View Full Version : What Do You Think Of This?


Heru
08-14-2010, 05:06 AM
I've been thinking about this for a while, but without scientific proof which I alone would not be able to get in the immediate future, I want some opinions and examples to support and to the contrary.

This is part of my post in another thread, first time I shared it, I added something to it:

I have a theory that the worse you treat your body the shorter your career. Those long layoffs where fighter's stay out of the gym and balloon up will get you to retirement faster than any punch.

How else can you explain Cory Spinks being shot at 33 (32 if you count the Lattimore fight, in which he had no legs)?

This man had one of the best defenses in the last however many years... He barely took shots, yet he is shot. It was revealed he blew up to 190+ before the Bundrage fight. When you blow up to those weights, it means you've never really been the one to stay in the gym during layoffs.

Meanwhile Glen Johnson is still going strong with his come forward volume punching (threw over 800+ against Cloud) style at 40+?... Really?!?!?!

By all accounts Glen stays in tremendous shape and has kept busy with over 60 fights. Hopkins going strong at 45+ is a testament to staying in tremendous shape and not putting in all the garbage out there disguised as food into his body.

Now when you combine mistreating your body and taking punches, you get the Erik Morales' and Ricky Hatton's.

James Toney and Roberto Duran are the only high profile fighters that I can find to the contrary, but they fought very busy schedules when they were fighting and didn't have to lose 30+ pounds to get to fighting weight in every training camp.

There has to be some way that old timers could fight 100+ times or receive beatdowns or knockout losses and remain in their primes or close to it, while today fighter's are out of their prime by fights 30-40 regardless of age.

My point is mistreatment of the body shortens a fighter's career faster than any punch to the head. And I want some opinions on this and examples to support and to the contrary.

sonnyboyx2
08-14-2010, 05:30 AM
its all about Legs... regardeless of age when a fighter loses his legs he is finished

JAB5239
08-14-2010, 05:53 AM
I've been thinking about this for a while, but without scientific proof which I alone would not be able to get in the immediate future, I want some opinions and examples to support and to the contrary.

This is part of my post in another thread, first time I shared it, I added something to it:

I have a theory that the worse you treat your body the shorter your career. Those long layoffs where fighter's stay out of the gym and balloon up will get you to retirement faster than any punch.

How else can you explain Cory Spinks being shot at 33 (32 if you count the Lattimore fight, in which he had no legs)?

This man had one of the best defenses in the last however many years... He barely took shots, yet he is shot. It was revealed he blew up to 190+ before the Bundrage fight. When you blow up to those weights, it means you've never really been the one to stay in the gym during layoffs.

Meanwhile Glen Johnson is still going strong with his come forward volume punching (threw over 800+ against Cloud) style at 40+?... Really?!?!?!

By all accounts Glen stays in tremendous shape and has kept busy with over 60 fights. Hopkins going strong at 45+ is a testament to staying in tremendous shape and not putting in all the garbage out there disguised as food into his body.

Now when you combine mistreating your body and taking punches, you get the Erik Morales' and Ricky Hatton's.

James Toney and Roberto Duran are the only high profile fighters that I can find to the contrary, but they fought very busy schedules when they were fighting and didn't have to lose 30+ pounds to get to fighting weight in every training camp.

There has to be some way that old timers could fight 100+ times or receive beatdowns or knockout losses and remain in their primes or close to it, while today fighter's are out of their prime by fights 30-40 regardless of age.

My point is mistreatment of the body shortens a fighter's career faster than any punch to the head. And I want some opinions on this and examples to support and to the contrary.

I agree totally.

Obama
08-14-2010, 05:58 AM
Spinks not taking punches in his career is a myth. His defense was never one of the best. Up until the Lattimore fight his legs were his entire defense. Without them he nearly got KOed against Lattimore, and did against K9.

tyger
08-14-2010, 06:09 AM
James Toney and Roberto Duran are the only high profile fighters that I can find to the contrary, but they fought very busy schedules when they were fighting and didn't have to lose 30+ pounds to get to fighting weight in every training camp.
.

But Duran and Toney would blow up between fights and didn't really take care of themselfs. Many of their losses were due to this factor more than them being in with a better man. And yes they did have to drop 30+ pounds often before fights. They did both possess a good basic boxing foundation and underrated defence. Defence or the ability to avoid, block or take something off a punch in their cases elongated their careers. Which is also why aggressive, action, face foward fighters are exciting but rarely have long careers.

I'm not disagreeing with all the rest because there is alot of truth there.

Heru
08-14-2010, 06:46 AM
its all about Legs... regardeless of age when a fighter loses his legs he is finished

Yeah, but I'm trying to get to the root of the problem.

Mistreatment or punches? Which one does more harm?
Spinks not taking punches in his career is a myth. His defense was never one of the best. Up until the Lattimore fight his legs were his entire defense. Without them he nearly got KOed against Lattimore, and did against K9.

There's a reason Spinks picked up the nickname Stinx and it wasn't because we got hit. If you have some hidden wars Spinks was in, I'd like to watch

Whether his defense was based off his legs or not, he had a great defense. And to disprove your claim, he won the Latimore fight without any legs, making him miss off of shoulder rolls and inside defense.

Either way, as soon as Ivan Calderon's legs are gone, he will be in a similar boat, it doesn't take away from the fact that he had one of the best defenses in boxing.

Heru
08-14-2010, 07:06 AM
But Duran and Toney would blow up between fights and didn't really take care of themselfs. Many of their losses were due to this factor more than them being in with a better man. And yes they did have to drop 30+ pounds often before fights. They did both possess a good basic boxing foundation and underrated defence. Defence or the ability to avoid, block or take something off a punch in their cases elongated their careers. Which is also why aggressive, action, face foward fighters are exciting but rarely have long careers.

I'm not disagreeing with all the rest because there is alot of truth there.

What I am saying is that they are the only ones I could find that might disprove my theory, but looking at it closer they aren't.

It wasn't often that they showed up out of shape or they'd have more Laing's and Thadzi's on their resume.

Toney's team kept him in a very active schedule when he was fighting, so that he wouldn't have enough time to blowup in between fights. He got to 60 fights in 8 years, his least active being 97, when he took a break. After that he was a cruiserweight and didn't have to lose 30+ pounds.

Toney is a bad example because of that and also because he hasn't maintained his talent into his old age. He's still going off of skills, experience, and other intangibles (quality of opp. as well), but Toney's speed has eroded more than enough.

Duran kept just as busy fighting at least 3 fights from 68 to 83. In 15 years he fought 81 fights and then took a break.

Duran is a bad example too because of the same reason I mentioned of Toney. Even before the Barkley he had to rely on his skills, experience, and other intangibles, and not because he retained his talent.

They are examples of why boxers should keep a busy schedule, but not why some boxers can mistreat their bodies and get away with it.

G. Johnson and more than a few old timers disprove that aggressive, action, face forward fighters automatically have short careers.

I will start doing more research on different fighters to backup or disprove my claim. I'm going to find out, who consistently had to lose 30+ pounds without a busy schedule and had longevity, etc.

Bright-Eyes
08-14-2010, 01:26 PM
fans tend to underestimate layoffs.Reason it hasn't shown on mayweather as it has others is down to the fact that he was still in the gym every day,staying sharp and keeping fit.



Cory Spinks really is a limited fighter without his legs too.

Heru
08-14-2010, 02:54 PM
fans tend to underestimate layoffs.Reason it hasn't shown on mayweather as it has others is down to the fact that he was still in the gym every day,staying sharp and keeping fit.



Cory Spinks really is a limited fighter without his legs too.

Yes, but it still doesn't disqualify him from used to having 1 of the best defenses around. It used to be Mayweather and Spinks the first fighters mentioned when best current defenses are talked about. Rightfully so, a lot of fighters couldn't lay as much as a glove on him and he wasn't running.

That's 1 of the reasons I think Mayweather's career will last until he wants it to. He will preserve most of his speed and legs because of it and his style is based on defense, timing, accuracy... He will be going the next few years as if he hasn't missed a beat.

If Pacquiao didn't stay in shape, he'd be done after all the wars and shots he's taken.

I'd like to add Riddick Bowe and Evander Holyfield as reasons to support. They're on opposite sides of the spectrum.

turdleburgle
08-14-2010, 08:18 PM
glen johnson isnt who he says he is.

Sugarj
08-14-2010, 09:22 PM
Many things can affect a fighters longevity:

1) Dramatic weight loss/severe weight making: I've seen this destroy careers. De la Hoya/Ray Leonard/Roy Jones/Riddick Bowe/Ricky Hatton come to mind.

2) Absorbing too much punishment: this can amount to two different things, firstly psychological, the fighters desire to win and compete is effectively knocked out of them. Secondly physical, the effect of serious punishment to the head and body can clearly affect an athlete's reactions/performance. Head punches can affect many areas of the brain's performance, reactions, concentration.......or worse. Body punches can damage the kidneys/liver etc.

3) Desire: Some boxers just get sick of the tough training and have no further desire to put their bodies through the training camps or the fights. It requires a tremendous level of dedication, mental and physical to remain in world class for several years.

BennyST
08-14-2010, 11:17 PM
glen johnson isnt who he says he is.

I know. I figured it out too. He's actually Daisy De la Hoya *gasp* just with some paint on his/her face and body. Really spun me out when I found that out.

turdleburgle
08-15-2010, 02:19 AM
I know. I figured it out too. He's actually Daisy De la Hoya *gasp* just with some paint on his/her face and body. Really spun me out when I found that out.



you trying to be funny? words of advice pal.Aussies aint funny

Heru
08-15-2010, 08:34 PM
Many things can affect a fighters longevity:

1) Dramatic weight loss/severe weight making: I've seen this destroy careers. De la Hoya/Ray Leonard/Roy Jones/Riddick Bowe/Ricky Hatton come to mind.

2) Absorbing too much punishment: this can amount to two different things, firstly psychological, the fighters desire to win and compete is effectively knocked out of them. Secondly physical, the effect of serious punishment to the head and body can clearly affect an athlete's reactions/performance. Head punches can affect many areas of the brain's performance, reactions, concentration.......or worse. Body punches can damage the kidneys/liver etc.

3) Desire: Some boxers just get sick of the tough training and have no further desire to put their bodies through the training camps or the fights. It requires a tremendous level of dedication, mental and physical to remain in world class for several years.

You forgot Erik Morales (shot before 30) and Cory Spinks (got even more confirmation that he'd blow up to 200+ in between fights).

I know 1 and 3 almost go hand in hand.

Cotto is a good example of #2.

I know from personal 3rd person experience that a lot of fighters are walking around at 30 pounds above weight regularly, this to me is the main reason why fighters primes are getting shorter and shorter.

Fighters should be alerted to it and mandated to stay at least 20 pounds within weight by their manager, promoter, trainer, and/or adviser.
you trying to be funny? words of advice pal.Aussies aint funny

Your comment was trollish, so you got an appropriate response.

Steak
08-16-2010, 12:17 AM
I think you came close to hitting the mark...the problem is not the fighters gaining huge amounts of weight, its losing all that weight in a short and dangerous amount of time.

When you have very strict weight management, your body has little to no water weight, which is far worse than simply not eating food. And yet at the same time, boxers have to train during this dehydrated state, and then fight the next day. That kills your body in the long run.

imo thats why fighters that in the old days had longer reigns, despite having way more fights...they didnt really drain themselves. a lot of guys came in naturally below the weight limit without try to drain themselves to make it...Ray Robinson comes in mind. fighters didnt kill themselves to make weight, because it was illogical: Same day weighins would murder you if you went through bad weight loss/dehydration. Day before weigh ins let you fill up again and get a 24+ hour break, which somewhat gives you a size advantage and mangable losses due to weight drop.

Thats why Morales got shot so fast, having to kill himself to make weight and then going through wars with Pacquiao.
Thats also why Duran had such a long career despite blowing up between fights...he just didnt give a damn most the time, and fought at whatever weight he happened to be.(Thomas Hearns fight excluded).

Of course, there are other factors, especially damage, that shortens a fighters career, but imo the crash diet weight loss kills the longevity of fighters nowadays. I think sparring is a HUGELY overlooked killer of a fighter's career:lots of sparring is just as damaging as an actual match.
Oh yea, and that could also suggest why Heavyweights in general have much longer careers: They dont have to make weight whatsoever.

Thoughts?

JAB5239
08-16-2010, 04:30 AM
I think you came close to hitting the mark...the problem is not the fighters gaining huge amounts of weight, its losing all that weight in a short and dangerous amount of time.

When you have very strict weight management, your body has little to no water weight, which is far worse than simply not eating food. And yet at the same time, boxers have to train during this dehydrated state, and then fight the next day. That kills your body in the long run.

imo thats why fighters that in the old days had longer reigns, despite having way more fights...they didnt really drain themselves. a lot of guys came in naturally below the weight limit without try to drain themselves to make it...Ray Robinson comes in mind. fighters didnt kill themselves to make weight, because it was illogical: Same day weighins would murder you if you went through bad weight loss/dehydration. Day before weigh ins let you fill up again and get a 24+ hour break, which somewhat gives you a size advantage and mangable losses due to weight drop.

Thats why Morales got shot so fast, having to kill himself to make weight and then going through wars with Pacquiao.
Thats also why Duran had such a long career despite blowing up between fights...he just didnt give a damn most the time, and fought at whatever weight he happened to be.(Thomas Hearns fight excluded).

Of course, there are other factors, especially damage, that shortens a fighters career, but imo the crash diet weight loss kills the longevity of fighters nowadays. I think sparring is a HUGELY overlooked killer of a fighter's career:lots of sparring is just as damaging as an actual match.
Oh yea, and that could also suggest why Heavyweights in general have much longer careers: They dont have to make weight whatsoever.

Thoughts?

Good post!

Heru
08-16-2010, 06:56 PM
I think you came close to hitting the mark...the problem is not the fighters gaining huge amounts of weight, its losing all that weight in a short and dangerous amount of time.

When you have very strict weight management, your body has little to no water weight, which is far worse than simply not eating food. And yet at the same time, boxers have to train during this dehydrated state, and then fight the next day. That kills your body in the long run.

imo thats why fighters that in the old days had longer reigns, despite having way more fights...they didnt really drain themselves. a lot of guys came in naturally below the weight limit without try to drain themselves to make it...Ray Robinson comes in mind. fighters didnt kill themselves to make weight, because it was illogical: Same day weighins would murder you if you went through bad weight loss/dehydration. Day before weigh ins let you fill up again and get a 24+ hour break, which somewhat gives you a size advantage and mangable losses due to weight drop.

Thats why Morales got shot so fast, having to kill himself to make weight and then going through wars with Pacquiao.
Thats also why Duran had such a long career despite blowing up between fights...he just didnt give a damn most the time, and fought at whatever weight he happened to be.(Thomas Hearns fight excluded).

Of course, there are other factors, especially damage, that shortens a fighters career, but imo the crash diet weight loss kills the longevity of fighters nowadays. I think sparring is a HUGELY overlooked killer of a fighter's career:lots of sparring is just as damaging as an actual match.
Oh yea, and that could also suggest why Heavyweights in general have much longer careers: They dont have to make weight whatsoever.

Thoughts?

I agree, it falls right in line with my thoughts, but a bit more specific. Promoters would fight same day weigh-ins tooth and nail, but it would probably be better for the fighters and sport.