A key point that proves oldschool fighters were tougher and better chinned

[The Old LefHook]

I hold in my hands, lads, the biography of old time strong man Hermann Goerner, titled Goerner The Mighty. On the front cover is a picture of Goerner posing. He has similar muscularity to Charles Atlas or Joe Weider, both of whom used to advertise their workout programs on the inside back covers of men's magazines in my youth.

Goerner's neck has a diameter that I have called appropriate, not that of a cement light pole a la Tyson or Holyfield. Elephant necks are found in only two sports I can think of--gridiron and boxing, both high impact sports. Apparently it works--both boxers and football players have realized the advantage of elephant necks. If it does not work, then some of the world's top trainers in both sports have been conned into believing it does.

Therefore I have to take a new tack by suggesting there may be more reason to believe modern boxers have better chins, since neither old time football players nor boxers had elephant necks, but many moderns do, and there must be an advantage, otherwise the world's top trainers would forbid it.

We do not have to think long to come up with what that advantage is--simply the ability to take a hit, on the field or in the ring.

Gymnasts, jockeys, basketball and baseball players, sprinters, pole vaulters and practitioners of most other sports, would be more hampered by elephant necks than helped. Even bodybuilders. But not boxers.

Only some modern boxers have elephant necks, usually they are first class ones. Roy Jones sported a surprise elephant neck when he faced Ruiz. If all boxers had such necks we might see fewer KOs.

[them_apples]

I hold in my hands, lads, the biography of old time strong man Hermann Goerner, titled Goerner The Mighty. On the front cover is a picture of Goerner posing. He has similar muscularity to Charles Atlas or Joe Weider, both of whom used to advertise their workout programs on the inside back covers of men's magazines in my youth.

Goerner's neck has a diameter that I have called appropriate, not that of a cement light pole a la Tyson or Holyfield. Elephant necks are found in only two sports I can think of--gridiron and boxing, both high impact sports. Apparently it works--both boxers and football players have realized the advantage of elephant necks. If it does not work, then some of the world's top trainers in both sports have been conned into believing it does.

Therefore I have to take a new tack by suggesting there may be more reason to believe modern boxers have better chins, since neither old time football players nor boxers had elephant necks, but many moderns do, and there must be an advantage, otherwise the world's top trainers would forbid it.

We do not have to think long to come up with what that advantage is--simply the ability to take a hit, on the field or in the ring.

Gymnasts, jockeys, basketball and baseball players, sprinters, pole vaulters and practitioners of most other sports, would be more hampered by elephant necks than helped. Even bodybuilders. But not boxers.

Only some modern boxers have elephant necks, usually they are first class ones. Roy Jones sported a surprise elephant neck when he faced Ruiz. If all boxers had such necks we might see fewer KOs.

Jones had a glass jaw for one, by most standards. or an average one that never got hit.

A strong neck does improve the heads ability to take a blow, IF you are bracing. if the punch isn't seen coming, it would do next to nothing, as its not being used.

Now you also have the head itself though, and how it responds and absorbs trauma, how does the chin connect to the skull and how much vibration is going into the head.

This is obviously the case because there have been some smaller necked, small jawed men that could some how take a good shot. Larry Holmes had a very small head for a heavyweight, and he was iron chinned.

As for oldschool fighters not having big necks, and lets say big - not strong, cause they all had strong necks for sure and worked their necks out on the regular with floor exersizes.

They didn't use neck harnesses as much, and above all, NO STEROIDS. steroids = big neck, and part of it is water rentention. And every boxing fan knows Holy and Jones were for sure juicing, Tyson I believe picked it up for his comeback. Esp in holy vs Tyson 2, wouldn't be surprised if the ear bite was the result of a man with too much testosterone, taking steroids. This isn't even a joke, I think i'm on to something, because Tyson could never admit that, even on his death bed. Also, James Toney (notorious juicer) has a classic, steroid HGH neck

However, in the contemporary era, Foreman came back and showed how good his chin really was.

[them_apples]

Yes, I would agree with that.

But what exactly has this got to do with any of the questions I have raised, like:

How on earth do you know, that today's boxers pack more "glass" than the oldtimers?

How do you know, that the average fighter from back in the 20s and 30s were tougher than today - when you have never actually seen 99% (at least!) of them fight?

How are you able to judge, that Marquez and Vasquez can't compare to guys from the 40s, when it comes to heart and toughness?

Why do you claim, that many modern boxers avoid confrontation and quit too easily compared to the oldtimers - when you can't back it up, with anything other than wishful thinking?


Why do you keep spouting out these absurd contentions - without being willing to back them up with any kind of evidence? That times were hard, and they didn't have smart phones back in the day, doesn't really prove anything - least of all that chins were stronger!!

It seems to me, that ever since you fell in love with Mike Silver's book "The Arc of Boxing", you have been on this crazy crusade against modern boxers - using anything and everything to constantly stick it to them!

I gave you my reasons. I don't know. If i knew why are we debating? I just made a post about it.

[Bundana]

Ill agree with you there, We can't prove it. But a lot of stuff we can't actually prove. Some we just get closer than others. You haven't been proving your opinions anymore than I have, So I don't see what the point is in you calling me out

What are you talking about? I'm not posting opinions like: boxers today have stronger chins that the oldtimers, they are better conditioned, more courageous, fight harder, never quit when faced with adversity, etc. etc. Why do I not say something like that? Obviously because I don't know this to be true!

You on the other hand pretend to know that the oldtimers were tougher, with better chins, always came to fight... whereas modern fighters are glass-jawed sissies, who fight like amateurs and quickly give up when the going gets tough! And you think it unfair of me to question statements like that?

[them_apples]

What are you talking about? I'm not posting opinions like: boxers today have stronger chins that the oldtimers, they are better conditioned, more courageous, fight harder, never quit when faced with adversity, etc. etc. Why do I not say something like that? Obviously because I don't know this to be true!

You on the other hand pretend to know that the oldtimers were tougher, with better chins, always came to fight... whereas modern fighters are glass-jawed sissies, who fight like amateurs and quickly give up when the going gets tough! And you think it unfair of me to question statements like that?

I don't pretend anything; I tell you why I think something. Neither of us "KNOW". that's impossible, we are comparing 2 eras. We could think we got it all down, then if it actually happened some curve ball would show us we were wrong and captain hindsight would come explaining. I'm giving you my reasons, at least tell me why you disagree, otherwise we aren't debating with any purpose. You keep saying how do I KNOW, or how am I making these claims? over and over and I'm telling you I don't know - I'm giving you my best guess and my best answers as to why it's my best guess. I think on average, if you took the best guys of each era, the old timers would have better chins. I GAVE you my reasons (in detail) as to why. Don't keep going back to "how do you know" , as if I am 100% certain, which is impossible. Refute my idea instead with something logical. You were doing this earlier on, bringing up box rec numbers, which are a good observation but not the be all end all. But those were good points.

You are starting to trip me out with your responses, you seem to be taking things too literally. I understand this is a literal forum but other posters, even that disagree with me at least are understanding my point and aren't taking it so literally that it's not registering.

[The Old LefHook]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Bundana]

I don't pretend anything; I tell you why I think something. Neither of us "KNOW". that's impossible, we are comparing 2 eras. We could think we got it all down, then if it actually happened some curve ball would show us we were wrong and captain hindsight would come explaining. I'm giving you my reasons, at least tell me why you disagree, otherwise we aren't debating with any purpose. You keep saying how do I KNOW, or how am I making these claims? over and over and I'm telling you I don't know - I'm giving you my best guess and my best answers as to why it's my best guess. I think on average, if you took the best guys of each era, the old timers would have better chins. I GAVE you my reasons (in detail) as to why. Don't keep going back to "how do you know" , as if I am 100% certain, which is impossible. Refute my idea instead with something logical. You were doing this earlier on, bringing up box rec numbers, which are a good observation but not the be all end all. But those were good points.

You are starting to trip me out with your responses, you seem to be taking things too literally. I understand this is a literal forum but other posters, even that disagree with me at least are understanding my point and aren't taking it so literally that it's not registering.

So I'm taking things too literally? Ok, so when you say, that most modern boxers have glass jaws, I shouldn't take it literally? How should I take it then? Is it something you don't really mean - or what? You don't think it's logical to refute this idea, by pointing out that the time we're talking about here is far to short, for the human jaw to develop into something stronger or weaker?

Or when you say modern boxers have lost the skills necessary to set an opponent up for the KO... is that also something we shouldn't take too seriously? Remember when we found (in another thread) that the world ranked boxers from 2000 had a much higher lifetime KO% than those from 1930 (55.7 to 24.7)? This doesn't prove anything - but I don't think it's unlogical to think, that it may indicate modern boxers haven't completely forgotten how to stop an opponent! Of course you dismissed these numbers with a "The ko percentage doesn’t mean anything in my book"!

And when you say that compared to better fighters of the past, Bivol and Canelo don't really know how to fight... also something we should take with a pinch of salt?

And when you say modern boxers gas after 4 rounds... you also don't really mean that?

And how most pro boxers today fight like amateurs, content with scoring a points win, without trying to hurt their opponents... is that someting you really believe, or something you just throw out there to make contemporary boxers look bad?

etc., etc., etc....

[Willie Pep 229]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yea but it's not really an extraordinary claim. He is claiming that men are the product of their experiences. Pretty much an excepted historical truth; really just common sense.

The problem Apple is running into is that there are too many variables at play; no real research has occurred on the topic; and that too many of the claimed affects are not (at least at this time) measurable.

[Bundana]

Yea but it's not really an extraordinary claim. He is claiming that men are the product of their experiences. Pretty much an excepted historical truth; really just common sense.

The problem Apple is running into is that there are too many variables at play; no real research has occurred on the topic; and that too many of the claimed affects are not (at least at this time) measurable.

No one would argue against the opinion, that men are the product of their experiences... as you say, that's simply common sense!

However, saying that most modern boxers have glass jaws compared to the oldtimers - I do believe, that is an extraordinary claim!

[them_apples]

So I'm taking things too literally? Ok, so when you say, that most modern boxers have glass jaws, I shouldn't take it literally? How should I take it then? Is it something you don't really mean - or what? You don't think it's logical to refute this idea, by pointing out that the time we're talking about here is far to short, for the human jaw to develop into something stronger or weaker?

Or when you say modern boxers have lost the skills necessary to set an opponent up for the KO... is that also something we shouldn't take too seriously? Remember when we found (in another thread) that the world ranked boxers from 2000 had a much higher lifetime KO% than those from 1930 (55.7 to 24.7)? This doesn't prove anything - but I don't think it's unlogical to think, that it may indicate modern boxers haven't completely forgotten how to stop an opponent! Of course you dismissed these numbers with a "The ko percentage doesn’t mean anything in my book"!

And when you say that compared to better fighters of the past, Bivol and Canelo don't really know how to fight... also something we should take with a pinch of salt?

And when you say modern boxers gas after 4 rounds... you also don't really mean that?

And how most pro boxers today fight like amateurs, content with scoring a points win, without trying to hurt their opponents... is that someting you really believe, or something you just throw out there to make contemporary boxers look bad?

etc., etc., etc....

I am giving you my reasons, you should give yours. Not just “no way, thats crazy” “thats absurd” you are the one practicing what you are blaming me for.

I haven’t read the arc of boxing in 4 years. Its not the staple of my reasoning.

this is starting to turn into a session at court, where the arguments are not about the topic at hand as you start to pick through my paragraphs with a fine toothed comb so come back with something that vaguely makes sense.

its quite simple:

I made my claim
I gave plenty of reasons for my claim
I never said I was 100 percent certain, as this isn’t possible

there you have it. Stop getting all twisted up about my claim.

you don’t respond to my reasons because it seems maybe you aren’t even reading them.

ok so my claim of why modern boxers gas?

1: they fight less and aren’t as comfortable under the lights because of this.
2: they sprint because the amateur game changed in the 90s due to complaints. 300 ammy fights where you sprint and focus on landing as many as possible with less focus on timing and damage. Because of this many seem tight and lose their effectiveness after a few rounds. The key to not gassing is staying relaxed.
3: they come in heavier than they should. The second day weigh ins make a lazier fighter. This to me is obvious, its like making a rule at work that as long as your work is done you don’t have to come in on time. Enabling everyone to show up late.

I haven't just dismissed what you said, I gave you a counter argument back. Other posters did too. Ko percentages don’t mean that much because:

1: fights are stopped earlier. The 10 count is rarely used to count someone out anymore.
2: other intangibles as to who and when they are fighting
3: its easy to make a fighter with all knockouts, look at Wilder then have an even closer look at his resume. The first 30 fights were literal cab drivers and bouncers who weren’t even ranked.

these guys with these high Ko records like Wlad, we watch them and can clearly see these stoppages are also a result of his competition. You can ask me to prove this too, but for another time.

my point was, a KO percentage is not a be all end all answer to the knockout questions. Its one factor in a pool of many.