BoxRec

nytony wrote:Even though Chuvalo was a bottom of the pack contender- he is still miles ahead of Austin.

I expected Austin to do better than he showed- I expected him to smother Wlad and make it uncomfortable for him- well we know what happened.

BTW- Looking at that Foreman-Chuvalo clip- I can see Rocky Marciano beating George. Based on memory I woulda said no- but seeing that clip, I changed my mind.

KOJOE90 wrote:George Chuvalo got my vote due to his superior drability, body punching and longevity at a higher level.

jimglen wrote:EXACTLY Amsterdam...it just about knocks me out!

cosand wrote:This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Amsterdam



Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 28

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.



Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

Amsterdam wrote:

cosand wrote:This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

dempseyfire



Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.



Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.


How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.


Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago

cosand wrote:

dempseyfire



Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.



Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.


How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.


Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago

It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking

dempseyfire Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
dempseyfire



Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.



Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.


How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.


Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago


It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking


This is a load of bull-larky my friend.

There is no noticeable evolution of the "non-athletic physiology" in an 100 time span. That whole idea is a myth. Me and my peers are stronger, faster, etc. than my grandad and his buddies b/c he's two generations removed? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and makes no scientific sense from a genetic standpoint or any other standpoint.

Ive been in several boxing gyms in the past 5 years. I saw no 'eye-opening' anything that I didn't see 20 years ago, except the kids overall are less disciplined and carry more attitude. Potassium levels??? LOL . . . so fightes of the past didn't know the nutritional benefits of bananas?

Muscle groups . . .you don't think trainers in the 1920s knew about the idea of different exercises for different parts of the body. Just look at any old-time grainy footage of Dempsey and co training and they didn't things for the legs, abs, arms, shoulders etc. Just b/c people put a new name to something doesn't mean it's a new concept.

And Robinson went 15 hard rounds a load of times. Extreme heat made a past-it Robinson collapse, so to cite that as some lack of stamina is absurd.

Next I'm sure you'll bring up Olympic times, baseball stats etc. You have people breaking records for 2 main reasons:

1) A Greater pool of participation equating to more overall talent. As I stated before, basketball and football are much more popular and take their pickings from a much larger talent pool than 40 years ago. Ditto with most Olympic sports

2) Changes in equipment that affect the game (not too relevant to boxing b/c you still have two guys with gloves on in a ring) Put Gale Sayers in modern shoes running on modern turf and I have no doubt he is a top running back in the NFL. Ditto with Jim Brown. Ditto with the top track runners of the 40s. They were running on dirt tracks with absolute crap for footwear. Look at the shoes Jesss Owens co. wore. They are big socks compared to today's shoes.

And ptichers like Bob Fellar wre throwing 98 mph fastballs in the 1930s . . .so don't know where you're going from there.

cosand wrote:

dempseyfire Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
dempseyfire



Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.



Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.


How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.


Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago


It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking


This is a load of bull-larky my friend.

There is no noticeable evolution of the "non-athletic physiology" in an 100 time span. That whole idea is a myth. Me and my peers are stronger, faster, etc. than my grandad and his buddies b/c he's two generations removed? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and makes no scientific sense from a genetic standpoint or any other standpoint.

Ive been in several boxing gyms in the past 5 years. I saw no 'eye-opening' anything that I didn't see 20 years ago, except the kids overall are less disciplined and carry more attitude. Potassium levels??? LOL . . . so fightes of the past didn't know the nutritional benefits of bananas?

Muscle groups . . .you don't think trainers in the 1920s knew about the idea of different exercises for different parts of the body. Just look at any old-time grainy footage of Dempsey and co training and they didn't things for the legs, abs, arms, shoulders etc. Just b/c people put a new name to something doesn't mean it's a new concept.

And Robinson went 15 hard rounds a load of times. Extreme heat made a past-it Robinson collapse, so to cite that as some lack of stamina is absurd.

Next I'm sure you'll bring up Olympic times, baseball stats etc. You have people breaking records for 2 main reasons:

1) A Greater pool of participation equating to more overall talent. As I stated before, basketball and football are much more popular and take their pickings from a much larger talent pool than 40 years ago. Ditto with most Olympic sports

2) Changes in equipment that affect the game (not too relevant to boxing b/c you still have two guys with gloves on in a ring) Put Gale Sayers in modern shoes running on modern turf and I have no doubt he is a top running back in the NFL. Ditto with Jim Brown. Ditto with the top track runners of the 40s. They were running on dirt tracks with absolute crap for footwear. Look at the shoes Jesss Owens co. wore. They are big socks compared to today's shoes.

And ptichers like Bob Fellar wre throwing 98 mph fastballs in the 1930s . . .so don't know where you're going from there.

So i guess you haven’t noticed that kids are bigger and taller then their parents, and that even at the HS sports level, records drop like flies huh ?
I can only suggest you look into it a little deeper.
Myth ?
Hardly

Bananas ? Yes, that is about the extent of what they know, and that is not even a scratch of what it involves.
Here is a quick lesson in human physiology and sports history for you. Potasium and sodium in the proper proportions, equal ..are you ready ? ELECTROLITES. This was discovered more or less at tha same time in the 60s at the University of Florida and the university of Oklahoma. (they dispute who was first) Electrolites allow the body to re-hydrate 50 to 75 times faster, and thus allow the body to accept oxegyn and to level off amino acids, and allow for more efficient training and to RECOVER faster, NOT just when you take them in, but LONG term. Can you guess the well known product was created based on this discovery ? I bet you can huh ? Here is a hint though, Joe Louis never had it.
That too is just the front end of how nutrition is managed, but I will leave you to your own research if you like. Again, FAR from a myth.

Speaking of bananas, there is a means to determine ideal body weight for a fighter to dry out to involving eating banans, but no, they didn’t know about that testt in the 30s either.

As for SRR..Ummm...didn’t Joey Maxim fight in the same heat that night ?
Why didnt he almost have a organ shutdown...i''l give you a hint...he obviously had better prepared nutritionally, and the ironic part of it is, at the time, he had no way of even knowing it. It was by chance, but it was no accident.

And no..they did NOT know the methods for isolating muscle groups in the way we do taday, not even close. they among other things, thought abs were abs. Today we know different, and those who develop all 3 groups properly, don’t get KOd from a left to the liver.

Athletes exel today because of "Equipment" ? Ahhhh...so it's the shoes !!!!
LOL
tell me where I can pick up a pair that would make me rush like Reggie Bush, and I'll be the oldest walk on in NFL history
LOL..sorry, but that's just funny

A 98 MPH fastball in the 30s ? Do tell !!!
Sorry, Not Feller, not Johnson and NO one from the 30s or 40s, and most likely not the 50s

We will never agree on this, that is obvious, but just so i understand and am clear on your point of view, ....

You belive, that if we ghad a time machine, and we could warp ..say SRR or joe louis, as they were in their prime to 2007, thet would not only duplicate, but EXCEED what the achieved then,,,today ?

Ummm...is that what your saying ?

Caramn Basillio in his famous sarcastic and satirical way summed this up the best.
He was asked by a reporter back in the 890s from a Syracuse TV station in an interview to compare himself with Harvin Hagler.
He took a puff on his cigar and said "well, he is a lot younger then me, but I still think I can take him"
This was followed by dead silence and a nervous smile form the reporter.
Carmen then said "Waddaya nuts" ?
By that, he said exactly what I am saying now.
Pretty much sums it up i think.

I don't consider Ray Austin to be a great fighter, just a fighter who today is about the same as Chuvalo was in his era.

You are saying that Chuvalo would beat Ray Austin and Sam Peter easily

Take off the rose colored glasses and hold the old timers to the same standards as you hold the modern fighters.

DaveV17



Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 81

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just watched the two videos. Cuvalo - Foreman and Austin - Klitschko. I don't criticize fighters. I'll be positive. Wlad and Austin looked like they moved better and had better skills than Foreman and Chuvalo. They were also much bigger.

BTW, Austin has only been stopped twice. Being stopped by Wlad K. is no disgrace. He is an excellent offensive fighter.

DaveV17 wrote:I just watched the two videos. Cuvalo - Foreman and Austin - Klitschko. I don't criticize fighters. I'll be positive. Wlad and Austin looked like they moved better and had better skills than Foreman and Chuvalo. They were also much bigger.

BTW, Austin has only been stopped twice. Being stopped by Wlad K. is no disgrace. He is an excellent offensive fighter.

cosand wrote:

DaveV17



Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 81

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just watched the two videos. Cuvalo - Foreman and Austin - Klitschko. I don't criticize fighters. I'll be positive. Wlad and Austin looked like they moved better and had better skills than Foreman and Chuvalo. They were also much bigger.

BTW, Austin has only been stopped twice. Being stopped by Wlad K. is no disgrace. He is an excellent offensive fighter.

All that is true, but i am willing to bet Wlad could throw left hooks at Chuvallo all night long, and George would just grin and fire back.

Hey, I am the guy who always defends the modern day fighter, but in this case, it's just that Austin and Chuvallo is not a good mix for me to be able to do thatt in this case.

Chuvallo was a one of a kind, or at very least a rare breed.
I was at ringside as a kid when he fought Mike DeJohn.

Jesus H Christ !

DeJohn had under rated power, although a year or two past his prime, and he hit George with everything including the kitchen sink. He landed at least four clean shots to George's head in the first round, and George litterally laughed in his face.
Decked him twice and at one point had him backed into the ropes and almost sent him over the top rope.

Chuvallo went the distance with Ali, twice, KOd Quarry, lost by a sliver to Paterson and would have been champ had he not been totally robbed against Terrell.

If you want to compare a modern day fighter with Chuvallo, Austin is just not a good choice