BoxRec

Grilling Machine wrote:It's hard to tell how lively a lot of really old fights were because the footage of them is so poor. But we know that daily 10-mile runs weren't uncommon among old-time heavies, on top of 10+ rounds of sparring, loads of skipping, and plenty of bag work. The quality of everyday meat was probably superior back then, and good diets were understood by Dempsey's era.

Also, they fought 20- and 25-rounders at one time. But that style of fighting was highly attritional, with headshots sparing due to the gloves. So definitely tougher, in terms of taking a sustained beating to the body, but perhaps not fitter as we classify it now.

My hunch is that today's fighters are generally fitter until they're hurt, with the old 'uns the other way around. I'd probably bet on Khan beating Armstrong in a 5k race.

Doubt it. Armstrong had an abnormally large hearr which allowed him to metabolise far more oxygen.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Ibragimov or Herbie Hide might beat prime Foreman on points?

.

I know it sounds ridiculous.... but have you seen how crude he was? Watch some vids.... Christ Tommy Morrison of all people outboxed the modern version. He walked through a short, fat Frazier who was 214 lbs and he was 217 1/2 lbs and was considered a monster. Apart from Frazier - who did Foreman really beat? A 196 lb Joe Roman? A chinny Ken Norton? Come on.... the old fighters were very overrated at heavyweight - Ali defended against Alfredo Evangelista (pts 15) the awful Chuck Werner (w Ko 15), jean Pierre coopman, Rudi Lubbers went 12 rounds with Ali No e if these bums would last a minute with Tyson having his 3rd fight....

I bet you think Valeriy Borzov would beat Usain Bolt because he was more 'gritty'

No, no, no. Hide does not beat Foreman. This is crazy talk

Hide would be unconcious as soon as they touched gloves

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:.

I know it sounds ridiculous.... but have you seen how crude he was? Watch some vids.... Christ Tommy Morrison of all people outboxed the modern version. He walked through a short, fat Frazier who was 214 lbs and he was 217 1/2 lbs and was considered a monster. Apart from Frazier - who did Foreman really beat? A 196 lb Joe Roman? A chinny Ken Norton? Come on.... the old fighters were very overrated at heavyweight - Ali defended against Alfredo Evangelista (pts 15) the awful Chuck Werner (w Ko 15), jean Pierre coopman, Rudi Lubbers went 12 rounds with Ali No e if these bums would last a minute with Tyson having his 3rd fight....

I bet you think Valeriy Borzov would beat Usain Bolt because he was more 'gritty'

No, no, no. Hide does not beat Foreman. This is crazy talk

Hide would be unconcious as soon as they touched gloves

I'm not sure...didn't allegedly once compare hide to Muhammad Ali ? And we all know how that one turned out!

boxingknockout wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:.

I know it sounds ridiculous.... but have you seen how crude he was? Watch some vids.... Christ Tommy Morrison of all people outboxed the modern version. He walked through a short, fat Frazier who was 214 lbs and he was 217 1/2 lbs and was considered a monster. Apart from Frazier - who did Foreman really beat? A 196 lb Joe Roman? A chinny Ken Norton? Come on.... the old fighters were very overrated at heavyweight - Ali defended against Alfredo Evangelista (pts 15) the awful Chuck Werner (w Ko 15), jean Pierre coopman, Rudi Lubbers went 12 rounds with Ali No e if these bums would last a minute with Tyson having his 3rd fight....

I bet you think Valeriy Borzov would beat Usain Bolt because he was more 'gritty'

No, no, no. Hide does not beat Foreman. This is crazy talk

Yeah maybe. Hide is too fragile. But he could hit harder and box better than the majority of top 10 fighters in 60s and 70s

What the fxck?

Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

I think the logic is that he would beat Chuck Wepner therefore modern fighters > old fighters. That's the best I can make out of it

Tuan_Jim wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
No, no, no. Hide does not beat Foreman. This is crazy talk

Yeah maybe. Hide is too fragile. But he could hit harder and box better than the majority of top 10 fighters in 60s and 70s

What the fxck?

Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

You mean killers such as Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coleman, Chuck Wepner, rudi lubbers, juergen blin, buster Mathis, Brian London, Jack bodell, Tom McNealy etc.....

boxingknockout wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:
Yeah maybe. Hide is too fragile. But he could hit harder and box better than the majority of top 10 fighters in 60s and 70s

What the fxck?

Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

You mean killers such as Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coleman, Chuck Wepner, rudi lubbers, juergen blin, buster Mathis, Brian London, Jack bodell, Tom McNealy etc.....

What does this answer even mean? No one thinks those men are anything near the top 10 fighters of the 60s and 70s.

I ask you again: Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

Can you give even one name? Or will you return another spurious, nonsensical answer?

Tuan_Jim wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
What the fxck?

Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

You mean killers such as Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coleman, Chuck Wepner, rudi lubbers, juergen blin, buster Mathis, Brian London, Jack bodell, Tom McNealy etc.....

What does this answer even mean? No one thinks those men are anything near the top 10 fighters of the 60s and 70s.

I ask you again: Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

Can you give even one name? Or will you return another spurious, nonsensical answer?

All these bums were rated in the top 10 at one time fool

boxingknockout wrote:I think old school fighters were way fitter. Look at Muhammad Ali compared to today's bunch. Jack Dempsey's hard but model looks are superior to any of today's fighters. Max Baer an outlook any of today's so-called heavyweight heartthrobs. One only has to look at Jake la Motta's opponents - Marcel Cerdan, Ray Robinson and Tony Janito to know yesteryear fighters were far fitter.... even in the 80s, Matinee Idol Bobby Czyz, even after he had moved up in weight was better looking than any of today's supposed superstars! Case closed!

i heard virgil hill caused many opponents to gas just based on the effect that pencil moustache had on causing opposing fighters to go weak at the knees

boxingknockout wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:
You mean killers such as Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coleman, Chuck Wepner, rudi lubbers, juergen blin, buster Mathis, Brian London, Jack bodell, Tom McNealy etc.....

What does this answer even mean? No one thinks those men are anything near the top 10 fighters of the 60s and 70s.

I ask you again: Against which opponent did Herbie Hide demonstrate that he could box better than the top fighter of the 60s and 70s?

Can you give even one name? Or will you return another spurious, nonsensical answer?

All these bums were rated in the top 10 at one time fool

Fool?

You said Herbie Hide could "box better than the majority of top 10 fighters in 60s and 70s."

How are any of the names you listed representative of the majority of the top 10 fighters in 60s and 70s?

Just tell me against which opponent Herbie Hide demonstrated this greatness or admit you were wrong.

Amusingly, half the names you mentioned actually have better wins on their records than Herbie Hide, who literally has no top wins. He also defended his "title" against Willi Fischer and Damon Reed, two of the worst challengers in gloved history.

Every era had crap fighters and crap title challengers.

I'm still waiting on a reason why every sport improves bar boxing which goes backwards mind. So far, I think we've had:

Boxing is physically tough, gritty, and a sport for proper hardmen. Life was harder a century ago, therefore it was better for boxing.
Boxers used to need to fight more as they didn't earn much money. This somehow made them better.
Training, strength and conditioning, diet, and lifestyle were all miles better in the 30's.
Heavyweights don't throw as many bodyshots these days. This means Brian London was probably better than Tyson Fury or something.
If Roger Federer played a prime Fred Perry but only played in two grand slam tournaments a year Perry would win even if he played blind drunk.
Some other bollocks.

dirk2686 wrote:Every era had crap fighters and crap title challengers.

I'm still waiting on a reason why every sport improves bar boxing which goes backwards mind. So far, I think we've had:

Boxing is physically tough, gritty, and a sport for proper hardmen. Life was harder a century ago, therefore it was better for boxing.
Boxers used to need to fight more as they didn't earn much money. This somehow made them better.
Training, strength and conditioning, diet, and lifestyle were all miles better in the 30's.
Heavyweights don't throw as many bodyshots these days. This means Brian London was probably better than Tyson Fury or something.
If Roger Federer played a prime Fred Perry but only played in two grand slam tournaments a year Perry would win even if he played blind drunk.
Some other bollocks.

It's been done to death on BOTP forum with far more detailed discussions. I for one just have far too much fatigue with the subject to go into any great depth anymore, I just don't care enough to argue it with people like you, who seem to almost revel in their ignorance of the subject ('old school fighters used to train on guinness' etc).

If you're genuinely interested, which you don't appear to be, read the innumerable threads on the subject on BOTP. Be careful though - you might learn something.

This is painfully stupid.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Every era had crap fighters and crap title challengers.

I'm still waiting on a reason why every sport improves bar boxing which goes backwards mind. So far, I think we've had:

Boxing is physically tough, gritty, and a sport for proper hardmen. Life was harder a century ago, therefore it was better for boxing.
Boxers used to need to fight more as they didn't earn much money. This somehow made them better.
Training, strength and conditioning, diet, and lifestyle were all miles better in the 30's.
Heavyweights don't throw as many bodyshots these days. This means Brian London was probably better than Tyson Fury or something.
If Roger Federer played a prime Fred Perry but only played in two grand slam tournaments a year Perry would win even if he played blind drunk.
Some other bollocks.

It's been done to death on BOTP forum with far more detailed discussions. I for one just have far too much fatigue with the subject to go into any great depth anymore, I just don't care enough to argue it with people like you, who seem to almost revel in their ignorance of the subject ('old school fighters used to train on guinness' etc).

If you're genuinely interested, which you don't appear to be, read the innumerable threads on the subject on BOTP. Be careful though - you might learn something.

What's the link? I'm genuinely interested in finding out why every sport progresses as time goes on except boxing.

dirk2686 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Every era had crap fighters and crap title challengers.

I'm still waiting on a reason why every sport improves bar boxing which goes backwards mind. So far, I think we've had:

Boxing is physically tough, gritty, and a sport for proper hardmen. Life was harder a century ago, therefore it was better for boxing.
Boxers used to need to fight more as they didn't earn much money. This somehow made them better.
Training, strength and conditioning, diet, and lifestyle were all miles better in the 30's.
Heavyweights don't throw as many bodyshots these days. This means Brian London was probably better than Tyson Fury or something.
If Roger Federer played a prime Fred Perry but only played in two grand slam tournaments a year Perry would win even if he played blind drunk.
Some other bollocks.

It's been done to death on BOTP forum with far more detailed discussions. I for one just have far too much fatigue with the subject to go into any great depth anymore, I just don't care enough to argue it with people like you, who seem to almost revel in their ignorance of the subject ('old school fighters used to train on guinness' etc).

If you're genuinely interested, which you don't appear to be, read the innumerable threads on the subject on BOTP. Be careful though - you might learn something.

What's the link? I'm genuinely interested in finding out why every sport progresses as time goes on except boxing.

No,you're not, you're already convinced it's impossible.

My points about bodypunching were O/T and specifically in reference to a comment that modern fighters are more skilful and have better variety of shots, which to me is painfully and manifestly false for those with eyes to see t.

Anyway as we're on the subject of unanswered questions, how fit to play tennis would Federer be on two ten week training camps and two tournaments a year?

Bricks wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:I think old school fighters were way fitter. Look at Muhammad Ali compared to today's bunch. Jack Dempsey's hard but model looks are superior to any of today's fighters. Max Baer an outlook any of today's so-called heavyweight heartthrobs. One only has to look at Jake la Motta's opponents - Marcel Cerdan, Ray Robinson and Tony Janito to know yesteryear fighters were far fitter.... even in the 80s, Matinee Idol Bobby Czyz, even after he had moved up in weight was better looking than any of today's supposed superstars! Case closed!

i heard virgil hill caused many opponents to gas just based on the effect that pencil moustache had on causing opposing fighters to go weak at the knees

Yup and the 'teak tough' but bisexual James Kinchen, was especially affected and mesmerized, which allowed Quicksilver to take advantage of his weak legs and KO him in one.....

Pre-steroids, the top 100m sprinters ran 10.3s by hand, which is about 10.5 electronically. So on a modern track with modern spikes, Jesse Owens would've been close to a flat 10. With PEDs, I'd guess 9.85 or 9.9.

And as we've recently heard in support of the plan to erase track records prior to 2005, a number of records from the '80s remain unbeaten. The claim is that those records are untouchable because they were achieved with drugs, but the truth is that the vast, vast majority of top athletes have been cycling for decades. There's no way to work out what the non-drug records are.

But save for a few outliers (and the clue's in the name), athletic advancements have been relatively moderate over the past thirty-odd years; in comparison to technology, say. The men's 800m WR was 1:41.7 in 1981 and today it stands at 1:40.9. It improved by two tenths between 1997 and 2012. Don't get me wrong — that's a very real difference at the top, but it's not night and day.

800m records fell dramatically throughout the '60s and '70s, but that throws up something quite interesting... many of us are ready to make comparisons between heavies of the '70s and those of the '30s, and also between those of the '70s and today. Due to widespread agreement that those from the '70s were the best, it's imagined that today's heavies are better than those from the '30s by default, simply because the passing of time's aided performance in sports with measurable goals. We use the '70s as an amalgamation to reduce the contrast between the two periods, but if it's perceived that Joe Louis could've given Ali a fight, then why not — by extension — AJ?

It's definitely true that there are more big heavies around now, but look at Carnera's physique for proof that bodies aren't everything.

Tanzio wrote:Tougher? Yes.

Fitter? No.

^ This ^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUzcDUERLo

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:Tougher? Yes.

Fitter? No.

^ This ^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUzcDUERLo

It's went tits up this thread!

None of today's pansies could maintain the pace of a Balboa.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:None of today's pansies could maintain the pace of a Balboa.

Also important to note that Balboa was using solely old-school training techniques for the Drago fight.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:None of today's pansies could maintain the pace of a Balboa.

Also important to note that Balboa was using solely old-school training techniques for the Drago fight.

Very wise, the best kind of training.

Out of curiosity, what sports are better now than they have ever been? Ok F the ones I watch I'd say men's tennis. Granted it's led by a bunch of older guys, but the depth is crazy. Nfl,nba,mlb & boxing have all seen better days. Golf & mma are debatable.

Carl Froch said he went old school training for groves 2, chopping wood etc!

Look at the result.

Case closed.

It was in front of 80k as well

What a thread this is

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Out of curiosity, what sports are better now than they have ever been? Ok F the ones I watch I'd say men's tennis. Granted it's led by a bunch of older guys, but the depth is crazy. Nfl,nba,mlb & boxing have all seen better days. Golf & mma are debatable.

I follow tennis. Nadal is my guy. But my old man won't believe rhs any modern guy have the beating of bjorn Borg. It's difficult with many sports due to advances in equipment for one.

Usain bolt aside athletics standard is quite low in my opinion.