Why do people rate old fighters so much?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:24

Controversial wrote:
headhunter wrote:the american 200 / 400 sprint king michael johnson recently did a thoughtful sports documentary on british television regarding the `fastest man on the planet`. it was a through the ages look at sprinting and the 100m title.
he said since harold ahbrams (chariots of fire) won the 100m in 1924 the record has dropped about half a second. he said even without modern training if you stuck a pair of my (johnsons) spikes on harold and let him run on these modern `fast` tracks ( they ran on cinders in those days)with starting blocks he would be pretty close to that anyway.
johnson was interested in why people thought that the modern training was better, he said the difference in times could easily be explained by the use of starting blocks alone, never mind footwear and track surfaces.
he discussed with alan wells who never trained with weights, that just because the sprinters walk around like mini arnold schwartzenegger`s these days doesnt mean they are better sprinters because years ago they trained for the sprinting not weightlifting.
i think its similar with boxing. maybe the modern heavy`s are getting so much bigger than their predecessors that size must become a factor but i dont necessarily think a guy at 140 these days has more strength than a guy at 140 70 years ago.
However you look at it all athletic times or distances gradually get improved on as the years go on. Thats a fact, maybe not smashed year in year out but they get improved on.

My point was about heavyweights not the lighter weights. The facts remain heavyweigths today are huge compared to guys from the 1940-1950s. Like I said that doesn't mean better but bigger they are. And in my opinion a good modern heavyweight will always have a huge advantage over a good smaller heavyweight from the past.

They are OVERWEIGHT! WHy are americans 25 lbs heavier? B/C they are FAT!!
Heavyweights today-Rahman, Johnson, Tua, Peter= WAY too much mass for their frames in the game of professional prizefighting. Peter looked like a tank but got completly gassed during the 5th round vs Klitschko and never recovered. Max Baer, who was taller then Peter but weighed a good 30 lbs less, would've never looked so pathetic by the 14th round, let alone the 5th.

Swimming times . . . .you know how FEW people SWAM 50-60 years ago??? Hell in the 20s they swam off the friggin' harbor!

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:31

UpWithEvil wrote:
I was being sarcastic. You cannot compare the running times of a horse with a human being.
I never compared humans to horses. I compared horses from 1920 to horses today. Since we're talking about humans from that era and comparing them to today, I thought that would be a good place to start. After all, training methods have improved for humans and horses, and horses are specifically bred for speed while humans aren't specifically bred for much of anything. The Kentucky Derby is run on the same course today as it was in 1920, so again, I ask once more - how many of today's modern runners are running in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did?

You are trying to say that horses ran just as fast years ago than horses today
I'm not "trying" to say anything. The facts are the facts. "Old Rosebud", the 1914 winner, ran essentially the same time as "Giacomo" this year - half-a-second seperates them over 90 years of training and breeding.

That has absoluletly nothing to do with how humans have, and will continue to get bigger.
Explain to us why this is so. As dempseyfire noted, a few scant generations of haphazard breeding aren't enough for any evolutionary pressure on size to take effect.

Have a look at the times swimmers finish races compared to 50 years ago, they are much much faster today.
Indeed, I'm a former competative swimmer. What can you tell us about the swimming techniques practiced during, say, Johnny Weissmuller's era and today? The front crawl wasn't even a competition stroke until Jim Jeffries was heavyweight champion of the world, with the butterfly stroke first entering competition in 1936! Imagine that - the basic "dolphin kick" not even in practice during Joe Louis's early career! And you're surprised that these brand-new techniques were improved on soon after they debuted? Wowie!

What was the average weight of a top 10 heavyweight in 1950? At a guess I'd say 13-14 stone, maybe slightly higher, maybe not.

What is the average weight of a top 10 heavyweight today? At a guess about 16-17 stone, maybe slightly higher, maybe not.
Bigger doesn't equate to better. Bob Fitzsimmons was knocking out 6'6 brawlers when he weighed 160lbs. Do you think Mike Tyson at 240lb was a better fighter than Mike Tyson at 215? Was Fred Fulton at 6'4 and 220lbs a more dangerous fighter than Jack Dempsey at 6'1 and 187? If size conferred such an advantage you'd expect to see it most clearly when your average heavyweight was around 190lb, would you not?

So what does that tell you then? People today are naturally bigger.
"Naturally" has nothing to do with it. Better medicine and nutrition prevent diseases which stunt growth and bring up the overall average (seen anyone with rickets lately?) but I still don't see any evidence that this tiny increase in average size, which you yourself quote as being a mere INCH in height, improves the quality of a fighter.

"Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002."
People are fatter - that's your strongest evidence here. Of course many elite athletes are juiced to the gill with steroids, but that's another story for another thread. I'm pretty sure carrying around that extra bulk won't improve a fighter's ability to compete for a mere 15 rounds, to say nothing of the 20+ rounders of the early era.

I still cannot see your logic for using horses when the topic is boxing? And you are being selective in my answer, as I said 'bigger doesn't necessarily mean better'.

The facts are people are getting bigger, whether you like it or not, thats why heavyweights today are so much bigger than heavyweights from 50-60 years ago. I'm 6ft and 14 stone yet I see school children taller and bigger built than me, I'm sure most people do.

A good BIG boxer will always have a advantage over a good SMALL boxer, you don't have to be Einstein to work that out.

Lennox Lewis gets rubbished because he was KO'd twice, yet Archie Moore was stopped several times, once by 1st round KO, Jersey Joe Walcott was stopped several times before the Marciano fights, Ezzard Charles was stopped, Joe Louis was KOe'd, in fact many of the older fighters were stopped yet this seems to get forgotten.

Maybe you can anwser my earlier question?

If training methods were supposedly so much better years ago, and boxing skill was so much better years ago does that mean no modern fighter could beat the old timers? No of course not, many of todays fighters would whup the old timers and many modern fighters were just as skilled as the old timers. Did Marciano have superb boxing skill?

So if todays fighters could beat the older ones and their weight, size and supposidly lack of boxing ability has nothing to do with it, how would they do it?

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:37

The Great John L wrote:
Controversial wrote:
The Great John L wrote: What!!??

How could you possibly come to that conclusion from what I wrote? I didn't say ANYTHING about how modern "greats" would perform against fighters from the past. I was simply saying that

Far fewer trainers + Far fewer gyms = better trained fighters

Doesn't make ANY sense, and is in fact pretty indefensible.
Your point is older fighters were better trained than todays fighters because there were more gyms and trainers.....is that what your saying?

Well if you are saying that logic dictates that if they are so much better trained in the past then they must be much better than todays fighters....right?

Well if todays fighters are inferior to the older fighters how can todays fighters be competitive?
You sure do get from A to Z rather quickly. You failed English Comp I'll bet? Or perhaps your emotions preclude you from reasonable comprehension?

I don't need to repeat what I've stated several times. You seem to want to read into it more than what is there, and I can't respond to that. There are fighters now who could beat top fighters from the past. And there are fighters from the past who could beat todays best. In general, there were vastly more capable fighters in the past than there are now, and that doesn't even seem to be contestable.

yes, todays HW's are bigger, and I've stated in the past that the size is hard to ignore. But they are also generally very poorly trained, and all seem to run out of steam after several decent rounds of fighting. The Klits, McCline, Goofi and all of the other giants of today are not an overly skilled lot. Lewis is just about the only really super size HW who has any legitimate claim to being highly skilled. The 70's greats are just that -- great. However, they all started fighting when boxing was still rather popular, and you could actually find a boxing gym in most mid size and larger towns.

Your argument has no logic. Why were you rambling on about how great the older fighters were trained and skilled if you concede that some of todays fighters would beat them? If they were so great surely they would beat todays 'very poorly trained heavyweights'?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:45

Did Marciano have superb boxing skill?

what are u implying???

if u knew anything about marciano u would realize he was the farthest thing away from a stylish boxer. but he used the advantagess he had aand made himself into a great fighter. he was ackward and used it to his advantge making himself a very small target and hard to hit, especially in the crouch. he had boxing skill in his own way, a way no other fighter will ever use.

theres a theory the more shots u take on goal, ur bound to eventually get one in. marciano never stopped throwing punches becaause eventually ur bound to get that one home. but usually he was more tactical at the approach he used to get in.

walcott lost fights by knockout before his prime when he was malnourished, poor, with no training, coming on last minutes notice to faace top contenders

walcott outboxed and embarassed abe simon for 5 rounds but walcott was terrible malnourished with no stamina and he basically collapsed in the 6th round due to exhaustion.

louis was knocked out by schmeling whos better than rahman and mcail, and when he was past his prime by legendery marciano

charles lost most of his fights before or after his prime. he was only knocked out once in his prime, by cutie jersey joe walcott left hook.

bck in the day fighters fought a lot more, so losing a fight here and there wasnt as big a deal

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 31 Oct 2005, 13:03

Controversial wrote:Your argument has no logic. Why were you rambling on about how great the older fighters were trained and skilled if you concede that some of todays fighters would beat them? If they were so great surely they would beat todays 'very poorly trained heavyweights'?

Yep, failed English Comp. You can always back for your degree regardless of age.

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 31 Oct 2005, 13:16

I still cannot see your logic for using horses when the topic is boxing?

Go read through the thread. My comment of horses was relevant to the discussion on the improving times in track events. If you can't keep up with the discussion, do you really think you should spend so much time claiming everone else doesn't know what they're talking about?

And you are being selective in my answer, as I said 'bigger doesn't necessarily mean better'.

You also said, "A good BIG boxer will always have a advantage over a good SMALL boxer, you don't have to be Einstein to work that out. " I don't know who to believe - you or you. Maybe the two of you should debate each other and then come back when you've reached a agreement.

I assume size was the advantage Einstein had over Charles Steinmetz?

The facts are people are getting bigger

Fatter, mostly. Your own sources validate that.

thats why heavyweights today are so much bigger than heavyweights from 50-60 years ago.

72 years ago Primo Carnera was heavyweight champion.

I'm 6ft and 14 stone yet I see school children taller and bigger built than me, I'm sure most people do.

Why do you think this is so? Remember, evolutionary pressure takes longer than one mere generation to have an appreciable effect on size, so what do you attribute it to? Perhaps Lamark was right?

Would you be interested in doing some reading? Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Lennox Lewis gets rubbished because he was KO'd twice

...by journeyman chumps.

yet Archie Moore was stopped several times

Archie Moore had 200 fights. Based on a simple projection, Lennox would have been KO'd nearly a dozen times had he kept up Moore's remarkable pace. Obviously the actual total would have been much higher for Lennox had he fought in to his late-40s as Moore did.

in fact many of the older fighters were stopped yet this seems to get forgotten.

I don't think anyone has "forgotten" anything, but perhaps others have a better understand of the concept of "context". Your Moore/Lewis comparison, for example, seems woefully lacking in context.

Maybe you can anwser my earlier question?

I'll take a crack at it.

If training methods were supposedly so much better years ago, and boxing skill was so much better years ago does that mean no modern fighter could beat the old timers?

Well, here's a little hint from Debate 101 - avoid terms like "always", "never", "every", "none", and in the case of your argument here, "no", as in "no modern fighter". I'm sure that many a modern boxer would have acheived championship success in an earlier era, just as I'm sure many of the early greats would have been very successful today. Indeed, that's the exact point I've been trying to make.

Did Marciano have superb boxing skill?

Does John Ruiz?

So if todays fighters could beat the older ones and their weight, size and supposidly lack of boxing ability has nothing to do with it, how would they do it?

Probably by hitting them repeatedly and avoiding taking too much damage in return. What did you have in mind?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 31 Oct 2005, 18:05

Height-wise heavyweights are NOT taller then those of 60 years ago.

The 1930s had your Whitaker, McCline, Klitschko, and yes even some 6'9 guys like Valuev.

Thing was beside B. Baer and Simon they never became top contenders.

Heavyweights today ARE heavier, and it doesn't take Einestein to see they are abhorrently out of condition and/or musclebound. Of the HWs today I'd say only Byrd and the Klitschkos are the ones not at LEAST 15 lbs overweight, and you could even argue Byrd is b/c he walks around at 190 and artificially pumps up in weight before every fight!!!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Oct 2005, 18:23

i agree dempsey fire. look at a guy like toney, he should be coming in at 200lbs every fight, hell have more speed.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 31 Oct 2005, 18:29

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i agree dempsey fire. look at a guy like toney, he should be coming in at 200lbs every fight, hell have more speed.

Do you think that if Toney drops to say 200-205 he would still be able to take HW shots? It seems logical to me that he would be quicker, but mabey he feels like hes not strong enough at that weight. Or hes the laziest talented boxer of this generation.

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 31 Oct 2005, 18:53

Do you think that if Toney drops to say 200-205 he would still be able to take HW shots?

I don't see where generalized bulk would help a fighter endure more punishment in the ring. Perhaps if a fighter could gain 10lbs of neck muscle it might yield some benefits, but given that you're more likely to see 10 lbs of bicep and deltoid when a fighter moves up in weight I'm skeptical of the advantage. Evander Holyfield outweighs Joe Louis by nearly 20lb but by most anatomic metrics they are the same size.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 31 Oct 2005, 20:27

UpWithEvil wrote:
Do you think that if Toney drops to say 200-205 he would still be able to take HW shots?
I don't see where generalized bulk would help a fighter endure more punishment in the ring. Perhaps if a fighter could gain 10lbs of neck muscle it might yield some benefits, but given that you're more likely to see 10 lbs of bicep and deltoid when a fighter moves up in weight I'm skeptical of the advantage. Evander Holyfield outweighs Joe Louis by nearly 20lb but by most anatomic metrics they are the same size.

Toney's girth helps him take heavyweight shots???

I guess Butterbean should be the most durable HW out there!

But seriously, extra mass isn't gonna help your chin one bit. Toney was sparring and whupping on heavyweights when he weighed 175 in the gym back in the 90s.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 31 Oct 2005, 22:33

I'll say it once again using as few words as possible. Show me a heavyweight today under 200 lbs in the top 50. And like I said before also, if you want to believe there will never again be another Marciano or Dempsey that's fine, but how about at least a guy there size who cracks the top 50.

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 31 Oct 2005, 23:19

Seamus wrote:I'll say it once again using as few words as possible. Show me a heavyweight today under 200 lbs in the top 50. And like I said before also, if you want to believe there will never again be another Marciano or Dempsey that's fine, but how about at least a guy there size who cracks the top 50.

After Michael Spinks every borderline heavyweight felt compelled to hit the weights and put on 20lb of juiced-up muscle in order to "fit in". Chris Byrd is 6' even, he could be at 195lb *easy*. James Toney is 5-effin-9, you think he needs to fatten up to 235?

My lord, please don't make me watch a rematch between a 235lb Toney and the newly meatnormous Vassiliy Jirov at 225lb. I prefer to remember them both when they looked like athletes.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 01 Nov 2005, 07:34

Seamus wrote:I'll say it once again using as few words as possible. Show me a heavyweight today under 200 lbs in the top 50. And like I said before also, if you want to believe there will never again be another Marciano or Dempsey that's fine, but how about at least a guy there size who cracks the top 50.

why would thier be a HW under 200 when that is the Crusier division? I get what your saying, but it doesnt really apply anymore.

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Nov 2005, 09:29

Toney was sparring and whupping on heavyweights when he weighed 175 in the gym back in the 90s.

If Toney still wieghed 175, he never would have been competitve with the likes of Holyfield, Guinn or even Ruiz. Extra weight on a good fighter,no matter how it looks can make them stronger, help them stand thier ground against bigger opponents and make them hit harder.

And like I said before also, if you want to believe there will never again be another Marciano or Dempsey that's fine, but how about at least a guy there size who cracks the top 50.

This is true. Also, if the turn of the century fighters fought so well, how come nobody uses thier style anymore in the ring? All those pictures and the earliest films early of fighters show a very primative looking style that would not be effective today.

why would thier be a HW under 200 when that is the Crusier division? I get what your saying, but it doesnt really apply anymore.

If those crusiers cvould successfully compete at heavywieght, dont you think they would? The reason people fight in the crusierweight divison is because the heavyweights are too much for them. Every good crusier weright that wanted to be a heavyweight knew they couldnt compete at less than 200lbs.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Nov 2005, 09:45

[quote="theone"]If Toney still wieghed 175, he never would have been competitve with the likes of Holyfield, Guinn or even Ruiz. Extra weight on a good fighter,no matter how it looks can make them stronger, help them stand thier ground against bigger opponents and make them hit harder.
[quote]

So are you saying that there's still hope for Butterbean?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 14:24

theone wrote:
Toney was sparring and whupping on heavyweights when he weighed 175 in the gym back in the 90s.
If Toney still wieghed 175, he never would have been competitve with the likes of Holyfield, Guinn or even Ruiz. Extra weight on a good fighter,no matter how it looks can make them stronger, help them stand thier ground against bigger opponents and make them hit harder.
And like I said before also, if you want to believe there will never again be another Marciano or Dempsey that's fine, but how about at least a guy there size who cracks the top 50.
This is true. Also, if the turn of the century fighters fought so well, how come nobody uses thier style anymore in the ring? All those pictures and the earliest films early of fighters show a very primative looking style that would not be effective today.
why would thier be a HW under 200 when that is the Crusier division? I get what your saying, but it doesnt really apply anymore.
If those crusiers cvould successfully compete at heavywieght, dont you think they would? The reason people fight in the crusierweight divison is because the heavyweights are too much for them. Every good crusier weright that wanted to be a heavyweight knew they couldnt compete at less than 200lbs.

Why are there no good HWs below 200 lbs? Two reasons:

1) Heavily depleted talent pool-athletes the size of Dempsey and Louis aren't going into boxing anymore-they become recievers, power-forwards, or running backs. That's why you have b-ball rejects like McCline and Jefferson showing up in the HW rankings . . .the U.S. doesn't even have a viable amatuer program for HWs anymore
2) LAZINESS-Guess what? Benching 3-4 times a week is a lot easier then running 4 miles a day and doing harcore calistenic and gym work. Guys like Rahman, Williams, Tua, and Johnson, if they had discipline and a trainer would didn't put up with crap, would be in the 190-210 lb range, in REAL shape.

Cruiserweight-all of the real good cruisers DO move up to heavyweight (Toney, Jirov, Mormeck probably will eventually) It was created in the 80s to produce more sanctioning fees, but b/c they had found out some hard evidence that 190 lb HWs couldn't compete anymore.

If you think the Toney who fought Jirov couldn't have beaten Guinn, Holyfield, and Booker, in much more impressive fashion, I suggest you need to go back and review some tapes and boxing history. Again, extra fat doesn't help you as a fighter, in ANY way. Punching power has to do with NATURAL size and technique. Size has to do with bone and skeletal structure, not body weight.

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:58

So are you saying that there's still hope for Butterbean?

I think you missed the part when I said good fighter.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 19:24

theone wrote

Extra weight on a good fighter,no matter how it looks can make them stronger, help them stand thier ground against bigger opponents and make them hit harder.

so are u saying marciano would hve been better if he fought at his natural weight of around 210lb??

dempsey fire wrote

If you think the Toney who fought Jirov couldn't have beaten Guinn, Holyfield, and Booker, in much more impressive fashion, I suggest you need to go back and review some tapes and boxing history. Again, extra fat doesn't help you as a fighter, in ANY way. Punching power has to do with NATURAL size and technique. Size has to do with bone and skeletal structure, not body weight.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:29

Dempseyfire

Are you serious ??? Guys the seize of Louis and Dempsey are becoming power forwards ??? Even running backs keep getting bigger and bigger. If anything an argument could be made that the heavyweight division is losing the 6-5 245 guys to football, not the 6-1 195 guys.

Don't mean to sound like a broken record, but when every hypothetical argument has been made that negates size and weight advantage, I still stand by the argument that just as we no longer have 240 lb offensive linemen in the NFL, it's a fact we no longer have 190 lb heavyweights even becoming fringe contenders.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:06

an aging 193lb roy jones won the title

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:16

Jones v Ruiz was a joke. And to prove it RJJ wanted no part of defending his bogus title.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:17

Seamus wrote:Dempseyfire

Are you serious ??? Guys the seize of Louis and Dempsey are becoming power forwards ??? Even running backs keep getting bigger and bigger. If anything an argument could be made that the heavyweight division is losing the 6-5 245 guys to football, not the 6-1 195 guys.

Don't mean to sound like a broken record, but when every hypothetical argument has been made that negates size and weight advantage, I still stand by the argument that just as we no longer have 240 lb offensive linemen in the NFL, it's a fact we no longer have 190 lb heavyweights even becoming fringe contenders.

Last time I checked recievers still weigh in the 175-200 lb range, and running backs can vary from 195-225. Jim Brown was a solid 230 lbs. Barry Sanders barely scaled 200.

Football is a bad comparison b/c the game as we know it started in the 1950s and took years to develop. Until the 80s, pro football players didn't even have an off-season and worked other jobs for over half the year. Now it's a full-time job and the number of people wanting to play pro football has increased a good deal the last 40 years . . . .not the same story for boxing.

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 02 Nov 2005, 07:44

Seamus wrote:Dempseyfire

Are you serious ??? Guys the seize of Louis and Dempsey are becoming power forwards ??? Even running backs keep getting bigger and bigger. If anything an argument could be made that the heavyweight division is losing the 6-5 245 guys to football, not the 6-1 195 guys.

Don't mean to sound like a broken record, but when every hypothetical argument has been made that negates size and weight advantage, I still stand by the argument that just as we no longer have 240 lb offensive linemen in the NFL, it's a fact we no longer have 190 lb heavyweights even becoming fringe contenders.

i`m no expert on american footy but i reckon most of those fella`s are juiced up to the eyeballs.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 02 Nov 2005, 08:45

UpWithEvil wrote:
Seamus wrote:I'll say it once again using as few words as possible. Show me a heavyweight today under 200 lbs in the top 50. And like I said before also, if you want to believe there will never again be another Marciano or Dempsey that's fine, but how about at least a guy there size who cracks the top 50.
After Michael Spinks every borderline heavyweight felt compelled to hit the weights and put on 20lb of juiced-up muscle in order to "fit in". Chris Byrd is 6' even, he could be at 195lb *easy*. James Toney is 5-effin-9, you think he needs to fatten up to 235?

My lord, please don't make me watch a rematch between a 235lb Toney and the newly meatnormous Vassiliy Jirov at 225lb. I prefer to remember them both when they looked like athletes.

Michael Spinks was a natural light-heavyweight and had to bulk up, Borderline heavys may have done the same because the moneys in heavyweight boxing not the cruiserweights.