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

[Bundana]

Yeah and these are all great quotes by me. Most of them we have talked over extensively, I didn't leave those quotes without elaboration. You demand numbers however, which is ok - but the numbers really only paint a tiny portion of the picture because of our use of numbers and data is on such a simple scale.

especially when talking about box rec. I applaud those behind the site doing their best to give us data, but lets not forget the 1000s upon 1000s of unregistered boxing matches that aren't in the database.

seriously though some of those quotes are really good points. Although I shouldn't have ridiculed Lennox so badly.

You're right, we have talked about this at great length.

However, let me (once again!) question the title of this thread - where you claim to have PROOF, that the oldtimers had stronger chins than today. Your reasoning for this is, that the oldtimers HAD to have strong chins - because if they didn't, they would never make it to the top of the game.

I don't know, how many times I have asked you, if the same doesn't hold true today - where fighters with a weak chin will also get weeded out, once they meet stern opposition. Why the difference between then and now, in this respect? I have yet to see you answer this simple question!

But let's try and look at this from a different angle, not using numbers or anything like that - but just common sense:

Why would chin-strength change over time? Isn't this (along with hitting-power) an innate quality some are just lucky to have, while others are not so lucky - irrespective of the time you grow up in? Are we really to believe, that over as short (evolutionary speaking) a time as 100 or so years, **** sapiens has somehow developed weaker chins? I don't think this is very likely!

And as for that other thing in the thread title you claim to be able to prove, that the oldtimers were tougher than today... how can you possibly know that? NO ONE has any way of knowing that! Your argument that today's boxers give up too easily, unwilling to give their best when the going gets tough, doesn't hold water. Can we find examples of modern boxers, who chicken out without putting up a reasonable effort? Sure we can... but does it happen more frequently today than in the old days? Of course we have no way of knowing!


And I won't even go into things such as most new boxers have glass jaws, or modern fighters have only 2 good rounds in them before gassing after 4. I'm sure, even you can see the silliness of these claims!

[The Old LefHook]

Who is tougher than Marquez and Vasquez who brutalized each other several times? Only a few men from any era are that tough and willing to take that much punishment anyway. The 1950's may not have had a single other fighter who would have kept fighting on like Marciano did after he was butchered by Charles. That is not because of era, it is because Marciano was different and two shades crazy.

Still, it is a more hopeful avenue that men were tougher in former eras than it is that they had better chins. Medical records could uncover whether men had thicker skulls. But as Bundana said, 100 years or so is insufficient time for such evolution to occur. That leaves only milk consumption as a possibility. If it could be shown that milk consumption was higher in the old days, I would see a great case for boxers having better chins back then, along with everybody else who drank a lot of milk.

There is another possibility involving milk. Farms boys and a large part of the population were not drinking pasteurized, ****genized milk, but raw milk straight from the cow.

I cannot say that raw milk builds bones better, but it could, and it seems to me like fecund ground for exploration.

[The Old LefHook]

After looking up a few articles on bones and milk, this is the best I can do. Some interesting facts and speculations in this article.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...rengthen-bones

[Bundana]

Who is tougher than Marquez and Vasquez who brutalized each other several times? Only a few men from any era are that tough and willing to take that much punishment anyway. The 1950's may not have had a single other fighter who would have kept fighting on like Marciano did after he was butchered by Charles. That is not because of era, it is because Marciano was different and two shades crazy.

Still, it is a more hopeful avenue that men were tougher in former eras than it is that they had better chins. Medical records could uncover whether men had thicker skulls. But as Bundana said, 100 years or so is insufficient time for such evolution to occur. That leaves only milk consumption as a possibility. If it could be shown that milk consumption was higher in the old days, I would see a great case for boxers having better chins back then, along with everybody else who drank a lot of milk.

There is another possibility involving milk. Farms boys and a large part of the population were not drinking pasteurized, ****genized milk, but raw milk straight from the cow.

I cannot say that raw milk builds bones better, but it could, and it seems to me like fecund ground for exploration.

Imagine if we were able to exhume 10 (or whatever number) of the most durable men in boxing history - as well as 10 known to crumble more easily, when hit on the chin. We then hand over their skulls (without identifying them, of course) to a group of experts for examination, and ask them to separate those who they think had an anatomical advantage, when it comes to standing up to a hard punch - from those who didn't have this advantage.

Is it possible, that the experts could make out who were known for their durability, and those who were not? My guess is, that they wouldn't be able to do that! Now I could be wrong, and that there really is some measurable Jaw/skull feature, that could tell us something about a boxer's durability. I don't really know, and have nothing to hang my hat on... but I would be surprised, if this is actually the case!

I'm more inclined to believe that, as in the case of hitting-power, great durability is something (the reason for which is unmeasurable) that some boxers have - while others do not. But then again, I'm going solely on gut feeling - so, as said, I could be wrong!

[Willie Pep 229]

Culture begats character - character makes for a better chin. There is no science involved - no jaw is appreciatbily stronger than another, then or now. You either like pain and absorb it or you don't and quit.

Get hit hard enough and any man goes down, then and now.

I once had to listen to this ****** doctor explain to me how Mike Tyson couldn't be knocked unconscious because his neck muscles were so strong his head didn't move enough for his brain to concuss.

Experts!

Billy Joe Sanders is what fighters are today and Beau Jack is what they use to be.

These 'old timers' haters need to get over themselevs, men were more manly then, than they are today. Their culture made them tougher than us.

Today we are world full of whines and complainers whose definition of being a man is to insult or curse at someone. E.g. this forum.

[Bundana]

Culture begats character - character makes for a better chin. There is no science involved - no jaw is appreciatbily stronger than another, then or now. You either like pain and absorb it or you don't and quit.

Get hit hard enough and any man goes down, then and now.

I once had to listen to this ****** doctor explain to me how Mike Tyson couldn't be knocked unconscious because his neck muscles were so strong his head didn't move enough for his brain to concuss.

Experts!

Billy Joe Sanders is what fighters are today and Beau Jack is what they use to be.

These 'old timers' haters need to get over themselevs, men were more manly then, than they are today. Their culture made them tougher than us.

Today we are world full of whines and complainers whose definition of being a man is to insult or curse at someone. E.g. this forum.

So does this mean, that during these soft times there are more sissy fighters who look for an exit, and quit too easily without putting up a reasonable effort - than was the case 100 years ago, where harder times bred tougher fighters?

[Willie Pep 229]

So does this mean, that during these soft times there are more sissy fighters who look for an exit, and quit too easily without putting up a reasonable effort - than was the case 100 years ago, where harder times bred tougher fighters?

Sure, why not? - of course any statement, mine or yours, in absolute doesn't actually hold water.

But hard times does create harder men - but whether that actually translates into the ring ???? - that was just me ranting.

[Bundana]

Sure, why not? - of course any statement, mine or yours, in absolute doesn't actually hold water.

But hard times does create harder men - but whether that actually translates into the ring ???? - that was just me ranting.

Yeah, that's the big question... and I can't imagine, how we can possibly find out!

[Willie Pep 229]

Yeah, that's the big question... and I can't imagine, how we can possibly find out!

Yes that is the topic I guess.

Are you saying that Bill's magic quantum computer machine will never be able to access that as fact?

If we are going to create simulations that would fool ourselves then we will be able to assess the connection between any two variables no matter how distant.

See, you're just being impatient. If we can live to 200, will know.

But yea, I guess we can't answer it.

[QueensburyRules]

- - All OP has proven is he ain't proved squat yet now that won't change in the foreseeable future.