BoxRec

I don't think any right minded person would pick CAT over the Rock.

orbtastic wrote:I don't think any right minded person would pick CAT over the Rock.

It is an argument for the insane.

It's like going into an asylum and trying to talk a patient out of being mad.

Most mental people don't think they're mad...

orbtastic wrote:Most mental people don't think they're mad...

It's tough, but you would be plucking The Rock out of the 1950's. it's an agreed fact that at 5'10'' and 185 pounds he is the smaller man. Carl was 6'1'' I think and surely was physically stronger. The cat was a bit of a strong man in the gym. Carl in his prime was never really found wanting in the stamina department. Unlike another strong man in say Dennis Andries he didn't tend to unravel late in fights, he used to find to stoppage. I don't think you have to be insane to think The Cat would have a shot.

So you think boxing's a test of brute strength now?

Some men who have lost to smaller, physically less strong men: Jess Willard, Nikolay Valuev, George Foreman, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko, Sonny Liston, Primo Carnera, Larry Holmes, Gerry Cooney, Riddick Bowe, Andrew Golota, Ken Norton... etc etc etc.

I think he's referring to the way that Marciano made fights a physical affair, it's fair to say he wasn't the best boxer in the world but would impose his will on the other guy relentlessly, for round after round. He had a tremendous capacity for absorbing punishment and would batter the other guy's arms, ribs, torso etc and come on late in fights.

I think that's why he focussing on the physical aspect.

loaded_gloves wrote:So you think boxing's a test of brute strength now?

Some men who have lost to smaller, physically less strong men: Jess Willard, Nikolay Valuev, George Foreman, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko, Sonny Liston, Primo Carnera, Larry Holmes, Gerry Cooney, Riddick Bowe, Andrew Golota, Ken Norton... etc etc etc.

This is getting a bit wild and woolly. Valuev was heavy not necessarily strong. By Golota, are you alluding to the Adamek fight, where the big guy was clearly shot and out-of-shape? I'm talking peak Cat. And he did actually have some skills backing up that brawn you know.

My goodness even polecateddy expressed he was getting tired of the debate up on the page. Everyone is going circles .isn't it time for another discussion? The guy is clearly not going to concede defeat.

Lol, a "peak Carl Thompson" - was that the guy given life or death by a shot Eubank, the guy who was KOd by journeyman Ezra Sellers, or the guy with the stoppage losses spread across his whole career?

We get it Eddy. Skill and subtly is way over your head. You like big lumbering powerhouse fighters, bulging biceps, lots of power and little skill. You like fringe WBO/WBU boxers like Carl Thompson and Corrie Sanders and Johnny Nelson and have no time for the boring black & white wizardry of elite-level, freakishly gifted, undisputed champion fighters like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott.

I could honestly type out your contribution to every single thread in this forum without consulting you.

I'm reasonably comfortable with the idea that Marciano would KO CAT, despite his propensity for a war and soaking up a tremendous amount of punishment along the way. I don't really a see a come from behind type KO win here, either.

loaded_gloves wrote:Lol, a "peak Carl Thompson" - was that the guy given life or death by a shot Eubank, the guy who was KOd by journeyman Ezra Sellers, or the guy with the stoppage losses spread across his whole career?

We get it Eddy. Skill and subtly is way over your head. You like big lumbering powerhouse fighters, bulging biceps, lots of power and little skill. You like fringe WBO/WBU boxers like Carl Thompson and Corrie Sanders and Johnny Nelson and have no time for the boring black & white wizardry of elite-level, freakishly gifted, undisputed champion fighters like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott.

I could honestly type out your contribution to every single thread in this forum without consulting you.

Yeah, I see you're slanting your replies to cast me in the worst possible light. I have never said anything negative about Ezzard Charles. I don't think I've ever typed the words Jersey Joe Walcott in this forum once! I might have said Moore was old when he fought Marciano, but that's about it. I'm not blind to the fact these were skilled fighters. My concentration in this whole thread has concentrated on one person - Rocky Marciano. Does this person embody 'skill and subtly'? I don't think so. I am simply asking how much success can a 5'10'', 185 pound man expect top have with a face-forward, crude-hooking approach in today's better 12 round cruiserweight and heavyweight world title fights? I don't think it should be this controversial to open your eyes and say ...well probably not that much!

polecateddy wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Lol, a "peak Carl Thompson" - was that the guy given life or death by a shot Eubank, the guy who was KOd by journeyman Ezra Sellers, or the guy with the stoppage losses spread across his whole career?

We get it Eddy. Skill and subtly is way over your head. You like big lumbering powerhouse fighters, bulging biceps, lots of power and little skill. You like fringe WBO/WBU boxers like Carl Thompson and Corrie Sanders and Johnny Nelson and have no time for the boring black & white wizardry of elite-level, freakishly gifted, undisputed champion fighters like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott.

I could honestly type out your contribution to every single thread in this forum without consulting you.

Yeah, I see you're slanting your replies to cast me in the worst possible light. I have never said anything negative about Ezzard Charles. I don't think I've ever typed the words Jersey Joe Walcott in this forum once! I might have said Moore was old when he fought Marciano, but that's about it. I'm not blind to the fact these were skilled fighters. My concentration in this whole thread has concentrated on one person - Rocky Marciano. Does this person embody 'skill and subtly'? I don't think so. I am simply asking how much success can a 5'10'', 185 pound man expect top have with a face-forward, crude-hooking approach in today's better 12 round cruiserweight and heavyweight world title fights? I don't think it should be this controversial to open your eyes and say ...well probably not that much!

To be fair I think it was comments like Nelson would box his ears off, Thompson would give him a beat down, fighters from the 50s would be non punchers and modern HWs are fitter than Marciano haven't done you any favours. No one is disagreeing that Marciano would struggle against the best of the big guys.

The non-puncher thing was overstating on my part. I was partly suggesting I suppose that a puncher from the 1950's may find that in 2013 that his punches would have less effect, be it because the opposition is larger or whatever.

polecateddy wrote:The non-puncher thing was overstating on my part. I was partly suggesting I suppose that a puncher from the 1950's may find that in 2013 that his punches would have less effect, be it because the opposition is larger or whatever.

If your clocked on the chin and knocked spark out it doesn't matter if your 13 stone or 18 stone, the punch will hurt the same, someones weight has no bearing on that. Size plays more of a part in pushing guys around, keeping them at distance easier, smothering, leaning on the opponent etc... If the larger fighter can do all those things against the smaller guy then I agree it makes a difference. If the bigger guy can't do those things and is simply bigger because he is carrying 30+lbs of excess weight then they might find themselves getting tired as the extra weight isn't good to carry and ends up being irrelevant when their opponent is battering them constantly.

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:The non-puncher thing was overstating on my part. I was partly suggesting I suppose that a puncher from the 1950's may find that in 2013 that his punches would have less effect, be it because the opposition is larger or whatever.

If your clocked on the chin and knocked spark out it doesn't matter if your 13 stone or 18 stone, the punch will hurt the same, someones weight has no bearing on that. Size plays more of a part in pushing guys around, keeping them at distance easier, smothering, leaning on the opponent etc... If the larger fighter can do all those things against the smaller guy then I agree it makes a difference. If the bigger guy can't do those things and is simply bigger because he is carrying 30+lbs of excess weight then they might find themselves getting tired as the extra weight isn't good to carry and ends up being irrelevant when their opponent is battering them constantly.

Your logic runs out when you consider that punchers moving up in weight often find their punches having less dramatic effect. Too many examples to mention. I'll pick Freitas moving up 5 pounds from super-feather to lightweight.

polecateddy wrote:The non-puncher thing was overstating on my part. I was partly suggesting I suppose that a puncher from the 1950's may find that in 2013 that his punches would have less effect, be it because the opposition is larger or whatever.

And maybe the larger, modern opposition would find against an elusive, skillful old-style opponent that their footwork seems suddenly very poor, their power useless against such a hard target, and their excess of mass draining when pitched against an actual athlete who can keep popping and moving with ease for 12 rounds.

Roy Jones shook up John Ruiz. Nikolay Valuev couldn't hurt Ruiz with his punching across two separate fights.

Skill, speed, timing, so much more important than power and mass.

loaded_gloves wrote:

polecateddy wrote:The non-puncher thing was overstating on my part. I was partly suggesting I suppose that a puncher from the 1950's may find that in 2013 that his punches would have less effect, be it because the opposition is larger or whatever.

And maybe the larger, modern opposition would find against an elusive, skillful old-style opponent that their footwork seems suddenly very poor, their power useless against such a hard target, and their excess of mass draining when pitched against an actual athlete who can keep popping and moving with ease for 12 rounds.

Roy Jones shook up John Ruiz. Nikolay Valuev couldn't hurt Ruiz with his punching across two separate fights.

Skill, speed, timing, so much more important than power and mass.

I've already posted a video which clearly shows Lebedev v G Jones. Lebedev is clearly punching faster and more frequently than Rocky Marciano v Archie Moore. Now are you comparing Roy Jones to Rocky Marciano? Lol

Oh dear.

I think we established long ago critical analysis is not within your capabilities.

I give up. I know you're not a troll, but you are just mad and it's too draining to engage with you.

loaded_gloves wrote:Oh dear.

I think we established long ago critical analysis is not within your capabilities.

I give up. I know you're not a troll, but you are just mad and it's too draining to engage with you.

So you disagree that Lebedev is clearly punching faster, moving more frequently and throwing more punches per round? At least do a quick punch count.

polecateddy wrote: Your logic runs out when you consider that punchers moving up in weight often find their punches having less dramatic effect. Too many examples to mention. I'll pick Freitas moving up 5 pounds from super-feather to lightweight.

Actually I posted a thread about this very subject today. This can be a variety of reasons, normally a jump in weight can mean a jump in class of opposition. Sometimes the jump can cause a drop in hand speed. The effect is far less noticeable at HW as very few HWs tend to have the same hand speed and combination punching that the lighter weights have, thats why Tyson was so deadly and probably explains why Danny Williams and Kevin McBride were taking his best shots without crumbling because he had lost the speed and combination punching he used to have.

Simple test with a shotput - a test of speed, power and acceleration. More or less each champion from say Strawweight onwards would throw further. Similar to the weight of punch.

Do you mean the larger fighters would throw further? There would certainly be a statistical correlation.

polecateddy wrote:Simple test with a shotput - a test of speed, power and acceleration. More or less each champion from say Strawweight onwards would throw further. Similar to the weight of punch.

Can't see the correlation, the shot put is a very basic throw, thrown in a specific way and trained for in a specific manner and like most athletic events the athletes today dedicate their time to training, not done so much by older athletes. Shot put is a very one dimentional action. Also as the shot put world record hasn't been beaten since 1990 then using your logic athletes must be getting weaker otherwise this would be beaten year on year?

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Simple test with a shotput - a test of speed, power and acceleration. More or less each champion from say Strawweight onwards would throw further. Similar to the weight of punch.

Can't see the correlation, the shot put is a very basic throw, thrown in a specific way and trained for in a specific manner and like most athletic events the athletes today dedicate their time to training, not done so much by older athletes. Shot put is a very one dimentional action. Also as the shot put world record hasn't been beaten since 1990 then using your logic athletes must be getting weaker otherwise this would be beaten year on year?

Bollocks it's one dimensional. You ever tried rotational? The world records for men and woman were almost certainly steriod assisted, but 22 metres stil relatively common for world leaders. This simply was meant to illustrate how punch power increases through weight divisions, that it doesn't just stay the same as someone suggested. Felix Trinadad for example could punch nowhere near as hard as Lennox Lewis, and so on!

polecateddy wrote:

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Simple test with a shotput - a test of speed, power and acceleration. More or less each champion from say Strawweight onwards would throw further. Similar to the weight of punch.

Can't see the correlation, the shot put is a very basic throw, thrown in a specific way and trained for in a specific manner and like most athletic events the athletes today dedicate their time to training, not done so much by older athletes. Shot put is a very one dimentional action. Also as the shot put world record hasn't been beaten since 1990 then using your logic athletes must be getting weaker otherwise this would be beaten year on year?

Bollocks it's one dimensional. You ever tried rotational? The world records for men and woman were almost certainly steriod assisted, but 22 metres stil relatively common for world leaders. This simply was meant to illustrate how punch power increases through weight divisions, that it doesn't just stay the same as someone suggested. Felix Trinadad for example could punch nowhere near as hard as Lennox Lewis, and so on!

I actually meant to type one dimensional sport, not action. So explain why the shot put world record hasn't been beaten for 23 years then, are we all getting weaker?

There are people still alive from era you are talking about, you might even have grand-parents from that era. For evolution to vastly change the DNA make-up of human kind I suggest it takes far longer. Yes times and distances in athletics have improved but not drastically so when you consider that athletes today are far more professional than they were 60 years ago, its a full time career for many, they have better running shoes and access to more specific training than their predecessors.

Boxing isn't about beating a certain speed, lifting a specific weight, throwing something a distance. The talent pool has diminished over the years, less boxing clubs, less professionals, more titles, more weights, quicker title shots, more money, things that I would argue haven't made boxers any better today than they were before.