In most sports the athletes of today deliver significantly increased measures than that of their 60/70/80s counterparts.

Think Usain Bolt and what he'd do to Carl Lewis over 100m.

Compare the speed of serve of, say, Roddick to Bjorg and so and so on.

We know just how great SRR, Homicide Hank, Ali et al were but my question is this.

If we assume athletes today are stronger, faster and better prepared than their predeccessors how much does that make up for raw talent?

People react like you've just shat in their coffee should you suggest a modern day middle takes down Hagler but could it be that Evolution gives a moderatley talented fighter an advantage over a great from yesteryear?

Who is a better athlete and a boxer, Marvelous Marvin Hagler or Kelly Pavlik? There you go.

In most sports the athletes of today deliver significantly increased measures than that of their 60/70/80s counterparts.

Think Usain Bolt and what he'd do to Carl Lewis over 100m.

Compare the speed of serve of, say, Roddick to Bjorg and so and so on.

We know just how great SRR, Homicide Hank, Ali et al were but my question is this.

If we assume athletes today are stronger, faster and better prepared than their predeccessors how much does that make up for raw talent?

People react like you've just shat in their coffee should you suggest a modern day middle takes down Hagler but could it be that Evolution gives a moderatley talented fighter an advantage over a great from yesteryear?

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

It's like place kickers in football: If you just look at the stats it would appear that they kick farther and more accurately today than they did back in the '70s. But is it really the kickers that are better? The truth is what's better is the PLAYING SURFACES that they are kicking off of. Even in the '70s there was an obvious difference between kicking off artificial turf and kicking off grass: The Astroturf was a much superior kicking surface. Well, today's GRASS fields are superior kicking surfaces to the '70s Astroturf fields. And today's artificial turf fields are absolutely perfecty for kicking off of. The truth is the playing surfaces are so superior now that they've had to change the spot for kickoffs twice in recent memory. Compare that to the 1970s: An NFL grass field from back then would be an embarresment to your typical low-end high school today. If an NFL team had to play on such a surface today half the team would probably refuse to play and I'm damn sure the kickers would refuse to kick off it.

Poet

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

you just answered the guys post for him.. "excellent"

in pre1950s fights they was filmed with one camera at the back of the arena, today 40+ cameras are used at ringside.. watch the documentary `Unforgivable Blackness` and tell me that todays heavyweights are in better shape than what Jack Johnson was in...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva often described Lennox Lewis as "another Primo Carnera"

read this article below.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

you just answered the guys post for him.. "excellent"

in pre1950s fights they was filmed with one camera at the back of the arena, today 40+ cameras are used at ringside.. watch the documentary `Unforgivable Blackness` and tell me that todays heavyweights are in better shape than what Jack Johnson was in...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva often described Lennox Lewis as "another Primo Carnera"

read this article below.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html
I agree.. Good stuff there from Jab.. The HSE was surplus to requirement back in the day..

you just answered the guys post for him.. "excellent"

in pre1950s fights they was filmed with one camera at the back of the arena, today 40+ cameras are used at ringside.. watch the documentary `Unforgivable Blackness` and tell me that todays heavyweights are in better shape than what Jack Johnson was in...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva often described Lennox Lewis as "another Primo Carnera"

read this article below.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

I didn't know Lou Duva trained fighters.

I didn't know Lou Duva trained fighters.

Pernel Whitaker
Evander Holyfield
Ed Hobson

and many more

Pernel Whitaker
Evander Holyfield
Ed Hobson

and many more

You mean George Benton?

soo 10 vs 9.69 im sure if carl lewis was 3 inches taller had NO2, creatine, l-glutamine, multi vitamins, and protein shakes there probly wouldnt have even been a diffrence in times.

lets look back to 1936 with jesse owens only .3 slower then lewis but 5 inches shorter 8 in shorter then bolt. Imagine if he had protein shakes, creatine, and all that stuff....probly would have been pullin 9.5's at 5'10"

soo 10 vs 9.69 im sure if carl lewis was 3 inches taller had NO2, creatine, l-glutamine, multi vitamins, and protein shakes there probly wouldnt have even been a diffrence in times.

lets look back to 1936 with jesse owens only .3 slower then lewis but 5 inches shorter 8 in shorter then bolt. Imagine if he had protein shakes, creatine, and all that stuff....probly would have been pullin 9.5's at 5'10"

Also compare the equipment and the track Owens was running on to Bolt's:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/82/3282-004-285DBE4D.jpg

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/data/articleimgs/4720-jamaicas-usain-bolt-runs-in-the-mens-100m-during-the-athletics-competitions-in-the-national-stad.jpg

Really it's just entirely different to compare sprinting to a combat sport such as boxing.

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

Great post. Green K. If athletes back then had the advantages in medicine and equipment athletes today did, the gap wouldn't seem so big.

:banana:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Mike Tyson
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Joe Frazier
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Sonny Liston

:sleeping:

Great post. Green K. If athletes back then had the advantages in medicine and equipment athletes today did, the gap wouldn't seem so big.

Very true. I've never bought into the idea that athletes have some how magically evolved to become bigger and better. Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. What has occurred is a huge boom in the worlds population. Many assume that people are bigger now, but I would bet that if you could conduct some kind of census that percentage wise comparing now and then, there were just as many people who were as big (naturally) then as now. Combine that with the other factors I've listed and athletes only seem better to people not smart enough to look at all the facts.

:banana:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Mike Tyson
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Joe Frazier
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Sonny Liston

:sleeping:

Nice list, but wrong thread my man.

Very true. I've never bought into the idea that athletes have some how magically evolved to become bigger and better. Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. What has occurred is a huge boom in the worlds population. Many assume that people are bigger now, but I would bet that if you could conduct some kind of census that percentage wise comparing now and then, there were just as many people who were as big (naturally) then as now. Combine that with the other factors I've listed and athletes only seem better to people not smart enough to look at all the facts.

I sort of have two conflicting views on this. Totally agree that evolution takes many thousand/millions of years though don't profess to be an expert on Darwinism.
That said I'm bigger than my father who was bigger than his father my son is bigger than me and his son is bigger than him.
So in 100 years the height of my family so to speak has gone up 5 or 6 inches and I'm sure that we are not a rareity.
So see my quandary I know we haven't evolved in a major way but I can't dismiss what my own eyes are telling me?

I sort of have two conflicting views on this. Totally agree that evolution takes many thousand/millions of years though don't profess to be an expert on Darwinism.
That said I'm bigger than my father who was bigger than his father my son is bigger than me and his son is bigger than him.
So in 100 years the height of my family so to speak has gone up 5 or 6 inches and I'm sure that we are not a rareity.
So see my quandary I know we haven't evolved in a major way but I can't dismiss what my own eyes are telling me?

Better conditions. The healthier the environment a person devolpes in the greater the likelihood they'll grow closer to their full potential. Case in point: Vaccines and medical care during the formative years. Kids of my generation didn't suffer from many of the childhood illnesses that inhibit growth. Those same illnesses were endemic when my grandparents were young. There's a lot of factors that go into it, modern medicine being just one.

Poet

Better conditions. The healthier the environment a person devolpes in the greater the likelihood they'll grow closer to their full potential. Case in point: Vaccines and medical care during the formative years. Kids of my generation didn't suffer from many of the childhood illnesses that inhibit growth. Those same illnesses were endemic when my grandparents were young. There's a lot of factors that go into it, modern medicine being just one.

Poet
For sure medecine and nutrition I guess.
Do think that the HW's of olden days would be bigger if they were around today, everyone else is!

For sure medecine and nutrition I guess.
Do think that the HW's of olden days would be bigger if they were around today, everyone else is!

I've said it many times.....and gotten crucified for it. I guess it rather offends the worldview of some people who's ideology is predicated on THEIR generation being better in and of themselves and more highly evolved than all those generations past. They can't accept any idea that they themselves are not superior but rather the benificiaries of outside things such as technology and healty conditions in which to develope.

Poet

For sure medecine and nutrition I guess.
Do think that the HW's of olden days would be bigger if they were around today, everyone else is!

Refought the Battle of River Plate earlier and got trounced grrrrr. I'll see if my luck is any better with Denmark Straight ;)

I've said it many times.....and gotten crucified for it. I guess it rather offends the worldview of some people who's ideology is predicated on THEIR generation being better in and of themselves and more highly evolved than all those generations past. They can't accept any idea that they themselves are not superior but rather the benificiaries of outside things such as technology and healty conditions in which to develope.

Poet
Well it does sound weird in a way it takes 1000's of years to evolve but like I said I'm sure my grandson must have half a foot on my grandfather and I would say that he is the norm rather than the exception.

In most sports the athletes of today deliver significantly increased measures than that of their 60/70/80s counterparts.

Think Usain Bolt and what he'd do to Carl Lewis over 100m.

Compare the speed of serve of, say, Roddick to Bjorg and so and so on.

We know just how great SRR, Homicide Hank, Ali et al were but my question is this.

If we assume athletes today are stronger, faster and better prepared than their predeccessors how much does that make up for raw talent?

People react like you've just shat in their coffee should you suggest a modern day middle takes down Hagler but could it be that Evolution gives a moderatley talented fighter an advantage over a great from yesteryear?


some of it's true some of it isn't

I can't say the Hw's have improved because this generation actually lost to last generation.

there are some great new fighters though that can bang/beat some great older fighters as well.


I haven't really seen any advancement from the 70's and on. We have seen some new styles emerge but that's about it.

I think the sad thing is boxing's best athletes have always come from poverty, or have had reasons to drive themselves. The USA simply isn't as poor as it once was so the only good fighters are coming from other countries.

Well it does sound weird in a way it takes 1000's of years to evolve but like I said I'm sure my grandson must have half a foot on my grandfather and I would say that he is the norm rather than the exception.

I have 3" on my Dad and he has 2" on his dad. It ain't evolution that's for sure.....it's more like 10s of thousands of years or more. Not to mention the example I use of how it's only in the developed world where people are getting larger: In the 3rd world people are pretty much the same size that they've been for hundreds of years.

Poet