Heavyweights: Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 22 Jun 2007, 13:20

By psychology I meant finding motivation for training and keeping yourself in good shape.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 22 Jun 2007, 14:01

..if the number of punches is relevent here, then joe louis would rank at the bottom or close to it....he probably threw fewer punches than any of these guys.....and his ratio to punches thrown to punches landed would be among the highest....maybe THE highest...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Jun 2007, 14:45

Senya13 wrote:By psychology I meant finding motivation for training and keeping yourself in good shape.

Still an interesting opinion that I'm sure is not shared by most.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 22 Jun 2007, 15:04

Senya13 wrote:Let's see. From lower weights to heavy.
Manny Pacquiao.
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Ricky Hatton.
Bernard Hopkins.
Roy Jones Jr (before moving back down to 175lb from heavyweight).

Give me 5 names from the 1950's, best conditoned men from same weights where the above 5 were fighting.
You can pick on bad examples as much as you want, I can do the same thing by browsing through 1950's Ring magazines and reading fight reports.

Psychology of people (and of sportsmen) hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

As for today's heavyweights. If you want to compare it properly, it has to be done in percentages instead, as average weight of modern top heavyweights is some 30-40 pounds heavier than top heavys of 1950's.

You are switching again, from 1950's to 1940's and back, will you stop at one time period instead? How many today's heavyweights baloon up to 300lb between fights, give exact examples? I can recall Buster Douglas, but he had an illness if I remember correctly.

I can just as easily find examples on film of fighters from 1950's who looked bad conditioned. The thing is it's hard to compare it, because of the difference in quantity of fights that are on film, there are hundred times more fight videos of today's fighters than of 1950's fights.

Examples of heavyweight fights.
Rahman vs Tua I, Hasim averaged 84 punches per round (according to Compubox), 44 power shots and 40 jabs.
David Tua in his fights vs Izon and Ibeabuchi averaged 63 punches per round. Tua-Ibeabuchi together threw 1730 punches in their fight, 975 for Ike (81 punches per round) to 755 for Tua (63 punches per round). Rahman-Maskaev I, Hasim threw 60 punches per round. W. Klitschko - Byrd I, Wladimir 59 punches per round. McCline vs Fields, McCline 73 punches per round, Fields 65 punches per round. Briggs vs Fields, Fields threw 89 punches per round, Briggs 51 punches per round.
Average for modern heavyweights is 46-49 punches per round.

Rahman, Bowe, Tua, Johnson, Toney, Brewster etc. have all gotten into at least the 270s or higher in between fights.

Compubox is a load of bollucks. Even compare one of the big recent HW "compubox record" fights Tua-Ibeabuchi and compare to Baer-Nova . . .the amount of hard punches thrown, movement of the fighters etc. is not even close. Ike-Tua was a good (but not great) fight which consisted of a lot of both fighters, flat-footed, leaning on each other and throwing "stay-busy" body shots that were about as effective as drying yourself with a hose. And there are many more fights that set "compubox records" that were 10 times below Ike-Tua and were generally crap fights, but b/c compubox vounts taps and pawing as punches they set "records"

Briggs-Fields . . . .post a clip of that fight so everyone can see how "active" those guys were . .

The HWs today aren't heavier b/c they are naturally bigger . . .they are heavier b/c they train like Damon Wayans does in the "Great White Hype"

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 22 Jun 2007, 15:18

Sorry, but any claims of "extremelly well conditioned" is even less backed up by evidence, than the compubox stats (they often give stats for landed punches wrong, but as for thrown punches they are more or less close to truth, usually). It's not limited to 1940s or 1950s, older times (with fights of 20 rounds and more) weren't any different. It only seems that way that if they were fighting so many rounds, they must have had much better stamina and conditioning, but reading fight reports from those times proves this theory false.

Boxrec database statistics (unofficial) shows that modern heavyweights are bigger than heavyweights of the 1950's. Several inches taller (on average) and much heavier.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 22 Jun 2007, 17:10

Senya13 wrote:Sorry, but any claims of "extremelly well conditioned" is even less backed up by evidence, than the compubox stats (they often give stats for landed punches wrong, but as for thrown punches they are more or less close to truth, usually). It's not limited to 1940s or 1950s, older times (with fights of 20 rounds and more) weren't any different. It only seems that way that if they were fighting so many rounds, they must have had much better stamina and conditioning, but reading fight reports from those times proves this theory false.

Boxrec database statistics (unofficial) shows that modern heavyweights are bigger than heavyweights of the 1950's. Several inches taller (on average) and much heavier.

The median height is not any greater . . .of course if you take the average Valuev will jack up today's heights a good deal.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Jun 2007, 19:07

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

I know most will laugh at this Sim but some of us think Ezzard had something like this in him. The Knockdowns might be a bit much and I hate to see anyone lose between these two fighters. Holyfield actually has a higher rating on the sim so this outcome is a bit of a fluke.

But just like the real events....I don't run 'em twice. I imagine in one hundred runs Holy would have the edge.....

but outside of Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles I don't think anyone fought a series of one hundred fights. Ezzard of course won all the official fights but Archie won over 95 sparring sessions with Ezz. The Mongoose just seem to choke in the clutch when the crowds showed up. Or maybe he just really liked ol' Ezz.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 23 Jun 2007, 01:02

..buzzy..the only time archie ever sparred with ezzard was after charles knocked him down in the seventh round of their second fight...he requested head gear and body protection but the rules said no...so he just went into his shell and let ezzard get some roadwork in chasing him around the ring...

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 23 Jun 2007, 01:35

dempseyfire wrote:The median height is not any greater . . .of course if you take the average Valuev will jack up today's heights a good deal.

Based on boxrec data in late 2005 - early 2006

average height of heavyweights (not just top fighters, but anyone listed in the heavyweight division)
1940-1959 - 180cm (5'10 3/4")
1960-1979 - 181 (5'11 1/4")
1980-1999 - 184 (6' 1/2")
2000-2005 - 188 (6'2")

average weight of heavyweights
1940-1959 - 85,72 kg (189lb)
1960-1979 - 88,78 (196lb)
1980-1999 - 96,42 (213lb)
2000-2005 - 101,62 (224lb)

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jun 2007, 10:39

Jaclem wrote:..buzzy..the only time archie ever sparred with ezzard was after charles knocked him down in the seventh round of their second fight...he requested head gear and body protection but the rules said no...so he just went into his shell and let ezzard get some roadwork in chasing him around the ring...

Why are you driven to always speak out when I assist by insinuating a well thought out and deliberated nuance in order help the natural evolution of mythology into this sport? It is a well documented and proven conclusion (and has been taken to heart by many cultures), that accuracy is not all that it's cracked up to be. Often times simplistic reality can be improved upon by the caring hand of the fictional craftsman.

The primitive historian is but a tape recorder.....However the well trained revisionist is a master engineer in charge of shaping the future.

Those who own the present, own the past. And of course those who own the past....own the future. It is the "high tech" gadgetry of philosophy and this simple idea is more powerful than any material based silicon revolution.

Now about those 90 plus sparring sessions.......

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 23 Jun 2007, 14:04

..buzzy..i am in agreement with your statements on this thread...i was merely correcting one small error you made, obviously from a misinformed source, possibly from the spirit of archie himself, who said the won the second fight with ezzard so many times that eventually he started to believe it himself......

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jun 2007, 14:07

Jaclem wrote:..buzzy..i am in agreement with your statements on this thread...i was merely correcting one small error you made, obviously from a misinformed source, possibly from the spirit of archie himself, who said the won the second fight with ezzard so many times that eventually he started to believe it himself......

I beleive he did win that fight.....it all has to do with conspiracies too numerous to mention. Granberry has the details.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 23 Jun 2007, 14:09

..damn..that was fast...you've broken the record for swiftest reply to a post!!!!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jun 2007, 05:45

Senya13 wrote: Psychology of people (and of sportsmen) hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

Senya, it's good for someone to debate from the side of contemporary fighters but this line above is about as wrong as you possibly could be.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 06:51

I already clarified what I meant by psychology.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jun 2007, 07:08

Psychology of people (and of sportsmen) hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

By psychology I meant finding motivation for training and keeping yourself in good shape.

The psychology of people's motivation for training and staying in shape???

You could argue that people's motivation for anything hasn't changed since the dawn of man but that would be such a broad statement as to be pretty menaingless.

The psychology of motivation might look something like...

1) Will the actions I am undertaking improve my chances of survival?

2) Will the actions I am undertaking improve my opportunity to enhance my influence and power amongst my fellow men?

3) Do the actions I am undertaking provide me with meaning and/or are they intrinsically satisfying for me?

As you can see these are never going to change but they hardly paint a picture that we recognise when discussing the psychological motivation of someone in 2007 compared to someone in 1957.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 07:41

There's a theory of motivation, that is part of psychology science, if you are interested in this subject (it was one of the parts of psychology that got me interested and that I read some books and articles about). After you've read about it, you may want to go through the history of boxing, as far as Jack Broughton's loss to Jack Slack, and you will find plenty of examples that prove things haven't changed much.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:06

Senya13 wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:The median height is not any greater . . .of course if you take the average Valuev will jack up today's heights a good deal.
Based on boxrec data in late 2005 - early 2006

average height of heavyweights (not just top fighters, but anyone listed in the heavyweight division)
1940-1959 - 180cm (5'10 3/4")
1960-1979 - 181 (5'11 1/4")
1980-1999 - 184 (6' 1/2")
2000-2005 - 188 (6'2")

average weight of heavyweights
1940-1959 - 85,72 kg (189lb)
1960-1979 - 88,78 (196lb)
1980-1999 - 96,42 (213lb)
2000-2005 - 101,62 (224lb)

Take the MEDIAN, not average. And regardless, no way in hell was the average HW height in the 1940s 5'10 . . .

where did you pull these stats from?

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:35

One guy managed to download page by page records for all fighters that were online at boxrec in late 2005-early 2006 (I know it's not a good thing for him to do, but what's done is done), and processed all pages, extracting the info from them. So on a request from another person he ran a program that chose all fighters that were ranked at heavyweight division, and who had fights in those time period and calculated average height of those fighters, and average weight they had in bouts during those periods (of course, where such info was available).

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:39

Senya13 wrote:There's a theory of motivation, that is part of psychology science, if you are interested in this subject (it was one of the parts of psychology that got me interested and that I read some books and articles about). After you've read about it, you may want to go through the history of boxing, as far as Jack Broughton's loss to Jack Slack, and you will find plenty of examples that prove things haven't changed much.

That's not a debate it's just a claim by you that you read some books/articles that you don't even bother to reference.

There are many, many theories of motivation...from the ludicrous "away day" workshops for the corporate salesmen and women of the world to the simplest of the classical models (Maslow).

And finding an example of something that fits with a theory does not prove the theory. It may support it, back it up ass it's weight to circumstantial evidence etc... but that's different.

As I said, the prime motivational factor (for the main part) is survival, that has not changed, almost every other factor has.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:51

There's a lot more than survival.
I could give you names of the books, but what would be the point, as they are in Russian. One of them, or to be precise, a chapter on this subject, is a 3-volume Psychology book (published in 2000s, so it's modern one) that's recommended for universities that specialize on doctors or teachers (one volume is dedicated to development of children, from the time they are born until they are in school). It describes different theories that exist on the subject, and what are weak and strong points of them, and gives list of additional literature on the subject.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:14

There's a lot more than survival, that's my point... I am just finding it difficult to go beyond this in terms of factors that will have not changed over the last 50 years. To be fair to you it's only one line in your argument but it's one that interests me.

I think that psychological/sociological factors are the ones that have changed the most in the past 50 years.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:29

The thing is, there were different reasons for motivation for different fighters and at different stages of their career. If you want to say that people 50 years ago had more difficult life and the circumstances were more different to survive, then there are plenty of people (or fighters) who experience pretty much the same things. Even if we don't want to consider poor countries, in the U.S. a lot of fighters get very little money for their fights and have their mind on where to get enough food or clothes for their family. While the higher-paid fighters get lazy often, same as had been in the past.
Reminds me of one fight I saw recently, David Gogiya fought Cristian Sanavia in France on June 1. The cornermen of Gogiya were trying to persuade their fighter between the rounds, that he had to do better, fight more aggressively, telling him things like "Do you want to support your family or not, you don't need food, clothes, car? You want your kids to go to normal school?" and things like that. Alas, he lost the fight.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:39

Senya13 wrote:One guy managed to download page by page records for all fighters that were online at boxrec in late 2005-early 2006 (I know it's not a good thing for him to do, but what's done is done), and processed all pages, extracting the info from them. So on a request from another person he ran a program that chose all fighters that were ranked at heavyweight division, and who had fights in those time period and calculated average height of those fighters, and average weight they had in bouts during those periods (of course, where such info was available).

Show me some evidence. Your contention of viewing evidence from "this guy" and "another person" is not convincing to say the least.

The 1940s, with Ray Imp, Buddy Baer, Ace Clark, Abe Simon etc. had as many "super HWs" as you have today.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:46

Senya13 wrote:The thing is, there were different reasons for motivation for different fighters and at different stages of their career. If you want to say that people 50 years ago had more difficult life and the circumstances were more different to survive, then there are plenty of people (or fighters) who experience pretty much the same things. Even if we don't want to consider poor countries, in the U.S. a lot of fighters get very little money for their fights and have their mind on where to get enough food or clothes for their family. While the higher-paid fighters get lazy often, same as had been in the past.
Reminds me of one fight I saw recently, David Gogiya fought Cristian Sanavia in France on June 1. The cornermen of Gogiya were trying to persuade their fighter between the rounds, that he had to do better, fight more aggressively, telling him things like "Do you want to support your family or not, you don't need food, clothes, car? You want your kids to go to normal school?" and things like that. Alas, he lost the fight.

All I want to say is that we live in a vastly different world. The differences are so complex that it would be a huge undertaking for us to attempt to unravel them.

But even the quite you offer shows the differences. The similarity is survival: supporting kids, food, etc... But look at what is being said... a "car" was not a given 50 years ago.

You are spot on when you talk about people in poorer countries in the world.