have more of a case with Patterson since he was fighter lesser contenders instead of top fighters. However, at least Patterson beat some good fighters later in his career after he was champion.

You seem to be assuming that Ko2 is always better than Ko3, and that Ko 3 is always more impressive than Ko4 and so on. Thats not always the case.

Klitschko shouldn't be criticized for fighting Austin. He didn't have much choice. However, he shouldn't be praised that this some big achievement because he knocked out a stiff early.

No is saying Austin is great. I do think he was more durable and more formidable than several other guys who got title shots from Patterson, Ali and Frazier. Thus a 2nd round virtual one punch KO for Vlad is a top result.

If you want to talk about activity, Vlad has already on his 52nd fight at age 31. I don't think Vlad has been an in-active champion.

Ambling Alp



Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 1001

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.



GM's don't draft 210 pound linebackers? No they haven't often done that since the 1950's. (Though you may have heard of Brian Urlacher, who was a safety in college)
They also don't draft 300 pound quaterbacks running backs or wide receivers. They know that after a point, size goes from an asset to liabilty. they also know that something called skill is important. This is why even you see players in every sport in a wide variety of sizes.

As for some of you other comments in other posts concern athletes from the past:
You mention that Paul Hornung wouldn't rush for 1000 yards in a season if he played today. I agree with that. As a expert about athletes from the past, you should know that he never came close to running for 1000 yards when he played in the 1950's and 1960's.

You keep saying that pitchers in MLB throw faster. (as if the mph on a fastball is the only thing that matters when it comes to pitching).
Well, first of all, how many top pitchers today do you think throw 98 mph?

There wasn't a radar gun until the early 1960's. Interesting that several pitchers threw well over 90Mph when the radar was used in the 1960's.
You don't think that any pitchers before the 1950's threw tha fast? How could you possibly know? Their speeds weren't measured by a radar gun.

It's not like everyone was saying in the 1960's that pitchers were faster than they were in the 1950's or the 1940's.

btw, there is a famous film where they tested Bob Feller throwing a fast ball with a motorcycle driving by at 95mph. It was clear that Feller's pitch was faster. I'm surprised that an expert of athletes from way back that you haven't seen this clip.


Also it's interesting that pitchers now only pitch once every 5 games and aren't expected to go 9 innings. That is considered too hard on their arms, even with modern training. However, from the late 19th century up until the 1970's it was common to see 4 man staffs with pitchers often going 9 innings.

You are not understanding some crucial points:
Size and speed is important, but there is so much more to being a great fighter or a great athlete in most other sports.
There is such a thing as skill. And toughness. And experience. And heart. And smarts. And so on.

Yes, with a modern training regiment a person can fit faster. However, that doesn't mean that older training methods didn't work. Running does work. Situps do work. Skipping rope does work. It might have taken the fighters back then longer to get in great shape, but many did it.
Do you really think that the body fat % of todays top 10 heavyweights are lower than in most of other eras?

There are mediocre, good and great athletes both today and from years ago.