Disadvantages Of Being Big

[Nash out]

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.

Nash is the greatest poster this forum has ever seen. It's funny how Nash is **** on with pretty much all of their predictions, even ones that people disagree with beforehand. Put your bias behind you, and your jealousy, and you'll see that the Great Nash is the best thing that ever happened to this forum. Nash out.

[Bundana]

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

Sounds good... I'll be looking forward to your findings!

[Bundana]

Soo... how's that research of yours coming along?

[Willie Pep 229]

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.

Most people who sound like Nash are in padded cells or running for president.

[JAB5239]

Most people who sound like Nash are in padded cells or running for president.

..........

[The Old LefHook]

The number 1 disadvantage of being big is stamina, of course. The best galoots have known how to use their size (and reach vis a vis) to pace themselves. Only constant pressure has a chance against schooled galoots, unless the prospect has special tools, like Cassius Clay.

Whoever beats them (outside another galoot) must have special aptitude in the stamina department to take advantage of the galoot's very susceptibility there. Marciano fits that order.

Dempsey had a different way of chopping down galoots--fast. Of course, he was dealing with old time galoots who had heard all their lives that galoots were slow and could not box.

I trust Marciano's stamina over Dempsey's. Jack needs a quick KO, but Rocky can KO his galoot at any time.

[The Old LefHook]

The samplings of Apples give a good picture. A picture is worth a thousand words. The top fighters had more fights in the olden days, but the hamburger at the bottom didn't. The numbers make intuitive sense. They must be skewed Bell curves.

[Willie Pep 229]

The number 1 disadvantage of being big is stamina, of course. The best galoots have known how to use their size (and reach vis a vis) to pace themselves. Only constant pressure has a chance against schooled galoots, unless the prospect has special tools, like Cassius Clay.

Whoever beats them (outside another galoot) must have special aptitude in the stamina department to take advantage of the galoot's very susceptibility there. Marciano fits that order.

Dempsey had a different way of chopping down galoots--fast. Of course, he was dealing with old time galoots who had heard all their lives that galoots were slow and could not box.

I trust Marciano's stamina over Dempsey's. Jack needs a quick KO, but Rocky can KO his galoot at any time.

Dempsey did show late power when he saved his title against Brennan. But for the most part Dempsey didn't actually go the distance enough to judge. Agreed certainly in Marciano we see the late power was there.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Bigger target when WAR breaks out a fatal disadvantage.

See Audie Murphy, the most decorated US grunt in history.

[Bundana]

The samplings of Apples give a good picture. A picture is worth a thousand words. The top fighters had more fights in the olden days, but the hamburger at the bottom didn't. The numbers make intuitive sense. They must be skewed Bell curves.

If you like statistics, here's a little more.

If we once again look at the group of 86 world ranked boxers from 1930, in the 8 original divisions (The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1930 - BoxRec), I thought it might be interesting to see, how many fights they had in the year 1930. In other words, how active were the boxers back then, once they reached world class. Here's how that distribution looks):

1- 5 fights..... 6 (Schmeling and Sharkey lowest with only 1 and 2 fights during the year, respectively).
6-10 fights.... 36
11-20 fights... 40
20+ fights...... 4 (topped by Carnera's 26).

The average number of fights for the 86 for that year comes to 10.95! This average is maybe a bit higher, than I would have guessed, as I figured the activity might slow down a little, once the boxers reached world class... but this is not really the case, as there seems to be no lul in the action at all! Probably because even for the top boxers at the time (with the exception of the absolut biggest names, like Schmeling and Sharkey) purses were still pretty meager.


Now of course this is no fun, if we don't compare such numbers with a similar group of more recent world ranked boxers. I picked the year 2000, where The Ring doesn't list any champions, but only the top 10 men in each weightclass:
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2000 - BoxRec

So here the 8 original divisions give us a total 80 names to play with, and their distribution, when it comes to the number of fights engaged in during the year 2000, looks like this:

0-5 fights.... 78 (2 boxers, Reggie Johnson and Andrew Council, had no fights at all during this year).
5+ fights..... 2 (Manfredy and Munoz, each with 7 fights, are the only two in this bracket!).

The average for all 80 during the year is a (not surprisingly!) measly 2.66... so once again, it's like two different worlds, really.


Another thing that might be fun/interesting to look at for the two groups, is the career KO percentage.

1930 group career KO%:

0-10%..... 8 boxers
10-25%... 28 boxers
25-50%... 45 boxers
50+%...... 5 boxers (Carnera highest with 68.9%)
Average career KO% for all 86: 24.7


2000 group career KO%:

0-25%..... 1 boxer (Greg Wright, with 22.86%, is the only one in this category).
25-50%... 25 boxers
50-75%... 48 boxers
75+%...... 6 boxers (Hamed tops with 83.78%)
Average career KO% for all 80: 55.7


What does all this tell us, in relation to which era produced the best fighters? Nothing, really... it's just a bit of statistics, for those (few?) who are into that!