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

[Bundana]

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 arent 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.

Yes, I'm most certainly reading everything you say here.

But what can I possibly say, that makes sense to you, as you dismiss every argument out of hand, that goes against your beliefs. Remember when LefHook said, that he couldn't imagine two boxers showing more heart, and giving more of themselves, than Marquez and Vasquez. But you just wouldn't have that; two modern boxers being among the toughest, gutsiest ever... how dare someone suggest that! So your response was: Put them back in 1940, and they would be nothing special! See what I mean - nothing gets through to you in your never-ending quest to "prove", that modern boxers suck!

What do you think my response should be, when you claim most modern boxers have glass jaws? How do you want me to react to something like that - other than with absolute incredulity?

Anyway, as LefHook said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And I'm not the one making extraordinary claims - you are! So when you make a thread like this, where you in the title claim to have PROOF that oldtimers had better chins... it's up to you to make this opinion plausible, and not up to me to disprove it. And repeating, over and over, how bad modern boxers are doesn't really cut it. Nor does "no smart phones and a lot of manual labour" (LOL)!

But in the end all of this doesn't really matter, since we all know, that a strong chin is simply something a boxer is lucky to have been blessed with - or not!

[The Old LefHook]

My speculations have been centered on trying to find something that might make Apple's theory seem true. Problem is, every time I come up with a possibility I come up short, like I did with milk. Now I have even realized that huge rhino necks seen on some fighters these days may actually give moderns the edge in these chin wars.

That the old fighters were tougher, is a notion we have been exposed to forever. Of course that does not make it true, but it might be anyway. But old time fighters having better chins is a new one to me. The notion that there were all these great chins walking the streets baffles me. They belonged to insurance salesmen and plumbers who should have been boxers, fry cooks and barbers, for we are certainly not suggesting that every hard-chinned individual went into boxing, are we? There must have been plenty of hard-chinned individuals left over to roam the streets.

Apples claims that today's huge necks are due to steroids and not neck exercises. I don't have much evidence either way on that subject. Apple did not provide any proof, but plenty of su****ion. Perhaps that IS how boxers with elephant necks get them. Still I would like to see some proof, but know that none exists. How about some really strong circumstantial evidence, then?

We know Mosley was juicing, but he also had a normal, appropriate neck. That would have to be explained. Of course there are different kinds of juice, and one could always claim that those without elephant necks were not using the appropriate juice for neck-building. I am stuck.

[Bundana]

Watching Chisora and Pulev go at it last night... was I the only one thinking of Apple's description of precent day boxing: "avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now. Many boxers almost take no damage in fights today and part of this is their unwillingness to exchange or try to hurt their oponent"?

[them_apples]

Yes, I'm most certainly reading everything you say here.

But what can I possibly say, that makes sense to you, as you dismiss every argument out of hand, that goes against your beliefs. Remember when LefHook said, that he couldn't imagine two boxers showing more heart, and giving more of themselves, than Marquez and Vasquez. But you just wouldn't have that; two modern boxers being among the toughest, gutsiest ever... how dare someone suggest that! So your response was: Put them back in 1940, and they would be nothing special! See what I mean - nothing gets through to you in your never-ending quest to "prove", that modern boxers suck!

What do you think my response should be, when you claim most modern boxers have glass jaws? How do you want me to react to something like that - other than with absolute incredulity?

Anyway, as LefHook said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And I'm not the one making extraordinary claims - you are! So when you make a thread like this, where you in the title claim to have PROOF that oldtimers had better chins... it's up to you to make this opinion plausible, and not up to me to disprove it. And repeating, over and over, how bad modern boxers are doesn't really cut it. Nor does "no smart phones and a lot of manual labour" (LOL)!

But in the end all of this doesn't really matter, since we all know, that a strong chin is simply something a boxer is lucky to have been blessed with - or not!

Calling upon left hook I see. Not arguing about boxing rather arguing for the sake of arguing.

so I can’t respond to what he says? I must submit my opinion?

[them_apples]

My speculations have been centered on trying to find something that might make Apple's theory seem true. Problem is, every time I come up with a possibility I come up short, like I did with milk. Now I have even realized that huge rhino necks seen on some fighters these days may actually give moderns the edge in these chin wars.

That the old fighters were tougher, is a notion we have been exposed to forever. Of course that does not make it true, but it might be anyway. But old time fighters having better chins is a new one to me. The notion that there were all these great chins walking the streets baffles me. They belonged to insurance salesmen and plumbers who should have been boxers, fry cooks and barbers, for we are certainly not suggesting that every hard-chinned individual went into boxing, are we? There must have been plenty of hard-chinned individuals left over to roam the streets.

Apples claims that today's huge necks are due to steroids and not neck exercises. I don't have much evidence either way on that subject. Apple did not provide any proof, but plenty of su****ion. Perhaps that IS how boxers with elephant necks get them. Still I would like to see some proof, but know that none exists. How about some really strong circumstantial evidence, then?

We know Mosley was juicing, but he also had a normal, appropriate neck. That would have to be explained. Of course there are different kinds of juice, and one could always claim that those without elephant necks were not using the appropriate juice for neck-building. I am stuck.

Well its from water retention. Some of them take additional drugs to rid them of this as well. Some just take straight up steroids like Toney and Holy.

If you know anything about steroids (plenty of info on the internet) you'll know these are side effects.

There are plenty of things we can’t ever prove. Tons. I don’t see why everything has to be 100 percent proved. It’s an idea or notion like everything else. This is what good discussion is.

we can’t prove anything. We can’t prove that willie pep wouldn’t knock Tyson Fury out in the first round.

[The Old LefHook]

Well its from water retention. Some of them take additional drugs to rid them of this as well. Some just take straight up steroids like Toney and Holy.

If you know anything about steroids (plenty of info on the internet) you'll know these are side effects.

There are plenty of things we can’t ever prove. Tons. I don’t see why everything has to be 100 percent proved. It’s an idea or notion like everything else. This is what good discussion is.

we can’t prove anything. We can’t prove that willie pep wouldn’t knock Tyson Fury out in the first round.

If, as you say, elephant neck is a well known side effect of 'roids, then all the cheaters would take the additional drugs to cover up their illicit activities, wouldn't they? I don't see why they would not all take the masking drugs.

[Bundana]

Calling upon left hook I see. Not arguing about boxing rather arguing for the sake of arguing.

so I can't respond to what he says? I must submit my opinion?

So I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing?

When I object to you saying, that most boxers today have glass chins - you don't think it's fair of me to question that? You're right when you say, that we can't really prove anything 100%... but what on earth make you suggest something as strange as that? You claim, I'm not really putting forward any reasonable arguments - but isn't it a reasonable argument to point out, that the time we've had gloved boxing is far to short for the human jaw to change one way or another?

"if we are comparing the greatest hearts of 2015 to 1940, well once again, the old timers win". Another thing that can't be proven - but once again, the oldtimers somehow come out on top, in your opinion.

Modern boxers are often so damaged by their time in the amateurs - that they, as pros, turn into points scoring robots, not interested in hurting their opponents. What can I say - other than I see no evidence, that this is a correct description of today's pros.

Your original 3 main reasons, why the oldtimers had better chins:

1: they fought more (the real fighters)
2: they were expected to fight and usually did
3: boxings ranks were decidedly made up of hard chinned individuals, not that humans have evolved with better chins

1) If it took the best fighters back in the day far more fights to reach world class level, wouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if it took the oldtimers, say, 80 fights to get ranked in the top-10 by The Ring... wouldn't that have resulted in their chins taking more hits, than today's fighters, who often get to the top within 25 (or less!) fights? How that can be an argument in favour of stronger chins, I'll never understand!

2) There is ample evidence, that fighters often carried each other during the ND era, and that they sometimes did as little as possible to earn their paycheck.

3) What research have you done, that convinces you this was indeed the case? Do you honestly believe, more glass-chinned boxers get a top-10 ranking today. than back in, say, the 1930s?


It seems to me, that you're just throwing out one weird contention after another, all designed to put down precent day boxing, with nothing to back them up. Some are so far out, that they can't really be taken seriously - such as modern boxers having lost the ability to set an opponent op for the finisher! Or that modern boxers give up too easily, and quit without making a decent effort, and without a mark on their faces. Another element of boxing, where the moderns apparently can't compare with the brave oldtimers - just like at every other aspect of the game, where the the precent day boxers of course suck.

I've said it before, and will say it again... how is it possible to be so biased against modern fighters, that they must be taken down at every opportunity? What do you (serious question) get out of this? Does your admiration of the oldtimers get stronger and stronger - the more you can ridicule the moderns?

I have said several times that, personally, I don't see any overall improvement (evolvement) in boxing over the last 80 years or so. If we go further back (like to the early 20th century)... yes, then we can see, that boxing has changed. But even the boxers from that far back, deserve to be respected - as they of course paved the way for what we have today.

What I don't understand, is why we can't admire both the oldtimers and the moderns? Why can we only appreciate the pioneers, if we at the same time belittle the precent? I don't get it!

[Willie Pep 229]

If, as you say, elephant neck is a well known side effect of 'roids, then all the cheaters would take the additional drugs to cover up their illicit activities, wouldn't they? I don't see why they would not all take the masking drugs.

I get your point but how does one stay within the realm of reason when looking for other explanations to Barry Bonds neck?

Or are you suggesting the 'other masking drugs' are bogus?

[The Old LefHook]

I get your point but how does one stay within the realm of reason when looking for other explanations to Barry Bonds neck?

Or are you suggesting the 'other masking drugs' are bogus?

Just read my posts, lad, don't read every idea that comes to you into them. I knew Barry Bond's chauffeur. I was simply wondering why some of the cheaters use masking agents to conceal their illicit activities, and others do not. Maybe you do not find that discrepancy curious.

[The Old LefHook]

Well its from water retention. Some of them take additional drugs to rid them of this as well. Some just take straight up steroids like Toney and Holy.

If you know anything about steroids (plenty of info on the internet) you'll know these are side effects.

There are plenty of things we can’t ever prove. Tons. I don’t see why everything has to be 100 percent proved. It’s an idea or notion like everything else. This is what good discussion is.

we can’t prove anything. We can’t prove that willie pep wouldn’t knock Tyson Fury out in the first round.

Taking steroids is not out of range of proof, as far as I know.