Disadvantages Of Being Big

[Nash out]

- - And of course the blubberized Brit who along with Deyonce and Whyte ducked AJ's American debut + other times to engage an unholy trinity of AJ ducker fights that U worship like the Holy Grail.

Mentor Nash believes that AJ taken a surprise beating from Andy Ruiz Jr, has had a lasting effect on you. Douglas outclassing then knocking out overrated Mike Tyson had the same effect on his fans, still does 3 decades later. Mentor Nash, and that's Mentor Nash, not mental Nash, advices twice a week therapy for you, as well as, of course, continuing to be tutored by The Great Nash. We will get there, Queen. Will it take time? Of course it will. But the journey will be both fun, and fruitful. Nash out.

[billeau2]

he does do these things, but hes still in the stage where its imitated. Its not understood fully. If you watch Ali, hes doing all that and more but twice as efficiently. Alis jab is phenominally better, smooth start and acceleration, lazer velocity, releases separate from his body movement giving a multitude of micro feinting and rythmic options. His jab was so good he would land multiples at a time vs a limited fighter like Wepner. Wepner literally can’t time his jab. Ali himself said his jab was 25 years of work.

Well if you look at his age, comparitevaly speaking, He is at an age where if he sticks with it, the things he does will become more second nature. Besides... Ali is no benchmark... Ali is where those who exceed the benchmark and then some arrive at!

[Bundana]

You got me, I can't prove it, its an opinion. I can give my reasons for that opinion though.

Society, the governing rules and system (fighting was encouraged, fighters always attempted knockouts for the most part (based on footage) fighters all fought eachother, so competition is increased. One title and one money maker (champ) Fighters fought more frequently (I think so) and smaller gloves (in the 70s middleweight+ wore 8 oz). But overall just a keen observation of the best fighters of the day, seemed to be more competitive and put in more effort aka heart.

Strange how we can look at things so differently!

I see no lack of heart/courage these days... on the contrary, every weekend or so I can watch shows from around the world, where boxers with no chance of winning, fight with everything they have - sometimes even beyond the call of duty. A couple of weeks ago, we saw Murata take a beating from GGG, without looking for an easy way out. Recently we also saw a 40-year-old, completely shot, Gamboa being pummeled by a young Mexican - again without looking for the exit. And just this past weekend there was a tremendous fight at MSG - where two women battled it out, in a fight where both gave everything thay had. Certainly no shortage of heart on display there!

Sure, you will be able to point to fights, where a boxer gave up too soon, without (seemingly) giving his all. Like when Joshua didn't exactly cover himself with glory, in his losing "effort" against Ruiz! Yes, there are also fights like that - but the generel impression I get, isn't one of modern sissies giving up when the going gets tough!

[them_apples]

Strange how we can look at things so differently!

I see no lack of heart/courage these days... on the contrary, every weekend or so I can watch shows from around the world, where boxers with no chance of winning, fight with everything they have - sometimes even beyond the call of duty. A couple of weeks ago, we saw Murata take a beating from GGG, without looking for an easy way out. Recently we also saw a 40-year-old, completely shot, Gamboa being pummeled by a young Mexican - again without looking for the exit. And just this past weekend there was a tremendous fight at MSG - where two women battled it out, in a fight where both gave everything thay had. Certainly no shortage of heart on display there!

Sure, you will be able to point to fights, where a boxer gave up too soon, without (seemingly) giving his all. Like when Joshua didn't exactly cover himself with glory, in his losing "effort" against Ruiz! Yes, there are also fights like that - but the generel impression I get, isn't one of modern sissies giving up when the going gets tough!

I have a different opinion on heart. Heart is the belief system and also physically, the heart.

a fighter with heart won’t just take a beating, he actually thinks he still has a chance at winning and thinks he's better than the other guy. Its that competitive desire.

in fact ill say in my own experience that someone willing to take a beating and someone who fights back are 2 totally different attributes

a lot of newer fighters quit without quitting and just look to survive and grab a cheque.

ok couple other factors, once again opinion. We are living in such a media heavy era, with so many distractions. In the past it was all in the ring, all you really had was boxing and partying. It seemed more serious.

[Bundana]

a lot of newer fighters quit without quitting and just look to survive and grab a cheque.

So this is a characteristic that fits a lot of the newer fighters - more so than the oldtimers? Really??

How do you think it was a century ago - you know back in roaring 1920s, in the middle of the ND era, where many boxers had a much busier schedule than today? What were the vast majority of boxers interested in back then - other than grabbing that pay cheque, with as little effort as possible? So they could escape unscathed and be ready for the next fight - which could be waiting just around the corner.

And what about the many sham fights, where the boxers were so reluctant to mix it up, that the referee declared a NC, and sent both men packing? Not a lot of heart/courage on display there, I would say.

All throughout boxing history, there have obviously been all kinds of fighters. From those with a desire to succeed så burning, that they were almost prepared to die in the ring - to those only willing to go through a minimum of pain, in order to make some money, with the least amount of effort.

I honestly dont see, how we can declare, that the newer boxers are more prone to give up in the face of adversity, than the oldtimers.

[them_apples]

So this is a characteristic that fits a lot of the newer fighters - more so than the oldtimers? Really??

How do you think it was a century ago - you know back in roaring 1920s, in the middle of the ND era, where many boxers had a much busier schedule than today? What were the vast majority of boxers interested in back then - other than grabbing that pay cheque, with as little effort as possible? So they could escape unscathed and be ready for the next fight - which could be waiting just around the corner.

And what about the many sham fights, where the boxers were so reluctant to mix it up, that the referee declared a NC, and sent both men packing? Not a lot of heart/courage on display there, I would say.

All throughout boxing history, there have obviously been all kinds of fighters. From those with a desire to succeed så burning, that they were almost prepared to die in the ring - to those only willing to go through a minimum of pain, in order to make some money, with the least amount of effort.

I honestly dont see, how we can declare, that the newer boxers are more prone to give up in the face of adversity, than the oldtimers.

I know in this scenario we would need the help of computers to compute any accurate answer. It is just what I think, in my opinion. I started thinking this way once I started watching fighters who made successful comebacks, I noticed how much they had slid physically, yet how capable they still were. By doing this you can see even without Bias, every era would be competitive with one another to some extent. At the end of the day, it's fist fighting. As for whos better, I just personally don't get much from watching modern boxing anymore. I was always in the gym in my 20's and got to experience kids training based on how modern fighters train and also got to spar some ranked fighters myself. It was here that I got into watching old tapes and listening more to old trainers on youtube or journalists. This is probably where the "bias" comes from, but I stand by it. I think I am in a good position to make this claim as well, since my early years on boxing scene I sounded like Nash and got roasted by poet on the regular. Good times.

either or, I can at least say I've judged both sides - that's all I can say. I still respect your opinion though.

Foreman proved the crossarm defense and grappling defensive moves still work and that his chin was iron across eras, Hopkins proved 90's level ring savvy still works, Joe Louis proved an older slower 30's champ can still win - etc etc because they fought into the next era. Even Ali, with Parkinson's, for the few rounds he had success in the very early 80's shows that even with an ounce of youth in his step he would have been a handful for anyone.

Then I made my own calculation that if they were 24-30 years old with those skills they seem to be much more formidable fighters. Tougher with better skills.

[Bundana]

I know in this scenario we would need the help of computers to compute any accurate answer. It is just what I think, in my opinion. I started thinking this way once I started watching fighters who made successful comebacks, I noticed how much they had slid physically, yet how capable they still were. By doing this you can see even without Bias, every era would be competitive with one another to some extent. At the end of the day, it's fist fighting. As for whos better, I just personally don't get much from watching modern boxing anymore. I was always in the gym in my 20's and got to experience kids training based on how modern fighters train and also got to spar some ranked fighters myself. It was here that I got into watching old tapes and listening more to old trainers on youtube or journalists. This is probably where the "bias" comes from, but I stand by it. I think I am in a good position to make this claim as well, since my early years on boxing scene I sounded like Nash and got roasted by poet on the regular. Good times.

either or, I can at least say I've judged both sides - that's all I can say. I still respect your opinion though.

Foreman proved the crossarm defense and grappling defensive moves still work and that his chin was iron across eras, Hopkins proved 90's level ring savvy still works, Joe Louis proved an older slower 30's champ can still win - etc etc because they fought into the next era. Even Ali, with Parkinson's, for the few rounds he had success in the very early 80's shows that even with an ounce of youth in his step he would have been a handful for anyone.

Then I made my own calculation that if they were 24-30 years old with those skills they seem to be much more formidable fighters. Tougher with better skills.

I may not always agree with what you're saying, but I get your point!


On a different subject:
Remember a couple of weeks ago, when we examined the year 1930 in another thread? And found that in a randomly picked group of 400, who were all active that year, the number of total career fights averaged at 34. This was a surprisingly low number - and you thought, it would be more relevant (I agree) to find the number of fights for the top boxers at the time.

So I took a look at The Ring's end-of-year rankings for 1930:
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1930 - BoxRec

... and found that the 86 top boxers (80 contenders and 6 champs), listed in the 8 original divisions, finished their respective careers with an average of 123 fights (from Harmon's and Rocco's 31 - to Rosenbloom's 298). Quite different from the random 400 group - and also very different from the top boxers of today. Not that I have looked into the latter - but there can be no doubt, that modern top boxers don't even come close to the numbers of the oldtimers. No research is necessary, as we all know that!

[The Old LefHook]

I may not always agree with what you're saying, but I get your point!


On a different subject:
Remember a couple of weeks ago, when we examined the year 1930 in another thread? And found that in a randomly picked group of 400, who were all active that year, the number of total career fights averaged at 34. This was a surprisingly low number - and you thought, it would be more relevant (I agree) to find the number of fights for the top boxers at the time.

So I took a look at The Ring's end-of-year rankings for 1930:
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1930 - BoxRec

... and found that the 86 top boxers (80 contenders and 6 champs), listed in the 8 original divisions, finished their respective careers with an average of 123 fights (from Harmon's and Rocco's 31 - to Rosenbloom's 298). Quite different from the random 400 group - and also very different from the top boxers of today. Not that I have looked into the latter - but there can be no doubt, that modern top boxers don't even come close to the numbers of the oldtimers. No research is necessary, as we all know that!

400 is a decent sample. For a group that size to average only 34 fights means a lot of guys were giving it a tryout. Everyone wants to play violin, but quickly learn they don't have the talent.

Maybe you could publish the details on the 86 top boxers, if you still have that data. I would like to see how the number of fights were dispersed and clumped.

[Bundana]

400 is a decent sample. For a group that size to average only 34 fights means a lot of guys were giving it a tryout. Everyone wants to play violin, but quickly learn they don't have the talent.

Maybe you could publish the details on the 86 top boxers, if you still have that data. I would like to see how the number of fights were dispersed and clumped.

Well, it just so happens that I, out of curiosity, actually did this "clumping" for the 86 top boxers:

Max 50 fights............ 3
51-100 fights............ 30
101-150 fights.......... 29
151-200 fights.......... 18
200+ fights............... 6

To compare these with the 400 group, I'll re-post those numbers from that other thread:

1- 5 fights........ 110
6-25 fights....... 122
26-50 fights...... 64
51-100 fights.... 76
101-150 fights.. 20
150+................. 8

As we can see, the difference between the two groups is like night and day... so much so, that using the same brackets doesn't even make sense! As you say, lots of guys back in the day gave it a try for just a few fights... wheras (comparativey) few had 3 digit careers.


Another thing I thought might be interesting to look into, is the nationality of the 86 world ranked boxers from 1930:

USA - 64
UK - 5
Canada - 3
italy - 3
Germany - 2
P.R. - 1
Belgium - 1
Argentina - 1
Cuba - 1
Panama - 1
France - 1
Norway - 1
Spain - 1
Belize - 1

Hardly surprising that the US totally dominated boxing back then - though it may be a little bit surprising, that it was by THIS much!

Imagine a world today without a single ranked boxer from Africa or Asia - not to mention the former communist block! No Usyk, no GGG, no Loma, no Pac-Man, no Inoue, etc., etc.! 1930 and today... two different worlds, really (at least as far as boxing is concerned).

[them_apples]

Well, it just so happens that I, out of curiosity, actually did this "clumping" for the 86 top boxers:

Max 50 fights............ 3
51-100 fights............ 30
101-150 fights.......... 29
151-200 fights.......... 18
200+ fights............... 6

To compare these with the 400 group, I'll re-post those numbers from that other thread:

1- 5 fights........ 110
6-25 fights....... 122
26-50 fights...... 64
51-100 fights.... 76
101-150 fights.. 20
150+................. 8

As we can see, the difference between the two groups is like night and day... so much so, that using the same brackets doesn't even make sense! As you say, lots of guys back in the day gave it a try for just a few fights... wheras (comparativey) few had 3 digit careers.


Another thing I thought might be interesting to look into, is the nationality of the 86 world ranked boxers from 1930:

USA - 64
UK - 5
Canada - 3
italy - 3
Germany - 2
P.R. - 1
Belgium - 1
Argentina - 1
Cuba - 1
Panama - 1
France - 1
Norway - 1
Spain - 1
Belize - 1

Hardly surprising that the US totally dominated boxing back then - though it may be a little bit surprising, that it was by THIS much!

Imagine a world today without a single ranked boxer from Africa or Asia - not to mention the former communist block! No Usyk, no GGG, no Loma, no Pac-Man, no Inoue, etc., etc.! 1930 and today... two different worlds, really (at least as far as boxing is concerned).

Awesome. Unless I missed it too we should factor in the frequency, time in between fights based on shortness of career. Ill try and do it myself if nobody else can.

good observation in the first point though

also, based on these numbers. Fighters generally fought more but had a lot of them being tune ups to stay in shape for bigger better fighters. It sounds like thats sort of how it worked based in the way Robinson talks about it in his book. The high contrast in fight numbers might relay this. As Left hook said it seems a lot of tough guys in america were willing to give fighting a shot.

Sort of like this :

chump - chump - chump - ranked fighter - chump - chump - chump - title fight etc etc lots of filler but great activity with less risk