BoxRec

langford. the boston t.b. is a true legend of the sport and one of the greatest fighters to lace them up.

quiitali is an overrated juice monkey whose claim to fame is losing to an old man who wasn't in good shape, quitting against a featherfisted slapper, and beating up fat guys.

Decagon wrote:

barry wrote: ...todays fighters come into a fight, including Vitali, with anywhere from 20 to 100 pounds of dead weight...weight which is nothing but fat!

That's a little misleading, because it's highly improbable that every top fighter from before 1950 had 1% body fat. Don't tell me that Sam Langford didn't carry fat when he was 180 pounds. Vitali, by the looks of him, has around 5% to 8% when he gets into the ring, I'd guess. Yeah, 8% is 20 pounds, but that's about normal.

The Klitschkos are an exception in today's current division, in that they actually get (got) into decent shape for their contests. But I'm certain the body-fat percentages of the likes of Rahman, Tua, Peter, Johnson, Brock etc. are out of control when speaking about professional athletes in a sport like boxing. Even newer Eastern HWs, who you'd think would be much hungrier (in the good sense) and come into fights in top shape, are following the trend. Both Chagaev and Lyakovich come into fights rather soft and with a lot of excess flab. Ibragimov too although he's gotten better in his last couple of fights.

>>>That's a little misleading, because it's highly improbable that every top fighter from before 1950 had 1% body fat.<<<

There is nothing misleading about it!!! 95% of the top heavyweights of the era, and especially the champions, had very, very little fat! Guys like Dempsey could have came into a bout weighing 210, or 220 if they thought that bulk was an asset, as most fighters today feel, but those fighters came into a bout with little fat!

>>>Don't tell me that Sam Langford didn't carry fat when he was 180 pounds<<<

If you would pay a little better attention to what you read, you would have read that I never made such a claim!


>>>Yeah, 8% is 20 pounds, but that's about normal.<<<

Hmmm...that seems to be exacty what I said!!!

But it doesn't matter how many pounds you put on a fighter...if he doesn't have the heart to begin with then it is just wasted mass!!!

1% body fat?ever read a muscle and fitness magazine?
if you fought with 1% body fat you would be ineffective.
a complete idiot would know that 1%body fat would hinder a mans performance over the coarse of a fight.
herschell walker who was one of the most fit athletes on earth ever
had between 3-5% body fat in the season.

edit

check with a sports doctor the averave athlete including boxers but excluding body builders average 6-13% body fat.
you can check that statistic on line.

The reality is though, that alot of these over-rated juice monkeys
see more of the inside of the gym than many of the legends.

These over rated juice monkeys would have also faced more 'full time'
fighters in the amateur and pro ranks than many of the greats of yester year.

I have seen a little bit of Langforf fight, he was an intense and very active
fighter, especially for that period of time, well atleast from what I have seen.

Boxing has evolved. More people are doing it. More money is keeping it afloat. More people are knowledgeable on its technicalities and history.

Kym

Robinson wrote:Boxing has evolved. More people are doing it. More money is keeping it afloat. More people are knowledgeable on its technicalities and history.

You must be failry new to boxing to make a statement like this.

I have been a boxing fan for over 40 years and actually took part in boxing in my public school system phys ed classes. Boxing has gone from a major sport to a very minor sport in a frighteningly short amount of time. When I was a teenager we had about a dozen boxing gyms in the area. I think we have 2 remaining, and both are only open part time. Amatuer boxing is almost non-existent in most US cities, and there are very few competant boxing trainers left. While many say that the fall of boxing in the US boxing has been replaced by increased interest and participation in other countires, this is only partly true, because despite what many younger fans believe, boxing was also extremely popular in many other countries like Italy in past decades, much more so than it is now.

DaveV17 wrote:You guys might be over estimating how much body fat some of these guys carry.

You are probably correct some of these guys aren't quite as fat as we think, although I'm not sure I would agree with your examples. However, % body fat doesn't mean that they are in shape. There are few HWs today who can fight at a decent pace for more than 3 or 4 rounds. The Lewis-Klitschko fight that everyone keeps talking about is a good example of the poor conditioning of the modern highly trained HWs. Both were exhausted and stumbling around by the 3rd round of a moderately active fight. While it was entertaining, it was not a great exhibition of conditioning or talent. In fact, if they each had fought the same type of fight against a 195 lb, 32yo Toney they probably would have been embarrassed.

Lewis and Klitschko also might have been stumbling around because they had both taken some huge shots.

DaveV17 wrote:You guys might be over estimating how much body fat some of these guys carry.

Sam Peter:
http://www.kocorner.com/media/20070102_peter_1_430.jpg
Not a posed picture, appears to have very low bodyfat.

Rahman:
http://www.boxeo-boxing.com/galerias/galeriaramhan.html
Looks to have very low bodyfat.

Rahman:
http://p3.focus.de/img/gen/q/0/HBq0NE9o ... _467xA.jpg
Both men appear to have low bodyfat.

Tua:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26sa%3DN

You'll have to look for the Tua pics, but they are from the Hawkins fight in 2007, and Tua looks solid.

Sam Langford
http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3637899-v

Hahahaha, nice cherry-picked photos. Rahman has always been muscled-up . . he's also gasping by the 6th round and is slow as molasses. Both he and Peter have muscle over their fat, but they are still carrying a good deal of fat (and way too much overall mass for their frames) It's actually very clear from the Peter photo. Being "solid" doesn't mean you aren't carrying a high body-fat percentage. Here's video, which is a lot more accurate at judging a fighter's physique than photos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQbK2zM8VEo . . . Tua's flab is disgusting, and this was reportedly the best shape he's been in in years!!

Here's Peter . . he has a clear potbelly for crying out loud! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxLpJpyEOmE

As for Kym's statement that today's fighters are facing more "full-time" fighters . . .well that's just plain wrong, and the truth is the complete opposite.

Okay, guys, what about Frank Bruno?

In the 1980s, the age of fat HWs, Frank always came in chiseled and looked like a professional athlete. He also had stamina issues.

There just seems to be a move towards muscle mass and juicing up.

Anyone think that the move from 15 to 12 rounds made a difference?

Ezzard wrote:Okay, guys, what about Frank Bruno?

In the 1980s, the age of fat HWs, Frank always came in chiseled and looked like a professional athlete. He also had stamina issues.

There just seems to be a move towards muscle mass and juicing up.

Anyone think that the move from 15 to 12 rounds made a difference?

I think in the 80s when Bruno was in the 220s his stamina issues came more from fighting tense than having bad conditioning. From what I heard Bruno was a workhorse in the gym, and his poor showings in fights baffled his trainers who'd seem him condition himself so well before. Bruno fought extremely stiff and unrelaxed.

When he got up to a Gov. Arnold-esque 245 in the 90s, that's another story.

Rahman is muscled-up but is not nearly as trim as Bruno was in the 80s. And his stamina is even worse.

When it comes to body types, fat-looking does not always mean fat! Check out Mark Henry! Just looking at him one would think that he is fat, but he actually has, or had little fat...he was solid muscle, which Langford was of the same body type! "Barbados" Joe Walcott is another of this ilk!

Body types can be rather misleading at times. I've seen numerous cases over the years, of guys who were really cut up, who didn't have particularly good stamina or weren't all that strong. I've also seen guys with a little flab around the middle and sides who were remarkable athletes with speed, strength, stamina etc.

barry wrote:>>>I don't care about artificial weight gain. Anyone can blow themselves up 20 lbs through Creatine and eating. Byrd naturally is a light HW.<<<

That couldn't be any more accurate!!! Whereas todays fighters come into a fight, including Vitali, with anywhere from 20 to 100 pounds of dead weight...weight which is nothing but fat! Fighters of Langfords era came in with very, very little fat. Now this would seem different with Langford as he was short and seemingly fat like a butterball but the time he was a heavyweight, but Langford had a lot less fat than today's heavyweights, so the extra weight argument really means little...that nis unless it is a very big heavyweight who can actually use every extra pound to their advantage...Lennox Lewis could do that...Vitali couldn't! Vitali is not even a top 50 heavyweight. Is it possible that Vitali could outpoint Langford...well certainly...is it likely...not really! Vitali is too fragile and Langford would simply beat him down and break him down to his size by hitting Vitali every where on his anatomy unless Vitali is either injured, or he quits, which he has quit and he has been injured more than any heavyweight that I can ever recall!

Vitali once won an amateur tournament with an injured hand. This Vitlai was too fragile stuff is bogus. Fighters get injured from time to time. Vitlai only quit once, and a torin shoudler was the reason.

The truth is many great hall of fame fighters have quit with lesser injures than Vitali. We have been over this before. I see double standards here.

In terms of taking a punch, Vitlai has one of the best chins in heavyweight history. He was never floored by a punch. The only other Ring magazine Champion that can claim that is Oliver McCall. McCall had a great chin for sure, but it’s a trifle over rated. Bruce Seldon rocked McCall in their fight twice. Buster Douglas also had McCall in a bad way. Its true. Vitlai proved he can take flush power shots vs Lewis and Sanders, who for my money hit harder than Seldon or Douglas. I don't think Langford hit as hard as Lennox Lewis.

Sam was a great fighter, but in sports a good big man almost always beats a good little man.

And a great little man usually will beat a good big man.

Alot of the fighters from the 1930s and before were very hungry and quite
literally were fighting for survival due to economic circumstances.

But I am talking about the general quality of guys that fought, many were far from being gym frequenters and I don't want to here stories about how working 60 hr a week in a manual job is a good substitute.

What annoys me, is that people dis credit alot of the more modern fighters for there lack of skills, and how old time greats from the Corbettt days would give them a licking. I personally think that our current crop of HWs are bland and lacking all to much. But they are still powerful big men, who do train ALOT.

Sure Sam Peter's has some pork around the belly, or a Vitali Klitchko is injury prone but are they really that much worse than a Fireman Jim Flynn or a Frank Moran ?

In regards to what the Great John L Sullivan said, in the last 5 years boxing has dropped off, but compared to 100 years ago or so the fight game has evolved.

Boxing has only recently lost its massive fan base, because it has grown stagnant. The boxing community attacks itself to much and wanks on about how the current scene is a disgrace and that Jack dempsey would clean house today. The average fan's left when Tyson threw away his gloves. Thats why MMA is so appealing. They want to see something exciting and fresh. They dont want to be told the sport they are watching has had its best years.

Even in todays dwindling climate Boxing still has more base knoweldge of history and its technicalities than it did 100 years ago. Say what you will...but what I have seen of John Corbett and James J Jefferies on film has not made me appreciate there technical prowse. There hips were stiff, they lunged, there chins up high, no foot work, they made Randall Cobb look like a ballerina.

And please no one say that the Ballet in 1912 was far superior today..according to who ???? Because you read it some where ?? Ballet is not a competitive sport it is a cultural and artistic social symbol.

Thanks again guys

Kym

Ambling Alp wrote:And a great little man usually will beat a good big man.

And you guys still haven't answered my question...


Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

Robinson wrote:Alot of the fighters from the 1930s and before were very hungry and quite
literally were fighting for survival due to economic circumstances.

But I am talking about the general quality of guys that fought, many were far from being gym frequenters and I don't want to here stories about how working 60 hr a week in a manual job is a good substitute.

What annoys me, is that people dis credit alot of the more modern fighters for there lack of skills, and how old time greats from the Corbettt days would give them a licking. I personally think that our current crop of HWs are bland and lacking all to much. But they are still powerful big men, who do train ALOT.

Sure Sam Peter's has some pork around the belly, or a Vitali Klitchko is injury prone but are they really that much worse than a Fireman Jim Flynn or a Frank Moran ?

In regards to what the Great John L Sullivan said, in the last 5 years boxing has dropped off, but compared to 100 years ago or so the fight game has evolved.

Boxing has only recently lost its massive fan base, because it has grown stagnant. The boxing community attacks itself to much and wanks on about how the current scene is a disgrace and that Jack dempsey would clean house today. The average fan's left when Tyson threw away his gloves. Thats why MMA is so appealing. They want to see something exciting and fresh. They dont want to be told the sport they are watching has had its best years.

Even in todays dwindling climate Boxing still has more base knoweldge of history and its technicalities than it did 100 years ago. Say what you will...but what I have seen of John Corbett and James J Jefferies on film has not made me appreciate there technical prowse. There hips were stiff, they lunged, there chins up high, no foot work, they made Randall Cobb look like a ballerina.

And please no one say that the Ballet in 1912 was far superior today..according to who ???? Because you read it some where ?? Ballet is not a competitive sport it is a cultural and artistic social symbol.

Thanks again guys

Kym

I think you are misqouting an earlier post of mine. I said film of the ballet in 1912 would look like a bunch of clowns fumbling around a stage, b/c that is the jerky movement caught by the hand-cranked cameras of the time. And no-one would argue the Russian ballet in 1912 was not good or graceful . . I'm not saying they were better than today, I don't know nor honestly care. But to ascertain the abilities of Jefferies or Corbett solely through the extremely limited and poor quality film we have of their actual fights is just not possible. That being said what I see of Corbett in the Fitz fight is a pretty "modern" looking fighter showing good lateral movements, quick double jabs, and feints that aren't even taught anymore.

dempseyfire wrote:I think you are misqouting an earlier post of mine. I said film of the ballet in 1912 would look like a bunch of clowns fumbling around a stage, b/c that is the jerky movement caught by the hand-cranked cameras of the time. And no-one would argue the Russian ballet in 1912 was not good or graceful . . I'm not saying they were better than today, I don't know nor honestly care. But to ascertain the abilities of Jefferies or Corbett solely through the extremely limited and poor quality film we have of their actual fights is just not possible. That being said what I see of Corbett in the Fitz fight is a pretty "modern" looking fighter showing good lateral movements, quick double jabs, and feints that aren't even taught anymore.

Good quote dempsey. However, it’s probably a waste of time to go much further in this “debate”. Note his acknowledgement that boxing has fallen off in the “last 5 years”. That’s probably how long he has been watching.

pound per pound wrote:

barry wrote:>>>I don't care about artificial weight gain. Anyone can blow themselves up 20 lbs through Creatine and eating. Byrd naturally is a light HW.<<<

That couldn't be any more accurate!!! Whereas todays fighters come into a fight, including Vitali, with anywhere from 20 to 100 pounds of dead weight...weight which is nothing but fat! Fighters of Langfords era came in with very, very little fat. Now this would seem different with Langford as he was short and seemingly fat like a butterball but the time he was a heavyweight, but Langford had a lot less fat than today's heavyweights, so the extra weight argument really means little...that nis unless it is a very big heavyweight who can actually use every extra pound to their advantage...Lennox Lewis could do that...Vitali couldn't! Vitali is not even a top 50 heavyweight. Is it possible that Vitali could outpoint Langford...well certainly...is it likely...not really! Vitali is too fragile and Langford would simply beat him down and break him down to his size by hitting Vitali every where on his anatomy unless Vitali is either injured, or he quits, which he has quit and he has been injured more than any heavyweight that I can ever recall!

Vitali once won an amateur tournament with an injured hand. This Vitlai was too fragile stuff is bogus. Fighters get injured from time to time. Vitlai only quit once, and a torin shoudler was the reason.

The truth is many great hall of fame fighters have quit with lesser injures than Vitali. We have been over this before. I see double standards here.

In terms of taking a punch, Vitlai has one of the best chins in heavyweight history. He was never floored by a punch. The only other Ring magazine Champion that can claim that is Oliver McCall. McCall had a great chin for sure, but it’s a trifle over rated. Bruce Seldon rocked McCall in their fight twice. Buster Douglas also had McCall in a bad way. Its true. Vitlai proved he can take flush power shots vs Lewis and Sanders, who for my money hit harder than Seldon or Douglas. I don't think Langford hit as hard as Lennox Lewis.

Sam was a great fighter, but in sports a good big man almost always beats a good little man.

With regards to Vitali and his fragility I think boxing fans have to accept that the sport is very different to how it was even 30 years ago let alone in Langford's day. Vitali can make as much off endorsements as Langford could for fighting (and that's taking inflation into account).

You can't really expect Vitali to fight half blind like Langford did and it should come as no surprise when fighters are more willing to quit due to an injury than they ever were before. Life, and our expectation of it, is very different and this is reflected in boxing and boxers.

Tantum wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:And a great little man usually will beat a good big man.

And you guys still haven't answered my question...


Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

I'd go for Tarver, but if the logic is that simple then how did Langford beat Wills?

Robinson wrote:Alot of the fighters from the 1930s and before were very hungry and quite
literally were fighting for survival due to economic circumstances.

But I am talking about the general quality of guys that fought, many were far from being gym frequenters and I don't want to here stories about how working 60 hr a week in a manual job is a good substitute.

What annoys me, is that people dis credit alot of the more modern fighters for there lack of skills, and how old time greats from the Corbettt days would give them a licking. I personally think that our current crop of HWs are bland and lacking all to much. But they are still powerful big men, who do train ALOT.

Sure Sam Peter's has some pork around the belly, or a Vitali Klitchko is injury prone but are they really that much worse than a Fireman Jim Flynn or a Frank Moran ?

In regards to what the Great John L Sullivan said, in the last 5 years boxing has dropped off, but compared to 100 years ago or so the fight game has evolved.

Boxing has only recently lost its massive fan base, because it has grown stagnant. The boxing community attacks itself to much and wanks on about how the current scene is a disgrace and that Jack dempsey would clean house today. The average fan's left when Tyson threw away his gloves. Thats why MMA is so appealing. They want to see something exciting and fresh. They dont want to be told the sport they are watching has had its best years.

Even in todays dwindling climate Boxing still has more base knoweldge of history and its technicalities than it did 100 years ago. Say what you will...but what I have seen of John Corbett and James J Jefferies on film has not made me appreciate there technical prowse. There hips were stiff, they lunged, there chins up high, no foot work, they made Randall Cobb look like a ballerina.

And please no one say that the Ballet in 1912 was far superior today..according to who ???? Because you read it some where ?? Ballet is not a competitive sport it is a cultural and artistic social symbol.

Thanks again guys

Kym

I think boxing has lost its appeal because there are easier sports to make money in, so we get fewer great athletes in the sport. The world title mess is possibly the biggest factor.

BUT one that is rarely put forward is just that boxing is run in a way that is unsatisfactory. Even before the proliferation of titles there were many, many fighters that never got a shot at the title and many match ups that were never made. This is what fans hate the most.

In football the top sides play each other every year wihtout fail. The best players come up against the best players all the time. In boxing we have to wait and wait before fighters will go in with someone on their level. Too many match ups don't get made. There are too many ways for fighters to avoid one another, and way too much is made of unbeaten records.

Ezzard wrote:There are too many ways for fighters to avoid one another, and way too much is made of unbeaten records.

Boy have you got that right Ezz. It’s hilarious to read all the posters in the Current scene talking about whether Taylor can come back from his loss to Pavlik. It’s one loss, FFS. The only reason he wouldn’t be able to come back is if he decides he has enough money and doesn’t want to get hit anymore.