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

[Willie Pep 229]

Thanks for quoting Willie: Now I know he's just another incel misogynist h0mophobe with his shots at "bulls dykes". Most of those lesbians could probably kick his pathetic little incel ass and send him back to mommy's basement

I like lesbians - I like transgenders - I like gays - they have a sense of humor. - you don't.

But I suspect you don't know that about them, because you don't actually know any. You're just a WOKE parrot living in a self-righteous bubble.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Godot still waiting on OP to show up.

[them_apples]

- - Godot still waiting on OP to show up.

I saw your post, quickly losing your drunken playwriting and switching to the intellectual, sophisticated (attempt).

you had to have an iron beard to be in the top 10. Back in the day nobody in their respective weight class in the top 10 had a straight up glass jaw. You couldn’t. The way it was set up, you had to be tough just to learn the ropes. Some kids walked away with concussions or busted noses the first day. You got thrown in to the lions even in your pro career. This still happens today, but rarely do those fighters ever make it. Anyone at the top has had major help along the way. Sometimes it doesn’t even seem like they are champions when they hold belts. The sport had a general leaning to fighting, you can’t fight safety first or you just won’t fight. Now they make money on hype and marketing - making fighting trash talk to build up the suspense.

instead of asking for factual evidence on these ”claims” as bundana puts it, which is difficult because we weren’t there and have limited documentation I realize that way of disproving my idea is ****** and one sided. Instead, give me reasons specifically today why you think I’m wrong.

[Bundana]

I saw your post, quickly losing your drunken playwriting and switching to the intellectual, sophisticated (attempt).

you had to have an iron beard to be in the top 10. Back in the day nobody in their respective weight class in the top 10 had a straight up glass jaw. You couldn't. The way it was set up, you had to be tough just to learn the ropes. Some kids walked away with concussions or busted noses the first day. You got thrown in to the lions even in your pro career. This still happens today, but rarely do those fighters ever make it. Anyone at the top has had major help along the way. Sometimes it doesn't even seem like they are champions when they hold belts. The sport had a general leaning to fighting, you can't fight safety first or you just won't fight. Now they make money on hype and marketing - making fighting trash talk to build up the suspense.

instead of asking for factual evidence on these "claims"; as bundana puts it, which is difficult because we weren't there and have limited documentation I realize that way of disproving my idea is ****** and one sided. Instead, give me reasons specifically today why you think I'm wrong.

Take a look at The Ring's 1935 heavyweight rankings:

Here we find Eddie Mader, who made it into 6th place after 57 fights - where he was ko'd 11 times.
He finished his career with 29 ko defeats in 111 fights!

Just below in 7th place we have Hank Hankinson - with 55 fights and 9 ko defeats (all inside 4 rounds, 5 in the 1st).
He finished his career with 17 ko defeats (9 in the first round) in 76 fights!

If someone asked me to put these two in either the "glass jaw" category or the "iron beard" category - I think, I would go for the former!


The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1930s - BoxRecThe Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1930s - BoxRec

[them_apples]

Take a look at The Ring's 1935 heavyweight rankings:

Here we find Eddie Mader, who made it into 6th place after 57 fights - where he was ko'd 11 times.
He finished his career with 29 ko defeats in 111 fights!

Just below in 7th place we have Hank Hankinson - with 55 fights and 9 ko defeats (all inside 4 rounds, 5 in the 1st).
He finished his career with 17 ko defeats (9 in the first round) in 76 fights!

If someone asked me to put these two in either the "glass jaw" category or the "iron beard" category - I think, I would go for the former!


The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1930s - BoxRecThe Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1930s - BoxRec

doesn't matter, you found numbers on this but it doesn't prove enough outside of a simple observation. They could have had iron beards but fought far too long and hard. Does Evander Holyfield have a glass jaw? And further more, I figure Holyfield to be a throwback fighter, one that fought too long and too many hard fights with good fighters, and because of this many losses as well and not enough credit. and on top of this, you found the worst examples of all the guys in the top 10. You were targeting this, so this is a heavy bias.

I also think a massive intangible for your numbers game would be the fact that I believe fighters are protected more than ever, and styles and experience really do make fights a lot more than people think. I could be 77-0 all knockouts if I fought my nephew 77 times. why do I believe this claim? because in every facet of business today, we have a lot more data to play with, now it's marketing. The boxing world found it can make a lot more money, or has to at least to compete - using advanced marketing tactics. Advanced manipulation. This is why fighters are being protected more than ever, everything shy of simply throwing a fight. It's obvious when Tyson asked charlo in his sit down with him, to call out other fighters, and he wouldn't.

[Bundana]

doesn't matter, you found numbers on this but it doesn't prove enough outside of a simple observation. They could have had iron beards but fought far too long and hard. Does Evander Holyfield have a glass jaw? And further more, I figure Holyfield to be a throwback fighter, one that fought too long and too many hard fights with good fighters, and because of this many losses as well and not enough credit. and on top of this, you found the worst examples of all the guys in the top 10. You were targeting this, so this is a heavy bias.

I also think a massive intangible for your numbers game would be the fact that I believe fighters are protected more than ever, and styles and experience really do make fights a lot more than people think. I could be 77-0 all knockouts if I fought my nephew 77 times. why do I believe this claim? because in every facet of business today, we have a lot more data to play with, now it's marketing. The boxing world found it can make a lot more money, or has to at least to compete - using advanced marketing tactics. Advanced manipulation. This is why fighters are being protected more than ever, everything shy of simply throwing a fight. It's obvious when Tyson asked charlo in his sit down with him, to call out other fighters, and he wouldn't.

Mader was 23 and Hankinson 26, when they were top-10 ranked back in 1935. So hardly two old, shopworn boxers hanging on for too long, picking up loss after loss in the twilight of their careers. How you can look at their records and somehow pretend, that we may be dealing with two iron beard boxers - is simply beyond absurd!

As for you accusing another poster of being biased - that has to be the joke of the day!!

[The Old LefHook]

Accurate information wins the day every time. Numbers are information. As T.S. Elliot remarked: Information is not Knowledge, Knowledge is not Wisdom. One cannot pass one's intuitions off as information. And to call them knowledge runs contrary to the definition of intuition. The only thing left is passing off one's intuitions as wisdom.

I enjoy the discussion. I feel olden fighters may have been a little tougher because of their circumstances, but I cannot believe they had better chins, because no reasons for it can be found that I can accept. Certainly not that they took more punches so their chins got used to it, as was said earlier in the thread.

[The Old LefHook]

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 he is not! He is claiming that chins are a product of their environment.

He has not explained how being a better boxer able to slip punches, roll with them, and how fighting more often somehow produce an individual with a harder chin.

[them_apples]

No he is not! He is claiming that chins are a product of their environment.

He has not explained how being a better boxer able to slip punches, roll with them, and how fighting more often somehow produce an individual with a harder chin.

No I’m not claiming this lol. Its spiralled down into these with dozens of micro topics involving how I said fighters fought more and had better skills.

my claim was the way boxing was set up, only strong chinned boxers made it in boxing, and or were attracted to it. Having a good beard was a staple of a boxer, a joke that would be made on the street even. It was apart of the sport. There is almost no mention of chin anymore and rarely is it even considered an attribute.

so to sum up my claim even more, its the same concept of basketball attracting more 7 footers then their actually being more 7 footers per 100,000. In highschool a 7 footer likely instantly is attracted to basketball and is encouraged to persue it.

the same amount of good chins around, most of them probably not in boxing. Most tough guys are likely in jail or dead, or just on drugs and not tough at all. Theres no boxing gyms to scoop these kids up.

most tough guys don't even join boxing gyms anymore. We got an odd assortment of kids in boxing gyms now.

[them_apples]

Accurate information wins the day every time. Numbers are information. As T.S. Elliot remarked: Information is not Knowledge, Knowledge is not Wisdom. One cannot pass one's intuitions off as information. And to call them knowledge runs contrary to the definition of intuition. The only thing left is passing off one's intuitions as wisdom.

I enjoy the discussion. I feel olden fighters may have been a little tougher because of their circumstances, but I cannot believe they had better chins, because no reasons for it can be found that I can accept. Certainly not that they took more punches so their chins got used to it, as was said earlier in the thread.

the thread title may mislead you, but my actual post doesn’t say they developed better chins.